- cypherpunks-legacy@lists.ogf.org

Apology and clarification
by Hal 02 May '93

02 May '93

I want to clear up any misconceptions raised by my message about possible changes in Cypherpunks policies and practices. The various possibilities that I raised, such as forbidding discussion of patent-infringing projects at Cypherpunks meetings, or endorsing future PKP crackdowns on infringers, were completely my own conceptions. They were not meant to represent actual suggestions raised by Tim, Eric, or anyone else. Rather, they were my own extrapolations and extensions of what I viewed as positions being advocated on the list. But I see now that I went too far in drawing these extensions, especially given that the actual statements being made here bore little resemblance to the suggestions I made. The "straw man" positions which resulted were so extreme as to discredit anyone who would favor them. I hope no one will assume from my message that any list member advocates those views. I may have responded with excessive emotion to recent proposals here, coming as they do on the heels of the threat raised by Clipper. I do feel a sense of commitment to the PGP effort despite my current relatively inactive state there. My reaction was perhaps overly defensive. I'll try to keep a clearer head in the future and react only to actual threats rather than imagined ones. Hal

1 0

TALK, ACTION, CHANGE Re: Cryptography
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 02 May '93

02 May '93

Anthony Gatlin writes: > > In other words, let's start using resources other than talk. > > Talk is cheap but actions are the catalysts of change. Mike Godwin replies: > Talk may also be the catalyst for change. See, e.g., the Federalist > Papers and the First Amendment. Both of you are, of course, right :-) One of the valuable things about cypherpunks is that there *has* been a fair amount of action, though every once in a while we need to step back and ask "What are we DOING here?". As one of the manifestoes around says, "Cypherpunks write code." PGP has had a remarkable success in getting strong crypto out to thousands of people, increasing the interest in the technical community and reaching out to other communities, and giving us something that, if push comes to shove, we can use to communicate with no chance of government eavesdropping. That's good. When it first came out, I got a copy for just that reason, because strong crypto may later be banned. I've also got RIPEM, which is legally kosher, though it doesn't have the key distribution / certification infrastructure that's been built with PGP. (Yet!) PGP has been a really useful research tool for that. However, for many of us, using PGP for non-research applications, like sending messages to our friends, IS in violation of RSA's patents. Ripping off your allies is a bad policy; better to turn competitors into friends. I don't happen to like algorithm patents, and I especially dislike the overbroad claims made by the collection of patents held by PKP, but R,S,&A, and Diffie and Hellman, HAVE given us some really powerful techniques that we wouldn't have had if they hadn't developed or published. They've been relatively flexible about free licenses, the RSAREF code lets us do real work within a reasonably broad framework, and while they've written some heavy cease-and-desist threats to some of us, they *haven't actually sued any of us, and as far as I can tell they're basically on our side of the people-vs-government-control game. We need to work together with them, though obviously we need to keep trying to convince them to let us do more, either for free or for money; I hope they'll turn around. PGP has certainly been a catalyst for getting them to address our part of the market.... Whenever possible, at least for the next 5-7 years until the patents expire, I'm planning to put up with the limits of their licenses for production code, though research is a different story. Besides, there's a certain amount of hack value in programming with one hand tied behind your back :-) ; we can do just about everything we need using the RSAREF interface, though some applications would be simpler and cleaner without its limitations. One especially nice thing about RSAREF is the ability to use our work internationally. Sure, they're covering their behinds by forbidding export of the RSAREF code, but they haven't told use we can't export code written to use their interfaces, or forbidden us to use RSAREF to communicate across the political borders. Using illegal code like PGP to do so creates too much opportunity for the SS/NSA/etc to bust us, even if RSA hasn't pressed charges. Bill Stewart # Bill Stewart wcs(a)anchor.ho.att.com +1-908-949-0705 Fax-4876 # AT&T Bell Labs, Room 4M-312, Crawfords Corner Rd, Holmdel, NJ 07733-3030

