- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Leahy bill nightmare scenario?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:09 PM 3/11/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 11:29 PM 3/11/96, jim bell wrote: > >>Welcome to prison, Tim. Your optimism will serve you well, there. >> >>BTW, it is clear that you haven't yet read Mr. Junger's analysis of the >>bill. Nobody except a government stooge could read that and not wonder why >>anybody would support that bill. A complete re-write is called for. > >A question, Jim: do you _ever_ just respond calmly to a post you disagree >with, or is everyone you disaagree a stooge, a cretin, an agent for the >Feds, or someone who should be disposed of with your "assassination >politics"? What's your definition of "calmly." I'm as "calm" as you can imagine. I simply have not a shred of mercy in me for people who can't accept reality. >Yes, I read Junger's analysis. A nice analysis. What does this have to do >with the points I was making? I'm a government stooge, to use your terms, >because of my points about hotel rooms? Fortunately for me, Tim, and unfortunately for you, a friend of mine visited me last night, an ex-cop who is now a cabbie (he left the force due to an accident, slipping on glare ice chasing a "perp", which caused an inoperable back injury). Being a cabbie (in the same town he was a cop), and very familiar with the "drug" and "prostitute" sections of town, I asked him whether or not he was aware of a hotel or motel ever being siezed by the govt. for "tolerating" drugs and/or prostitution. His reply was that as we speak, he knows exactly where a motel has been closed, locked up, and BARRICADED with _city_ signs and POLICE TAPE (you know the kind, "Police line: Do not cross."). We're not talking of a bankrupty, or a voluntary shutdown, either. His understanding was that this was on the news a while back. Would you like the name and address? I didn't ask him for it, but I'm sure he'll be driving by it again within the next week or so. I accept your anticipated apology, Tim. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

With Respect to the Japanese
by bill payne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Friday 2/27/98 5:27 PM Merat After Sandia unloaded on me for TRYING to be friendly with a Japanese [and perhaps other things too] , I enrolled in the UNM US-Japan program. One of the professors in the program is Jack Condon. name: John Carl Condon work_phone: 505 277-5811 title: Professor organization: Communication & Journalism org_address: C & J Building Condon teaches both at the University of New Mexico and a Japanese University. Condon is a very nice touchy-feely-type person. Condon wrote [amazon.com] With Respect to the Japanese by John C. Condon List: $12.95 Our Price: $12.95 Availability: This title is currently on back order. We do not have a reprint date for this title, but we expect to be able to ship it to you within 3-5 weeks. Paperback Published by Intercultural Press Publication date: June 1983 ISBN: 0933662491 Condon told our class, The US does not do very well without an enemy. So. Lets do OUR BEST to insure that that US does not do very well, at least with Iran. And Merat, another of my former Ph D students in Computer Science is name: John Sobolewski work_phone: 505 277-8125 title: Assoc VP,Info Technology organization: CIRT - Administration org_address: 2701 Campus Blvd NE email: jssob(a)unm.edu Let's all hope this mess gets settled. Best bill Title: UNM Computer and Information Resources and Technology (CIRT) Help! How to get quick help: Answers to frequently asked questions, Help Desk, publications and documentation, who to contact, CIRT hours. Services What CIRT can do for you: Details about our services such as computing facilities (pods), help desk, consulting, hardware maintenance, security, software distribution, computer accounts, training, conference support and much more. ¿Qué Pasa? What's happening at CIRT: Announcements, important systems news, scheduled system availability, major projects we've undertaken, technical directions and job opportunities. About CIRT Who we are and how we are organized: Our mission and vision, a map of the CIRT building, CIRT group organization, the annual report, our system configurations and standards. Send us your ideas on how CIRT can improve services to the UNM community! Comments to CIRT Publications: docs(a)unm.edu Last Revised: 10/28/97 The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico USA Copyright © 1995 The University of New Mexico. Title: Welcome to the Japan America Society of New Mexico <img src="http://www.us-japan.org/jasnm/crane.GIF" alt="Crane logo" width="127" height="138"> JAPAN AMERICA SOCIETY OF NEW MEXICO <img src="http://www.us-japan.org/jasnm/crane.GIF" alt="Crane logo" width="127" height="138"> Ohayoo Gozaimasu! Greetings and welcome to the Web site of the Japan America Society of New Mexico. The Board of Directors and the Membership extend to you our desire that you visit the "Land of Enchantment" and sample the "chili-hot" welcome and hospitality shown here. The vistas are broad; the cuisine superb. In a multi-cultural environment, we embrace all that is the state, and wait to enfold you as well! Please enjoy. Yoroshiku, onegai shimasu! <img src="http://www.us-japan.org/jasnm/cvr-pg2.gif" align="top" width="579" height="653"> <a href="http://www.us-japan.org/jasnm/bg&miss.htm" name="Buttons"><img src="http://www.us-japan.org/jasnm/s-lant4.gif" alt="single lantern image" align="middle" width="49" height="50"> BACKGROUND AND MISSION <img src="http://www.us-japan.org/jasnm/s-lant4.gif" alt="single lantern image" align="middle" width="49" height="50"> BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS <img src="http://www.us-japan.org/jasnm/s-lant4.gif" alt="single lantern image" align="middle" width="49" height="50"> MEMBERSHIP <img src="http://www.us-japan.org/jasnm/s-lant4.gif" alt="single lantern image" align="middle" width="49" height="50"> BENEFITS <img src="http://www.us-japan.org/jasnm/s-lant4.gif" alt="single lantern image" align="middle" width="49" height="50"> FUNDING <img src="http://www.us-japan.org/jasnm/s-lant4.gif" alt="single lantern image" align="middle" width="49" height="50"> CONTACT INFORMATION <img src="http://www.us-japan.org/jasnm/s-lant4.gif" alt="single lantern image" align="middle" width="49" height="50"> FUTURE EVENTS <img src="http://www.us-japan.org/jasnm/s-lant4.gif" alt="single lantern image" align="middle" width="49" height="50"> PAST EVENTS Friday February 27, 1998 3:15 PM By e-mail and US mail Lieutenant General Kenneth A Minihan, USAF Director, National Security Agency National Security Agency 9800 Savage Road Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000 Dear General Minihan: Purposes of the letter are to 1 request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2 explore settlement possibilities of our current lawsuit. In about 1986 Sandia National Laboratories assigned me the task of design and construction of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty seismic data authenticator. In the initial stages of the project, Sandia cryptographer Gustavus Simmons attempted to convince both Sandia management and NSA employees Tom White, Mark Unkenholtz, and Ed Georgio that a form of public key authentication should replace NSA employee Ronald Benincasa's National Seismic Station/Unmaned Seismic Observatory 11-bit data authentication algorithm. My Sandia supervisor John Holovka and project leader H B [Jim] Durham ordered me to write a paper explaining public key cryptography. This paper, RSA ENCRYPTION, along with my SAND report describing my implementation of Benincasa's algorithm and filings in our lawsuit, now appear on Internet at http://www.jya.com/index.htm, click CRYPTOME, then OpEd, then http://www.jya.com/whprsa.htm. Sandia explored the merits of switching from Benincasa's algorithm to a public key-based authentication method suggested by Simmons. For Sandia's evaluation of the merits of public key, electronic tagging, and Bureau of Engraving and Printing projects , I bought for Sandia samples both the Cylink CY1024 and AT&T A & B two chip sets for modulo m arithmetic computations. NSA employee Tom White sent me a copy of the SECRET classified NSA report on IBM's hardware public key chip FIREFLY. I wrote in my tutorial paper RSA hardware computations The slow speed of software RSA computations plus the potential wide use prompted several companies to build chips which compute modular arithmetic to at least several hundred bits. Most of these chips "cascade" to compute with a larger number of bits. Corporations involved in building these chips are 1 IBM Firefly 2 AT&T 3 Motorola (apparently a three chip set) 4 Cylink Pittway-First alert 5 Sandia Labs (Algorithm M and predecessor chip) Details of the IBM chip is classified. AT&T as of July 1987 has not released details of their chip. Little information is available on the Motorola chip set. The Cylink chip is commercially available. Its price dropped from $1,500 to $600 each in June 1987. Data is transferred to and from the chip with serial shift register communication. The early Sandia chip was limited in speed. The replacement chip is cascadeable, communicates with 8 or 16 bits parallel, matches the speed of the Cylink chip, but is not out of fabrication. Rumors circulate that there is about an order of magnitude performance difference between some of these chips. These hardware chips improve exponentiation speed about 3 orders of magnitude over software implementation benchmarked on an Intel 8086 family microcomputer. Whitfield Diffie writes about both the Cylink and Sandia chips. And is quoted at http://www.aci.net/kalliste/nukearse.htm. Sandia had terrible luck with its public key chips. I reported SOME of the troubles to Electronic Engineering Times editor Loring Wirbel [http://techweb.cmp.com/eet/823/] on March 23, 1994. Dr. John Wisniewski was a supervisor at Sandia's Center for Radiation-hardened Microelectronics. Wisniewski was a graduate student at Washington State University in about 1975. I was a professor at WSU. Wisniewski knows all about the failing Sandia chips in the nuclear arsenal. I took notes on February 13, 1993. Wisniewski reviewed the problems again for me. 1 No quality initiative. Each chip lot had a different process. 2 Overall yield - 40-50%. Down to 10% after packaging. 3 Metalization problems. No planarization. No flow of glass. Couldn't use high temperature. Step coverage problems. Layed down over tension. 100% field returns over several years. 4 Sandia would store lots of parts for replacements. Sandia management made the decision to place low yield parts in the nuclear arsenal. Sandia must meet DOD schedules management reasoned. Hundreds of millions spent on CRM. Sandia must show productivity. Wisniewski told me that low yield chip test survivors are those whichthe tests failed to detect failures. Wisniewski will talk. 503-625-6408. Wisniewski now works for Intel in Oregon. Have Wisniewski tell you about the fire in the CRM clean room! Sandia supervisor Jerry Allen later told me it cost $300,000 each to remove Sandia's failing chips at Pantex from a nuclear bomb. NSA apparently is biased toward hardware implementations of cryptographic and authentication algorithms. As opposed to software implementation. NSA representatives and Sandia management decided not to use a public key authentication scheme for its CTBT seismic data authenticator because of all of the problems with implementing public key algorithms. But NSA surely has spent MUCH MONEY on public key chip implementations. NSA is promoting its Clipper crypto chips as described at http://cpsr.org/dox/clipper.html. And we get some information about technical specifications of NSA's Clipper chip at http://www.us.net/softwar/http://www.us.net/softwar/clip.html Clipper Chip Information MYK-78 CLIPPER CHIP ENCRYPTION/DECRYPTION ON A CHIP 1 micron double level metal CMOS technology 0.35 watts power 28 pin plastic leaded chip carrier (PLCC) package Transistor to transistor logic (TTL) interface Chip ID, family key and device unique key are installed at programming. Chip ID, family key and device unique key are installed at programming facility and are completely transparent to the user. Therefore, Under the provision of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552, I am requesting access to: 1 Copies of all invoices from A AT&T B Motorola C IBM D Sandia National Laboratories to NSA for payments for developing ANY public key-related chips between January 1, 1980 and February 27, 1998. 