- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Java Crypto API questions
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:30 AM 6/2/96 -0700, Martin Minow wrote: >>Today, CP's own Marianne Mueller was scheduled to give a talk at JavaOne on >>the eagerly awaited (at least by this user) Java Crypto API. >---- ---- ---- >Notes from the security birds of a feather session >---- ---- ---- > >-- Need multiple security managers: if any say no, reject the request. >-- Servet, applet need different security managers. >-- Problem with firewalls: client accesses server via firewall via > proxy servers. May not be able to open a URL directly. >-- Java Commerce API coming for payment functions. >-- Problem with foreign applet vendors: how can a non-US security > class vendor certify a class to be used (outside the US). > Currently, it must be imported and signed by Sun. But, then > it can't be exported without a Commerce Department license. > No (current) plans to establish a signing authority outside > of the U.S. We've heard this assertion before. Why not import the software, generate a detachable signature, and then export the signature for re-attachment overseas? Surely export of signatures isn't controlled (even arguably) by ITAR. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: NSCP, PRZ Hit NRC Crypto Rec
by Chris Adams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> The report noted that the FBI has argued for years that its > law-enforcement efforts would be hampered if drug cartels > and other organized criminals began using codes that > couldn't be deciphered. Courtordered wiretaps, a major tool > used to break organized-crime cases, could become useless, > the FBI has contended. I've wondered the same thing about gun control efforts. Who are they worried about? Criminals. By definition, what is a criminal? One who breaks the laws. Are they seriously thinking that a) criminals might stop doing things because they are illegal? (For shame - I was going to use PGP to protect my child pornography sources. Good thing I found out it was illegal before I did that!) and b) criminals would not be able to buy programmers/etc to secure *their* privacy if they felt it was needed? /* From Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> on a Warped PC running a proudly unregistered (for now) PMMAIL 1.5! The Enigman Group - We do Web Pages! */ This Message Was Sent With An UNREGISTERED Version Of PMMail. Please Encourage Its Author To Register Their Copy Of PMMail. For More Information About PMMail And SouthSide Software's Other Products, Contact http://www.southsoft.com.

1 0

The decline and fall of Australia
by TT 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just in case people on this list were under any delusions that Australia part of the free world get a load of this... **begin press release** Hon. J.W. Shaw, QC, MLC Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Level 20, Goodsell Building, Facsimile (02) 228 7301 Chifley Square, Sydney NSW 2000 Telephone (02) 228 8188 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PAEDOPHILIA SHOULD NOT BE ENCOURAGED BY THE INTERNET The Attorney General Mr Jeff Shaw, QC, MLC, today explained the draft internet regulation legislation to members of the internet community who had apparently misunderstood the plans. "Despite their protests, those who support total freedom on the internet have yet to explain to me why material involving paedophilia should be readily available and encouraged on the internet", he said. "Those who assert that the proposals are a knee jerk reaction are completely wrong and appear to have been totally uninterested in the issue until very recently. For on 7 July 1995, a consultation paper on internet regulation was released both on the World Wide Web and in paper form. "That 'Consultation paper on the Regulation of On-Line Information Services,' has now been available from the Federal Attorney General's Department for almost a year. "When it was released, submissions were requested, and 121 submissions were received by the closing date of 1 September 1995. "Following unanimous endorsement of the proposals by all Attorney's General, the NSW Parliamentary Counsel drafted legislation based on the discussion paper and the consultation process. This legislation will be discussed by the Standing Committee of Attorney's General in July. "Those protesting about the proposed offences and penalties are conveniently ignoring half the story - the fact that the draft legislation creates broad defences that encourage compliance with approved codes of practice or the taking of reasonable steps to ensure the proscribed behaviour does not occur. "Why should a Government not prosecute a service provider who supplies the Internet to schools, yet refuses to install appropriate firewalls to screen out material involving explicit sex and violence or child sexual abuse? "The broad defences recognise, as I do, the impossibility of monitoring all data that goes through service providers systems, but encourage providers to maintain maximum awareness, not maximum ignorance, about the material disseminated. "Criminal sanctions are only aimed at operators and users who culpably breach the standards that are set out regarding material that they transmit or advertise, or those who fail or refuse to exercise any effective controls over material that is publicly available through their information services. "For example, people who have objectionable material placed on their bulletin board without their knowledge could argue that they are not liable as they had obtained undertakings from users that certain types of material would not be posted or posted inappropriately. They may also be able to demonstrate that they had conducted random checks of material available through their information service. "I do not believe that the community condones the easy availability of material encouraging paedophilia and other sexual abuse. The impossibility of absolute regulation does not justify a complete failure to do what we can to meet reasonable concerns. "I would hope that organisations like the Electronic Frontiers Association are interested in assisting the State and Federal Governments formulate workable proposals that will protect children while allowing adults freedom of expression on the internet. If they in fact are, detailed proposals about how this could be best achieved would be useful." **end** As to that last para I think u could read..."cos we have no bloody idea what we are doing or how to achieve this all on our lil lonesomes" Thank the gods for cypherpunks..

