HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:10:43 GMT

In article <5384.Nov819.10.4592@virtualnews.nyu.edu> brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.074758.29460@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
>> The RSA patent doesn't prevent ALL applications of multiplications of
>> large primes, only the application to cryptology, a narrower domain.
>
>``A mathematical algorithm is not made statutory by `attempting to limit
>the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.'
>_Diehr_, 450 U.S. at 191, 209 USPQ at 10.''

I assume that Bernstein interprets this quote as being at odds with my
statement. If Bernstein is correct in his interpretation that RSA is
nothing more than a mathematical algortithm, limited to a particular
technological environment, then I would conclude that an infringer
such as Zimmerman is at no risk from the RSA patent and may act
accordingly, as the courts would undoubtedly strike the patent down in
a court case with Bernstein's reasoning as justification

Some readers might reasonably suspect that the courts may in fact
treat the situation somewhat differently, regarding the issuance of
the patent as indication that there is something else (process?)
other than mere mathematical algorithm which made this statuatory
material in the first place. 

I would find the courts reasoning upon actually facing this particular
patent and Bernstein's arguments interesting, but I cannot be as sure
of the ultimate result as Bernstein apparently can:

>The U.S. Supreme Court does not ``appreciate this difference.''

I'll wait until I see this particular case decided as Bernstein
suggests. Paul Heckel's comments in the current CACM raise some
questions about how they would really decide if faced with the case.



-- 

Scott L. McGregor		mcgregor@netcom.com
President			tel: 408-985-1824
Prescient Software, Inc.	fax: 408-985-1936
3494 Yuba Avenue
San Jose, CA 95117-2967
From: kelsey@mdd.comm.mot.com (Joe Kelsey)
Subject: RSA Patent Abuse
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:41:49 GMT

In <1992Nov11.005634.4977@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
>PUBLIC key cryptography is not necessary. Private key cryptography
>could provide the same benefits. Even PKE systems are becoming hybrids
>with private keys used for authentication to servers, etc.  And we
>have a Private Key standard, DES. Why isn't it in every mail system?
>Why isn't it in every mail system today?  Why isn't it in net news?
>No I think Joe trivializes the other factors.  Encription is often
>suited to its requirements. Netnews DOES have encryption, rot-13 is
>sufficient for the purposes it is used for in rec.humor and various
>movie reviews. 

... much more ranting and raving from Scott deleted...

Scott shows in his entire posting that he fundamentally misunderstands
the entire cryptography field.  I personally do not pretend to
understand the entire field, but anyone who reads the popular
scientific press on the field understands that the fundamental basis
for useful public key cryptography comes from using it in a hybrid
system.  That also explains why private key cryptography does not get
used the way Scott wants.  It all comes down to the keys.  You use
public key crypto to exchange the keys you need to use the private key
crypto.  No other solution works!

Thus, by example, RSADSI and PKP control the *only* way to do PKC.
Thus, the underlying patents do not fit within PTO standards.

Using DES only works if I use a secure method to exchange keys.  No
method exists other than public key cryptography to exchange your DES
key over the same channel you use to send the encrypted data.  Thus, I
stand by my claim that RSADSI and PKP have actively prevented the
widespread use of public key cryptography through abuse of their
invalid patents.  (All my own opinion, of course.)  Scott has posted
nothing that refutes my claims.

/Joe
(Scott, go read sci.crypt for a while and come back and propose a
keyless crypto system -- or better yet post such a proposal to
sci.crypt and see what happens!)

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: FRICHARD@biomed.med.yale.edu (Frank Richardson)
Subject: Media hype - again
Organization: very little
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 07:20:19 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

Greetings:
Well, it seems as though the media just can't be trusted to provide informed
reporting of "hackers". Many of you who responded to my flame of NBC for the
horrible segment "Are your secrets safe" should find the following true to
form. (Although many have stated that it is an accepted truism that the media
can't get many things straight, I nevertheless wanted to post this as yet
another example.)
FROM: The New Haven Register, 11/8/92 (noted as compiled from news services and
reporting an incident in Brooksville, Florida)
"Three high school honor students have been accused of stealing tens of
thousands of dollars worth  of long-distance calls as computer hackers."
"...allegedly tapped private telephone systems and dialed into an international
hacking network. One company's loss was $36,000."
"Some calls were made to computer bulletin boards in the United Kingdom,
Germany, and Canada, where a loose network of hackers allegedly shared
information about how to obtain computer access information."
"The two older boys were booked on charges of organized fraud and violation of
intellectual property."
[Some editing on my part]
(1) "international hacking network"???? The Internet? or are they using the
term with reference to a "network of individuals"?
(2) The charges. What are the specific laws? Could someone please direct me to
anything more specific than "violation of intellectual property".