2 Copies of all invoices to NSA from ANY corporation involved in development of ANY Clipper chip-related hardware between January 1, 1980 and February 27, 1998. The public has a right to know how much NSA spent on TRYING monoploize the crypto business. If there are any fees for searching for, or copying, the records I have requested, please inform me before you fill the request. As you know, the Act permits you to reduce or waive the fees when the release of the information is considered as "primarily benefiting the public." I believe that this requests fits that category and I therefore ask that you waive any fees. If all or any part of this request is denied, please cite the specific exemption(s) which you think justifies your refusal to release the information and inform me of your agency's administrative appeal procedures available to me under the law. I would appreciate your handling this request as quickly as possible, and I look forward to hearing from you within 20 working days, as the law stipulates. With respect to our current FOIA lawsuit, I feel that we should settle this unfortunate matter. I see from your biography at http://www.nsa.gov:8080/ and http://www.nsa.gov:8080/dirnsa/dirnsa.html that you are 1979 Distinguished Graduate Master of Arts degree in National Security Affairs Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, California One of my former M.S. and Ph.D students in Computer Science, Ted Lewis, is currently the chairman of Computer Science at Naval Postgraduate School [http://www.friction-free-economy.com/] Small world. But I think that this emphasizes that WE SHOULD all be on the same side. Not engaged in a conflict in US federal court. Or on Internet. NSA attempts to withhold requested information are possibly unwise. In our wired world the aggrieved know what happened to them. [http://www.aci.net/kalliste/speccoll.htm] http://www.wpiran.org/, http://www.netlink.co.uk/users/impact/namir/namirm.html And moderates in Iran, [http://persia.org/khatami/biography.html] appear want settlement too. My family and I have been damaged by these crypto wars. I ask you that consider fair settlement of damages caused by the National Security Agency. I cannot find your e-mail address on Internet. Therefore I will forward the e-mail copy of this FOIA/settlement letter to Ray Kammer of NIST [http://www.nist.gov/] who along with the FBI [http://www.fbi.gov/, http://www.fbi.gov/fo/nyfo/nytwa.htmand] and NSA are trying to control the crypto business so that Kammer can possibly forward an e-mail copy of the FOIA/Settlement letter to you. Sincerely, bill William Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias Albuquerque, NM 87111 505-292-7037 [I am not reading e-mail]

1 0

Attraction
by carol.a1＠usa.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Do you want to succeed at dating, or you just need a little spark to your relationship or marriage? Well here is the Answer for you! Sensations., the new Compact Disc that uses proven subliminal techniques to increase your chances of SEXUAL success with the opposite sex.. Simply play it and watch it work!!!! do you want to be a winner? If yes then go to http://207.134.166.10/users/subliminal/subliminal.htm

1 0

Do you feel lucky, punk?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [from Cypherpunks] Those of you who are confident that the Leahy bill won't be interpreted to punish innocent people (for example, operators of encrypted anonymous remailers) who are not directly engaged in criminal activity should read the following article, that appeared as the George Will column March 10, in my local paper. Maybe it will give you a healthy dose of REALITY (remember reality, fellows?): "Taking Property from innocents doesn't fit conservative ideals" by George F. Will. In 1827, in a case concerning the forfeiture of a Spanish ship used for piracy, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the owner could lose his ship even if he was not even aware of the use of the ship for piracy: "the thing is here primarily considered as the offender, or rather the offense is attached primarily to the thing." That, and a long line of cases in that vein, is why the court last week said Tina Bennis has no right to compensation for her half-interest in the car she co-owned with her husband John and which was forfeited after he was convicted in Detroit of engaging in sexual activity with a prostitute in the car. The court was divided 5-4 in rejecting Mrs. Bennis' contention that the forfeiture violated her 14th amendment right to due process and her Fifth Amendment right not to have property take without just conpensation. Justice John Paul Stevens, joined in dissent by David H. Souter and Stephen Breyer (anthony M. Kennedy dissented separately), condemned the "blatant unfairness" of punishing an innocent person. And Justice Clarence Thomas, although concurring separately in the opinion written by Chief Justice WIlliam H. Rehnquist and joined by Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Thomas, said that what