1 0

don't say "bomb" on the internet
by I=(!isnum(self)) 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Below is from EFF source. Does anyone have specifics on where this piece of idiocy is supposedly going from here? When does Congress reconvene on this issue? Any specific activities going on regarding this piece of crap? [begin quote]======================================================================== This is the language that Feinstein inserted into the Defense Authorization Act. It has been passed by the Senate. This is not good, but significantly different from her first effort last Spring (a similar amendment, to the S.735 anti-terrorism bill of 1995). This language is technology-neutral. However, it does have a very slippery 'intent' or 'knowledge' standard, and though the language of the bill does not directly focus on the Internet, all of Feinstein's commentary on the Senate floor and to the press have focused exclusively on "bomb-making information" on the Internet. Though this new version of her Net censorship proposal is possibly constitutional, unlike the earlier one, a key question that all constituents and journalists need to ask of Sen. Feinstein is: If you are simply trying to criminalize online incitement of, or conspiracy to commit, murder by bomb, then what on earth does this bill do? Both of these things are *already illegal* online or offline. S.1762 Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Passed by the Senate) SEC. 1088. PROHIBITION ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS FOR A CRIMINAL PURPOSE. (a) UNLAWFUL CONDUCT- Section 842 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: `(l) It shall be unlawful for any person to teach or demonstrate the making of explosive materials, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture of explosive materials, if the person intends or knows, that such explosive materials or information will be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal criminal offense or a criminal purpose affecting interstate commerce.'. (b) PENALTY- Section 844(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by striking `(a) Any person' and inserting `(a)(1) Any person'; and (2) by adding at the end the following: `(2) Any person who violates subsection (l) of section 842 of this chapter shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.'.

1 0

Re: Unmetered Net Usage
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:20 PM 8/11/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: > >Will "unmetered" usage go away? It depends on a lot of factors. Right now, >unmetered usage is a big enough marketing draw that it appears to >outcompete metered usage plans. Sure, there are people like me who pay a >flat rate (in my case, $20/month) and yet who are on for several hours a >day. But the subscribers who also pay the $20/mo and yet who are on only >briefly to check their mail are not clamoring to switch to metered usage. > >If Internet telephony becomes a big deal, I still suspect unmetered usage >will be common. If the capacity isn't there, from the ISP through the >various links to the other person's ISP then there will be stalls and >delays. Think of it as evolution in action, like crowded freeways. We need to consider separately costs of unmetered access to the ISP, and unmetered access to the Internet. I expect that the main reason for these limited-time plans have little to do with Internet traffic, and a lot to do with local phone link limits. One big cost for at least small ISPs is local telephone lines. Due to the "infinite wisdom" of rate commissions, business-line charges are substantially higher than residential. (and ISP's are businesses...) A person who uses 6 hours per day of connection to his ISP is occupying at least 1/4th of the capacity of one phone line, and given typical circadian usage patterns, in practice he's using 1/3rd or more. If the ISP's cost for that telephone line is $30 per month, then that user must be charged $10 per month for this service just to cover this cost. That customer, however, might only be using a rather tiny fraction of the ISP's actual Internet-line capacity, except possibly when his Internet telephone is operating. Also, the customer isn't inclined to occupy his own telephone for this length of time, either, especially if he has only one line. So it seems to me that within 5 years or so, there ought to be a powerful incentive to wire up apartment complexes and business parks with alternative Internet/Internet-telephone connections, ones which bypass the phoneco for at least the first few hundred feet. This, possibly in concert with a ISDN-driving concentrator or a cable-modem, should reduce the cost of the customer-to-the-ISP line to a very low value. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: FCC_ups
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Disclaimer: All opinions are my own, I do not speak for Ameritech or it's alliance partners. Lucky Green writes: >I am glad to see some movement in this area. I designed a similar >system for a previous employer of mine. But the real choke point >is the local loop. As of this day, the local telos still have a de >facto monopoly in the local markets. The new competitors (the same >old Phone Company) that we will see in the near future seem to >show no desire to deliver the really interesting services that are >now possible. They long distance carriers about to enter the local >markets plan to offer the same old stuff at a (perhaps) somewhat >lower price. First I would like to mention Lucky that I always enjoy your posts. Second I would like to say that as I have mentioned previously, the RBOC I work for filed for complete unbundling of the local loop in March of 93. We are not the one's holding up the show. >The company I used to work for has technology capable of >delivering a 10 Mb/s Ethernet plus 100 ISDN B channels to your >home, using the very same wires already in your wall. Keep this in >mind next time you hear what great new services the local telcos >are about to offer. Then demand better. 10 Mb/s ethernet and 100 ISDN B channels (64k each)? I would certainly like to here more! Unfortunately as I have also previously pointed out, point-to-point copper is a thing of the past, it is rare and expensive now. The current fiber-to-the-curb standard involves "slick 96" muxes which use 4 framed T-1's (1.536 Mb/s) to provide 96 voice channels. Thanks for the info. Brian