1 0

questions...
by jdblair＠nextsrv.cas.muohio.edu 02 May '93

02 May '93

Hello, all. I'm new to this mailing list, but I've been following it for about 1/2 a week now, and I think I've found my niche. However, I've got a few questions that I was wondering if someone could help me with. 1) Is there a suggested, general purpose book on cryptography that would introduce me to the basics, and expand into more of the theory? I'm decent at math, but its definately not me strong point. 2) I've downloaded to source code for Mac PGP from soda.berkeley.edu. Is there an executable version available? I haven't learned C yet, and I don't have easy access to a C compiler, although I'm pretty sure I can take care of it if I have to. Also, on another note. I've noticed the discussion about passing out information at Raves. The idea sounds like a good one, but is IMHO a definite long shot. Most of the ravers that I know a definate math-phobes, and paradoxically practically technophobes. If not technophobes, they would rather not deal with it except for their weekly rush. Still, I like the idea of passing stuff out there. For at least every 50 people who go "huh?" there will be someone who goes "yeah!" and explains it to his friends. I would pass out info here in the Cincinatti area when I go, and at other times I could give the leaflets to a friend who is more of a raver, and just tell him to scatter them about. Someone will read it, and catch on, and that will be worth it. Now, this may sound like a stupid q, but does gzip decompress the ZIP format that you say the info you have is in? In my experience, ZIP has been a DOS compressor, and I am more of a Mac/Unix person. Again, if necessary, I can take care of it. later, john blair. jdblair(a)nextsrv.cas.muohio.edu data is fluid. will do multimedia for food- contact me.

1 0

Re: OUTDIAL SERVICE
by uni＠acs.bu.edu 02 May '93

02 May '93

I don't know if this is consistant with what everyone here is talking about in regards to "outdialing serivce," but some time ago I heard about a 900 number that a person could call, that would redirect their call so as to avoid being traced, etc. Oddly enough, I think they advertised that all the calls are logged and kept in some vault in another state. I may be confusing something here though. (As if this is the case, they've probably gone out of buisness.) ---- ghoast(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu ---- Yeah, I've heard of the system too. They claim they wont let their info out without a court order. I feel that there are a good deal of legal problems with this. It wont take much to get a court order and the ONLY reason worth the 2 bucks or whatever they want to add to what would otherwise be a local call (for caller ID evasion anyhow) would be to avoid legal action of one type or another. I suspect that the calls that go through this system are monitored occasionally too.

1 0

my last post
by 00MYRICHARDS＠leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu 01 May '93

01 May '93

Sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth here. I just asked if I'd gotten through because I couldn't find any reference to this list on the system and I figured the people at Mondo 2000 probably just made it up. I guess not. Cool. I got a message telling me how to subscribe, so I guess I'll talk to y'all later. -SMR

1 0

Re: OUTDIAL SERVICE
by ghoast＠gnu.ai.mit.edu 01 May '93

01 May '93

I don't know if this is consistant with what everyone here is talking about in regards to "outdialing serivce," but some time ago I heard about a 900 number that a person could call, that would redirect their call so as to avoid being traced, etc. Oddly enough, I think they advertised that all the calls are logged and kept in some vault in another state. I may be confusing something here though. (As if this is the case, they've probably gone out of buisness.) ---- ghoast(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu ----