was done to Mrs. Bennis by Michigan law was "intensely undesireable." Because many governments are increasingly agressive in their use of forfeiture as punishment for prostitution, drug, and other offenses, this decision, although supported by the most conservative justices, should trouble conservatives: it involves conflicts between three things they value- deference to states' legislative judgments, fidelity to precedent and respect for property rights. Bennis made his mistake in 1988 in an 11-year old Pontiac he and his wife had recently purchased for $600. The trial court judge had discretion to order payment of half the sale proceeds to "the innocent co-titleholder," but commented that "there's practically nothing left" after deduction of police, prosecutorial, and court costs." Ginsburg noted that the question at issue was not whether compensating Mrs. Bennis would have been fair but whether compensation was a constitutional right. And Ginsburg's concurring opinion suggests that she would have affirmed such a right had not the car belonged as much to Mr. Bennis as to Mrs. Bennis. Although Mrs. Bennis neither consented to nor knew of the misuse of the car, Rehnquist cited the court's language in a 1926 case, that it is common "for the law to visit upon the owner of property the unpleasant consequences of the unauthorized action of one to whom he has entrusted it." That practice, the court had said five years earlier, is "too firmly fixed in the punitive and remedial jurisprudence of the country to be now displaced." Certainly the court should not casually unsettle what it has firmly fixed. Nor should the court relieve Congress of its role in correcting dubious legal practices. the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois, has drafted the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act that would, among other things, strengthen protection of innocent property owners. Still, sometimes the court has had to say, in effect, "Well, come to think about it... ." It took four years of carnage and then the 13th amendment to correct what the court did in 1857 in Dred Scott vs. Sanford. But in other cases the court has tidied up after itself. In 1896 in Plessy vs. Ferguson, the court held that "separate but equal" public facilities segregated by race were compatible with the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws. Later, the court conducted a protracted retreat from that position. In 1905 in Lockner vs. New York, as in similar cases, the court held that a New York law limiting bakers to a 10-hour workday violatedd teh DUe Process clause. By 1963, Justice Hugo Black could assert that the Lochner doctrint of "substantive due process," that the court can overturn laws it considers unwise, "has long since been discarded." (Actually, it has long since been smuggled into liberal jurisprudence to support a different social policy agenda.) In his obviously uneasy confurring opinion in the court's decision about Mrs. Bennis' car, Thomas says the case "is ultimately a reminder that the Federal Constitution does not prohibit everything that is intensely undesireable." Quite so. So it is time for the political branches of state governments and the federal government to act on the clear signals from Thomas and others concerning the need to protect innocent persons who cannot reasonably be considered culpably negligent concerning the misuse of their property. [end of article] To those suckers who say that they genuinely believe that the operator of an anonymous encrypted remailer will not be subject to criminal or civil penalties for what ends up being the misuse of their system, I would like to re-state a quote from the article above: "Although Mrs. Bennis neither consented to nor knew of the misuse of the car, Rehnquist cited the court's language in a 1926 case, that it is common "for the law to visit upon the owner of property the unpleasant consequences of the unauthorized action of one to whom he has entrusted it." That practice, the court had said five years earlier, is "too firmly fixed in the punitive and remedial jurisprudence of the country to be now displaced." " Does this sound familiar? Doesn't it hit just a bit too close to home? I argue that a person who runs an anonymous encrypted remailer could be clearly claimed to be "entrusting" that "property" to someone else, under the meaning of the above paragraph. At least, that is the position the prosecutors could surely take, especially given this Supreme Court decision. In fact, I would argue that a remailer operator will actually be considered MORE responsible, legally, than Mrs. Bennis: The abuser of _her_ property, Mr. Bennis, was in fact the co-owner of that property, and it is doubtful that Mrs. Bennis COULD have denied to Mr. Bennis, practically or legally, the opportunity to abuse that property. On the other hand, the operator of an anonymous encrypted remailer is, in effect, "giving out the keys" to that remailer (giving authorization to use it) to anyone at any time, with no checking or other specific authorization, to people who have no legal ownership in that remailer. In fact, the system is (at least arguably) helping to cover up after those abuses. If those self-selected people commit crimes using it, who else is responsible? Question: If the Supreme Court is willing to take away Mrs. Bennis' interest in that car under THOSE circumstances, do you really believe that it WOULD REFUSE to allow a prosecutor to decide that the operator of an abused remailer should be prosecuted (or his property taken by government in a forfeiture action)? Frankly, I don't know how rude I must be before reality sinks in to your brains: If you people continue to insist that this Leahy bill won't be abused, you truly do need to wake up before you end up screwing the rest of us "out here." Your foolish endorsements of this Leahy bill play directly into the