1 0

Re: FCC_ups
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:36 8/12/96, Brian D Williams wrote: > First I would like to mention Lucky that I always enjoy your >posts. Second I would like to say that as I have mentioned >previously, the RBOC I work for filed for complete unbundling of >the local loop in March of 93. We are not the one's holding up the >show. Thanks for kind words. I am happy to hear that your RBOC is so enlightened. I did not mean to exclusively blame the Baby Bells. There is plenty of blame to go around. Look at the FCC's incomprehensible decision to require that an ISDN line be billed as two lines, arguing that it requires double the upstream bandwidth. I know that I am repeating myself, but here is a brief primer on telco realities: There is plenty of upstream bandwidth, since everything but the local loop is already running on fiber. The problem is in the local loop. In many cities, there is simply no room left in the ducts to run even one more wire. Anything, such as ISDN, that can get more lines out of the same number of wires is a Good Thing to the telcos and the consumers. The alternative is trenching. An often prohibitively expensive proposal, especially in a downtown area. The FCC should encourage, not discourage the use of such wire saving technology. >10 Mb/s ethernet and 100 ISDN B channels (64k each)? I would >certainly like to here more! Unfortunately as I have also >previously pointed out, point-to-point copper is a thing of the >past, it is rare and expensive now. The current fiber-to-the-curb >standard involves "slick 96" muxes which use 4 framed T-1's (1.536 >Mb/s) to provide 96 voice channels. Given the cost of running fiber to the home, the near and intermediate future is definitely fiber to the curb. The technology we were developing works beautifully with this set-up. To be more precise, the system provides a 10Mbps Ethernet, 96 64bps ISDN B channels, a D and an M channel if using iso-Ethernet based technology. But the key to getting all this bandwidth isn't iso-Ethernet, it was our chip. This can be done at ~$600/home and for a low as $100 per node. Yes, this will increase upstream bandwidth requirements, but as I mentioned earlier, there is plenty of upstream bandwidth. Last office I worked in was facing an alley full of loading docks and trash binns. Six feet away from the door ran MFS's OC-48 SONET. There are of course exceptions. If you live in a very old building, you might have to rewire. My current apartment uses three wire cabling. I have no idea what the third wire is good for. You can't run two POTS over three wires. In a building like this you'd have to rewire. But few office buildings are likely to have such lousy wiring. Anyway, I hate to be a tease, but that's about as far as my NDA will let me go. [Any further dialog in private email, please. Time to take this tread off-list.] -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

1 0

Re: [NOISE] Newspapers and basic science (was: US Power Outages)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:53 PM 8/12/96, Z.B. wrote: >Well, all I remember is the 3-1/2 Seattles part - I put the"for a day" >part in because I wasn't sure about it. > Well, by putting in that "for a day" line, you made the news folk seem even more ignorant than they actually may be! It was the "for a day" that made the quote seem so stupid, as Ian's point below makes clear. (I had read this stupid quote and just deleted the message, rather than get into the difference between power and the integral of power.) In the future, you might try leaving quotes alone, without improvements. (One way is to add comments such as "[for a day?]", which readers can then accept or reject as they wish.) --Tim >On 12 Aug 1996, Ian Goldberg wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> >> <GRUMBLE> >> Watts are a measure of energy per unit time; it makes sense to say >> "60 W powers a light bulb", not "60 W powers a light bulb for one hour". >> </GRUMBLE> Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Article on Electronic Commerce with a few too many
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:19 PM 8/12/96 EDT, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> writes: >> I too find this concept offensive, at least to the extent that it is kept a >> secret from the marketplace. Even so, as a libertarian and free-market >> capitalist, I certainly see nothing wrong with "allowing such behavior," and >> indeed I'd see something wrong with NOT "allowing" it. Nevertheless, to >> the extent it occurs it should be well understood and identified for what it >> is. > >This reminds me of the recent revelation how a major disposable lens maker >was marketing three lines of lenses: cheap ones, good for a few days; >medium ones, good for a week; very expensive ones, good for a month. >You guessed it - the lenses inside the packaging were identical. > >(I find that most self-described "libertarians" are actually fucking statists.) I don't see how that last statement follows anything that went before. I made it explicitly clear that companies have a right to market in such ways; I also have a right to dislike those methods. As for other libertarians, I don't see that they're appreciably different. So where did that last comment come from? BTW, your KOTM credential is outdated...are you trying to have it renewed? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: "X-Ray Gun for imperceptible searches
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:36 PM 8/12/96 -0400, Weld Pond wrote: >This thing sounds like it could be easily defeated by sewing some "space >blanket" material on the inside of coats, etc. You could probibly build little clip on active jammers. (With published specs to the "Evil Internet(tm)".) Such intrusive methods should be pretty easy to screw up with proper detail on their operation. (I expect the 2600 crowd will have jammer kits available soon. And working ones a few months after that...) >Maybe jackets that >show up false positives with gun shaped cutouts will become >fashionable with the already harrassed inner-city set. I want one that will make me show up as a multi-tentacled alien horror from beyond space and time. Why make them wig out and shoot you when you can really mess with their minds...? --- |"Computers are Voodoo -- You just have to know where to stick the pins."| |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0