1 0

Patent fallacies
by wuthel!noisy＠drums.reasoning.com 01 May '93

01 May '93

There seems to be some misunderstanding of how patent protection works. Page numbers in square brackets are references to _Patent_It_Yourself_ by David Pressman (Nolo Press) 2nd edition. Page numbers in angle brackets are to ``Intellectual Property'' by Miller & Davis (West) 2nd edition. CONTRIBUTOR INFRINGEMENT ``If your claims don't read on the infringnid device, but the infringing device is a specially made compenent tha't nly useful in a machine covered by your patent, the ingringer may be liable under the doctrine of `Contributroy infringment' '' [page 15-9] ``If a person actively encourages another to make, user or sell the inventino without permission, the psers so inducing is liable for INDIRECT infringment. CONTRIBUTORY infringment can be commmitted by know selling or supplying a non-stape item for which the only or predominant use is in connecitno with a patented invention.'' <130> ``Contributory infringement can occur only in connection with a SALE . . . Thus, a contributory infringer can be liable for infringment even though what he has sold is completey i the public domain and has no patent protection itself.'' <131> HOME INFRINGEMENT ``While 'home infrignement' may be difficult to detect, nevertheless it is a form in infringment which is legally actionable and can subject the infringer to paying damages and/or an injunction prohibiting futher infringement '' [page 15-12] ''A patenet ahs the EXCLUSIVE right to MAKE, USE or SELL the invention. 35 SUCA Par 154 <128> .... The owner of a patent ... has the right to exclude all others from using ... it. SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT IS OK ``. . . a patent owner is not prejudiced by the fact that antoher infringer has prodcuded the item without notice of the paten even though a later second infrigner could legitimately claim that he copies an unmarked product.'' <129> /w

1 0

Crytography
by x62727g2＠usma8.USMA.EDU 01 May '93

01 May '93

I thought this list was supposed to have a lot of technical stuff--something on the order of disseminating new ideas on the cutting edge of crypto-technology. Most everything I see these days seems purely political. If there are problems with RSA v. PGP or the Wiretap Chip (and there definitely are!!!) then we should concentrate on designing our own. We can do things like redesign and code the engine in PGP which is normally handled by the RSA proprietary code and we can work to come up with voice encryption alternatives to the Wiretap chip. In other words, let's start using resources other than talk. Talk is cheap but actions are the catalysts of change. I am interested in working with people (perhaps you) on projects involving crypto, computers, and telecommunications. If any of you are serious enough to do more than talk, perhaps we can organize a team to vigorously pursue these projects. Anthony J. Gatlin |-------------------------------------| Cadet Private, Co. G-2 |PGP Public Key available on request. | United States Military Academy |-------------------------------------|

2 1

hello
by 00MYRICHARDS＠leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu 01 May '93

01 May '93

Have I managed to reach you? (If so, please reply.)

1 0

clipper poll
by phr＠america.Telebit.COM 01 May '93

01 May '93

Date: Sat, 1 May 93 08:28:04 PDT From: wuthel!brand(a)drums.reasoning.com (Russell Brand) To: brand(a)drums.reasoning.com Subject: CLIPPER POLL please propigate this to like minded people I am one of the many concerned computer scientists opposing the `Clipper Chip Initiative' that would waste the better part of eight billion dollars, interfere with individual privacy, promote harassment of individuals, threaten US competiveness and in fact simplify many types of criminal activity. It is important to take this opportunity to show the level of public opposition to this extension of domestic spying and abuse of government funds. Given the congressional vote to allow even more telephone taps WITHOUT warrents earlier this month, this is even a more pressing issue than it would otherwise be. Of course you should show your opposition in other ways as well, but this is a FREE and EZ first step. If you aren't sufficiently familiar with the issues, please feel free to send me email on the topic /Russell Communications Week magazine has a weekly telephone response poll. This week's question is: Do you agree with the Clinton administration's Public Encryption Management directive for communications equipment? Yes: 800-242-CWKY No: 800-242-CWKN Excerpted from `Boston Globe' of April 11, 1993, page 16. New England Votes in Congress Roll Call Report Syndicate WASHINGTON - This is how New England members of Congress were recorded on major roll-call votes last week. ... TO EXPAND FBI PHONE ACCESS: By a vote of 367-6, the House sent the Senate a bill expanding the FBI's power to obtain, without court warrants, telephone records and conversations in investigations of international terrorism and espionage. The bill grants the FBI access in such investigations to information on unlisted numbers that phone companies cannot now divulge. It also enables FBI counterintelligence agents to obtain a broader range of telephone conversations involving suspected terrorists and spies. A yes vote was to pass the bill. ..

1 0