hands of those who want to ban the EFFECTIVE use of encryption. Go ahead, endorse the bill CONDITIONALLY on the removal of that offending section. But you should make it quite clear that keeping that section should kill the entire bill. You have been warned. Is it any coincidence that we first heard about this Leahy bill much less than a week after the decision that Mr. Will speaks of? Is it possible Leahy was waiting to see if the SC would allow him to misuse the wording of that proposed law? Having gotten the go-ahead, out pops the new bill. As if on cue. "Do you feel lucky? Well, do you, PUNK?" If there are any of you who have doubts as to the need for the "Assassination Politics" idea, I'd say this S.C. decision should clear them up but fast. Anybody out there believe that the decision would have gone this way if we'd all been able to chip in and fix the problem in a few days? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com p.s. especially to Tim May: If the issue wasn't so serious, and their blind support of this bill so obviously misguided, I wouldn't be rhetorically "slapping them in the face" as I'm trying to do here. Klaatu Burada Nikto -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMUONFPqHVDBboB2dAQGIMQP/cQ4f7wUm3swBrXFKDgQ+QrzfrKWooDwu 0DVMIS3gRr5AOkXANjXKQmdV0U6Ug2Rf/Wtkh32S8lR+wpizvn9kg7nVhrDLHvKZ pClRAgTFolI5FDctU6J934+XxD5xt83nw15M4yenZAtPDN8OoakMft2cDKUeqEis apuLR5tzyTA= =aPdf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: How would Leahy bill affect crypto over HAM radio?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:21 AM 3/12/96 +0000, Deranged Mutant wrote: >jim bell wrote: > >> Even so, it isn't clear that this new law WON'T change the rules under which >> hams operate. An affirmative statement of the right to use encryption would >> seem to pre-empt prior bans, except if there was some sort of explicit >> exception for over-the-air transmissions. After all, the law was written > >I re-read the bill... it notes "wire" communications, as opposed to >all forms. It also allows for previous restrictions to keep in >effect, I think. Perhaps. But I would hope that this bill would also contain protections for good-old-paper storage and communication (as admittedly useless as it may appear) and infrared and radio communication (such as satellite feeds, including uplinks, point-to-point microwave, IR links, PDA (personal digital assistant) links, cell phone connections, cordless phone connections, fiber LANs ("wire" and "fiber" might arguably be legally identical, but I wouldn't count on it) and various forms of electronic and magnetic and optical storage. >Still, the distinction between wire and wireless is not clear anymore >with new technologies. Certainly if enough HAMs pester Sen. Leahy >about this 'oversight' positive changes could be made. I think it's going to take a LOT of pestering. I didn't see a single concern of Mr. Junger that sounded inappropriate, and there are a lot of protections that could be added to this bill if people like him had the opportunity. A substantial load of stuff needs to be REMOVED, as well! All that key-escrow crap, at least with regard to the escrow holder. If key escrow is VOLUNTARY, then the key user and key holder can come to whatever VOLUNTARY agreement they'd care to. The only "key escrow" material that needs to be put into law are unavoidable criminal penalties for GOVERNMENT AGENTS who induce people to violate their contracted obligations, and requirements that any key-user be informed immediately if his key escrow agent is approached on any matter related to his escrow agreement, especially if this approach is done by a government agent. >[..] >> Not that such an interpretation will necessarily be welcomed by some hams: >> Part of the reason for maintaining the ban on encryption would be the fear by >> hams that ham bandwidth will be surreptiously used by commercial services >> masquerading as ham users. Encryption would make such usage difficult to >> detect. > >Interesting point... Hams have been allocated a lot of (now!) very valuable spectrum space. The orginal arguments for that were probably: 1. It's there and we're not using it. (not so true anymore!) 2. Hams drive technology (although admittedly that it's really so true anymore, either.) 3. Hams provide valuable community services, for example in case of emergencies. (still true) But what law giveth, law can also taketh away. A few years ago, a 2-MHz portion of the 220-225 MHz ham ban (220-222 MHz) was taken away and given to UPS, yes, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE. Ostensibly, the reason was that hams weren't using it adequately, a claim which might or might not have been true. Hams "police" themselves and their spectrum space fairly well, because abuse (or merely lack of use!) may lead to the loss of the space. Jim Bell, N7IJS jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: How would Leahy bill affect crypto over HAM radio?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:21 PM 3/12/96 +0000, Deranged Mutant wrote: >Jim Bell wrote: >But it's more than breaking an agreement. If you voluntarily escrow >your key (as with a corporation) and the holder is bribed to give it >to a competitor, it may be more worth the holder's while to break a >contract for the dollars the competitor may bribe him with. It makes >sense to have some criminal punishments for that. Well, okay, but we've really got to define whose key is being escrowed, anyway. Most corporations will probably handle it themselves, OR they will only give an ENCRYPTED escrowed key to the escrow agent. This would prevent the escrow agent from disclosing the key without authorization. Naturally, this raises the question, "who will escrow the key to the escrow," but then again, I think most individual citizens wouldn't trust anyone else with their key anyway. I think that where it is unnecessary to keep a key, such as a crypto telephone, no such key should be kept, certainly not "permanently." A crypto phone could simply generate a new public key for each phone call, verified with a permanent key to foil MITM attacks (but the permanent key won't be used to transmit actual voice data) and the temporary public key erased and replaced after the call ends. Siezing the telephone would be useless because it would contain no information that would help resurrect the phone call data. >Yes. In all areas of gov't. I'm all for the death penalty for >prosecutors who push for the d.p. on people they know are innocent, >for instance. It'll never happen (at least not in our lifetimes), >but it makes plenty of sense to me. Hey, I'm working on it! I assume you've read my essay... >> 2. Hams drive technology (although admittedly that it's really so true >> anymore, either.) > >Internet to Ham links, though? There's some technical drive there. >It's just plateaued. I look with a little disappointement on packet radio. I tried it once, but at 1200 bps (simplex, and the "real" data transfer rate is far lower than even this number would imply) it simply isn't a practical method of transmitting large quantities of data. Even the more modern 9600 bps packet modems are probably not a lot better. Microwave links can handle far more, but few people are in the right spot for such a link. The main hope, I think, is satellite-based Internet service, perhaps included in something like that DSS service. It could easily handle far more than the current volume for USENET, for example. That's not ham-level territory, however. Few hams do microwave, even fewer do anything other than straight FM or AM. The only microwave thing I've done is build a homebrew 36 GHz Gunn oscillator module, which raises a few eyebrows even among seasoned microwave hams, because not only isn't 36 GHz a ham band (It's Ka band radar, the kind they use for photo radar) few microwave hams dare go above K band (24.125 Ghz) and most stay at X-band. (10-10.5 GHz). >> But what law giveth, law can also taketh away. A few years ago, a 2-MHz >> portion of the 220-225 MHz ham ban (220-222 MHz) was taken away and given to >> UPS, yes, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE. Ostensibly, the reason was that hams >> weren't using it adequately, a claim which might or might not have been true. > >Who did UPS donate campaign funds to? I wish I knew! "Fortunately" (though some hams would disagree) the FCC implemented a Morse-code-less license a few years back, which I hope will bring much larger numbers of hams into the hobby, and I think already has had a serious effect. (I became a ham in 1986, more than a decade after I had all the electronics skills to pass the "technical" section, delayed simply because I didn't appreciate being forced to use an archaic method to transmit data. I finally developed enough ham friends that I felt a bit left out, so I spent a couple of weeks learning Morse. I never use it.) This should have substantially increased the number of hams and their political clout, which should keep the current spectrum allocations secure for a while. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: How would Leahy bill affect crypto over HAM radio?
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Bell wrote: [..] > I think it's going to take a LOT of pestering. I didn't see a single > concern of Mr. Junger that sounded inappropriate, and there are a lot of > protections that could be added to this bill if people like him had the > opportunity. A substantial load of stuff needs to be REMOVED, as well! All > that key-escrow crap, at least with regard to the escrow holder. If key > escrow is VOLUNTARY, then the key user and key holder can come to whatever > VOLUNTARY agreement they'd care to. The only "key escrow" material that But it's more than breaking an agreement. If you voluntarily escrow your key (as with a corporation) and the holder is bribed to give it to a competitor, it may be more worth the holder's while to break a contract for the dollars the competitor may bribe him with. It makes sense to have some criminal punishments for that. > needs to be put into law are unavoidable criminal penalties for GOVERNMENT > AGENTS who induce people to violate their contracted obligations, and > requirements that any key-user be informed immediately if his key escrow > agent is approached on any matter related to his escrow agreement, > especially if this approach is done by a government agent. Yes. In all areas of gov't. I'm all for the death penalty for prosecutors who push for the d.p. on people they know are innocent, for instance. It'll never happen (at least not in our lifetimes), but it makes plenty of sense to me. [..] > Hams have been allocated a lot of (now!) very valuable spectrum space. The > orginal arguments for that were probably: [..] > 2. Hams drive technology (although admittedly that it's really so true > anymore, either.) Internet to Ham links, though? There's some technical drive there. It's just plateaued. > 3. Hams provide valuable community services, for example in case of > emergencies. (still true) > > But what law giveth, law can also taketh away. A few years ago, a 2-MHz > portion of the 220-225 MHz ham ban (220-222 MHz) was taken away and given to > UPS, yes, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE. Ostensibly, the reason was that hams > weren't using it adequately, a claim which might or might not have been true. Who did UPS donate campaign funds to? > Hams "police" themselves and their spectrum space fairly well, because abuse > (or merely lack of use!) may lead to the loss of the space. An interesting internet analogy can be drawn here... Rob. --- Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" (not in quotes) to <WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com> for a copy of my PGP key.

1 0

Your #1 place for computer hardware and software deals!
by awsales＠www.a-world.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Would you like some CableTV with your PC?! ->Cable TV for Your Computer from $1.00 Maybe some tunes? ->FM Radio Tuner Card for your PC from $1.00 Check these deals out! DVDs/Opticals: TOSHIBA DVD-ROM DRIVE from $41.00 Rewritable Optical Drive(6X IDE) from $51.00 Monitors: Dell Multisync 20'' Sony Trinitron Monitor from $451.00 AmpView 14'' .28mm NI SVGA Color Monitor from $41.00 AmpView 15'' .28mm NI SVGA Color Monitor from $91.00 AmpView 17'' .28mm NI SVGA Color Monitor from $151.00 Hard Drives: Fujitsu 9.1GB Fast SCSI-2 HDD from $201.00 Hawk 4 Seagate 4.3Gig SCSI-2 from $141.00 CD-ROMs: 4 Disk CD Changer(8X IDE) from $41.00 Sanyo CD-ROM Drive(8X IDE) from $21.00 Hitachi 7730 (4X IDE) from $11.00 Multimedia: 3D Hardware Wavetable with Amplified Spkrs from $21.00 Multimedia Stereo Keyboard from $6.00 Logitech WingMan Warrior Joystick from $6.00 Logitech WingMan Extreme Digital Joystick from $6.00 Duplex 3D Wavetable Sound Card from $6.00 Software: MS Office Pro 97 Full Version!! from $56.00 MS Windows95(USb) from $41.00 Scanners: 30-bit Color Flatbed Scanner from $11.00 PageScan Color Professional Scanner from $21.00 LOGITECH PageScan Color Scanner from $11.00 Miscellaneous: 56Kbps Internal Fax/Data Modem(X2 compatible) from $41.00 SCSI CD-ROM Case from $6.00 Mini-Tower Case(250 Watt) from $11.00 Pentium Pro ATX motherboard from $21.00 75MHz to 233MHz Pentium/MMX PnP Mboard from $31.00 3D 4mb 128-bit PCI Video Card from $61.00 -For a world of opportunity, come to- --> http://www.AuctionWorld.net <-- Auction World, Inc. (c)1998 If you would like to be removed from our special promotional list, please reply to this email with only the word 'unsubscribe' as the subject heading.

1 0

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 10:43:40 -0500 > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone > (fwd) > Anarchy is usually defined as the absense of government. What > exactly makes up a "government", what are it's defining characteristics? Well let's see.... control over some geographic area arbitration of conflict tithe from the inhabitants of that area regulation of economic systems by controlling the medium of trade (ie money) > Simply a device for reallocating wealth?--Insufficient, there are > lots of mechanisms for that. No, government control economies that's not the same thing as having re-allocation of wealth as a goal. That's more a responsbility of a business than a government. Governments, at least in principle, are concerned with stable economies and the continued existance of same. Who exactly, if anyone, is holder of that wealth is in principle irrelevant to the definition of political systems as a general expression of human psychology. Though it is clear the devil is in the details. > A body that lays down standards and rules of conduct?--Sounds like > a church or industry consortium to me. It sounds like an expression of the social aspects of human psychology. Whether it's a church, industry consortium, local LEA, local fire dept., etc. > A heirarchical (sp?) structure that uses fear, propaganda and force > to reallocate wealth, enforce standards and rules of conduct, and other > things at whim (for varying values of "whim", from the "whim" of a > dictator, to the "whim" of the "body politic"). Who cares whether it's heirarchical or flat (as in an anarchy or free-market). The point is that abuse takes place. It is no more ethical to bash somebodies brains in under an anarchy than it is in a democracy or a communicsm. > Now, THAT is a government. Yes, some of what it enforces is > probably a good idea (i.e. everyone driving on the same side of the road, > &etc) some if it is kinda silly (don't smoke dope, or you're going to jail > (Here, have a beer)), and some of it is downright stupid and shortsighted > (encryption policy, not drinking beer out of a bucket on the sidewalk). Sounds like an expression of the range of human beliefs. Whether something is right, wrong, stupid, etc. is a function of individual statements of importance and ranking of consequences. > Anarchy is not having to be effected by that, being "free" to > follow what one thinks is right. Which unfortunately includes the neighbor being able to take your property by force since he believes it's right. > How one gets to that state is not really > relevent. Tell that to the mother of the kid who got killed last night because he had something somebody else wanted. Also explain to here how under an anarchy there isn't any recourse for her other than to try to find that person herself and kill them.... Yep, that is a very efficient and ethical system you wanna build. My statement above simply lays out the position having Privacy > (for large enough values of privacy to be meaningful) and Freedom (for > large enough values of Freedom to be meaningful) one is effectively in an > anarchistic state. That is what "close enough to be meaningful" meant. Freedom is the right to do what you want *WITHOUT* impinging or otherwise limiting others right to express their desires and wants. Anarchy clearly won't do that. > Privacy is (at least it's my understanding) the ability to hide or > mask information in such a way that only people you wish to have access > to it do. If privacy exists you don't have to hide things because nobodies looking in the first place. You only need to hide things if you're reasonably certain somebody else wants it. > There are varying degrees of Privacy, from "Well, at least they Yep, like there are varying degrees of pregnancy. Either somebody is looking or they aren't. > don't analyize what's in my feeces, even if they do watch me take it" to > being able to completely hide any information at all from anyone. No, that is varying degrees of *respect* for privacy. Not the same animal at all. > Freedom is the ability to make choices, and exercise those choices. Without impinging on others freedom. It's worth noting that anarchist don't add that last one in there because it blows their whole little house of cards completely away. > Just like privacy, there are varying degrees of freedom, from the > convict who can chose wheter he/she wants to eat that slop or go hungry, to > the president of the US who can (apparently) bomb people with impunity, lie > under oath & etc. No, there are varying degrees of respect for freedom. > When the amount of freedom and privacy is high enough, it is > indistinguishable from anarchy. Sure it is, because under anarchy there is no protection that one persons expression won't interfere with anothers expression without resorting to violence. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Robert Hettinga wrote: > > A government is just another economic actor. A very large > > economic actor with lots of guns and a monopoly on force, > > but an economic actor nonetheless. > > No they are not, > > Yes, they are. Can you say 'taxes'? Imposed by a gun. > Can you say 'interstate commerce'? What about it? > Can you say 'mint money'? Can you say 'federal reserve'? Can you say government fiat? > Can you say 'FDIC'? Can you say banking regulation at the point of a gun? > I thought so. Yep. > > History shows this. > > Really? What history? The Soviet Union is a prime recent example. British Mercantilism. Governments are ultimately bound to economics in the sense of human behavior and productivity -- the more they deny the nature of microeconomic actors, the quicker they self-destruct. History shows that every dynasty well eventually self-destruct, to think ours won't is foolish. My point is we don't have competitive governments per se, you have a power void that is filled by new government that can be just as hostile to those microeconomic actors. All our government failures have yet to produce a sustainable government. > False distinction. Politics is about control and power The fundamental laws of economics are supply and demand. As soon as you through force into the equation, it is no longer economic, it is political. > in human society that breaks down to force and money. The essence of money has no political roots. The essence of money is human productivity and trade. Money is tied to politics currently because it is regulated by force of government and the money *supply* is created by government fiat. > There you go again, confusing privacy with economics... The discussion *was* *privacy*, or did you completely miss the initial discussion? Privacy (as opposed to secrecy) is about discretionary disclosure of information. To invade privacy is to remove or prevent that discretion. There is an economic cost of doing so, and an economic benefit. Corporations are bound by those economics, whereas government can mandate transparency by whim and gun. > > use coercive force today preventing privacy, but government is > > their instrument of force. > > True, but that isn't a function of regulation per se only the > particular type of regulation that we have implimented. It is the *nature* of regulation. The end element of any regulation is a gun. Government is a natural instrument of collective legalized force by any group that can influence it, and to think it can't and won't be influenced denies human nature in regards to power. Every government is despotic by nature, force corrupts. > > They have a *legal* monopoly on force (within a state). > > No, they don't. It is perfectly legal for an individual to > own a weapon. The legal monopoly on the *initiation* of force. And in fact you have very little freedom (eternally diminishing) to obtain potential force (arms) and use it in a *reactionary* manner. You have absolutely *no* freedom to use it reactionary against government (which is in the face of the 4th). > There is also a clear distinction between the local police, > your state police, federal agents, military, etc. It is an irrelevant distinction in this case, it is all government. They do not use force against each other as any sort of competitive balance. > No it doesn't. It points to the fact that individuals want to > participate in some activity that some other party doesn't > want to occur. General democratic consensus is highly controlled by media and government propaganda (if they are not one in the same). What is the underlying motivation? Is hemp illegal because people don't want people to smoke weed, or because of the cotton lobby? Is the war on drugs so unbreakable because people don't want people taking drugs, or because the government funds black operations with its sales, uses it to confiscate private property, and as a sounding post for increased powers? Do people not want free banking, or does the government wish to protects its fiat currency and artificial stability flying in the face of economic reality? > It does not imply that the regulating party wants the potential > income from those activities. Money or power, more often than most people think. > Further more, even in a free-market there will exist > black markets. Provided you don't corrupt the meaning of free-market to include any possible black market, then yes, there will *always* be a black market. It can be made rather insignificant however. > The aspect of a free-market is that there is no consequence from > such actions (unless you want to admit to allowing corporations to have > their own hit squads). And again you pervert the meaning of free market. I'm tired arguing that subject with you, go read a book. Matt

2 1