I suppose this isn't the worst example, but it does continue the trend of
identifying "hackers" as criminals. I don't think stealing long-distance calls
is right, of course, but why must the media keep talking about such instances
as if there were an electronic "mob" out to only abuse the system? Many of you
might find my comments here old news, but I still wanted to mention this since
it is something which annoys me VERY much. I believe in networks as one of the
foremost developing technologies and CANNOT imagine a future without them (and
ready access available for all). If the image of networking isn't improved,
small businesses and individuals will never be motivated to help support the
system and advance the technology. Worse yet, lobby organisations may pressure
Congress for stiff laws governing access. (Althogh I know the EFF is there as
well - THANK GOD!)

Virtually,
FcR

####################################################################
Usual home of my sphere of consciousness:           "I drank what?"
frichard@biomed.med.yale.edu                      -Attributed to
frichard@yalmed.bitnet                              Socrates,399B.C.
#####################################################################
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6829 misc.int-property:1402 alt.suit.att-bsdi:601 comp.unix.bsd:8557
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 7 Nov 92 04:01:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: fcom.1992Nov7.040100.28124
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center

In article <id.Y_QU.8J9@ferranti.com>, peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov5.213554.2337@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
|> > 	... why did we grow faster than other countries during
|> > 	the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when our
|> > 	universities were mediocre, and why is our productivity
|> > 	lagging behind other nations now that our universities and
|> > 	their scientific achievements lead the world?
|> 
|> Massive unrestricted development of natural resources, which have now been
|> reduced to the point where we can't maintain the same rate of growth simply
|> by pulling wealth out of the ground.

Actually, I was thinking "litigation".  8-).


					Terry Lambert
					terry@icarus.weber.edu
					terry_lambert@novell.com
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        "I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
 Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6783 misc.int-property:1386 alt.suit.att-bsdi:593 comp.unix.bsd:8451
From: cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Registered Cars
Summary: seizure?
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:35:54 GMT
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <1992Nov5.214347.27535@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>>Karl Denninger asserts that registration is a prelude to confiscation.
>
>In most of the world cars have been registered for many years, yet no
>democratic government has used that as a way to confiscate cars
>(except for those used in law violations).


Just this past Summer, I was driving legally -- was pulled over and my
car was towed away, on orders from the State Police.  Reason:  I had
forgotten to mail in my registration renewal.

-- 
-- <<Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own, of course.>>
-- Carl Ellison						cme@sw.stratus.com
-- Stratus Computer Inc.	M3-2-BKW		TEL: (508)460-2783
-- 55 Fairbanks Boulevard ; Marlborough MA 01752-1298	FAX: (508)624-7488
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Privacy problem, "list all people with little data"
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:52:58 GMT

Actually, rather than leave the SSN blank, there are some sample numbers
one can use which are assured not to be somebody's SSN.  Chris Hibbert posts
a list to alt.privacy regularly.

Two easy ones to remember are 987-65-432? and ???-00-????.   I use one of
the former as my ID number with my health insurance provider, to whom I
did not give my SSN.

I have given my SSN to the banks that finance my house and car and Visa,
and to the government agencies that specify it is required by law that I
give it.  That's it.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From: michaelb@cse.fau.edu (Michael Rogero Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Query: Can Universities limit network access &/or 'spy` on users?
Date: 2 Nov 92 04:10:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

I'm sorry if the subject of this posting seems confusing.  I couldn't think 
of anything better.

I am writting this in hopes of finding out the legality of some thing my
university is doing.  This came about recently when some talks were begun
on how to improve access to networks.

Basically the situation is this:  We have a department on campus called 
"Academic Computer Center" which is in charge of the universities Vax.  This
Vax is the gateway on campus to BitNet and the Internet.  However, student
accounts on the machine cannot access networks.  Ie, 'ftp', 'telnet', 'rlogin',
'rsh', and Internet email are denied to these accounts.  If you get a `sponseredaccount' (ie you are doing work needing this stuff) you can access it.  In
my department (Comp Sci & Eng) we use Unix workstations and do not restrict
access to networking.  Also the student chapter of the ACM has been running
a BBS that gives access to some networking stuff and Usenet access.  This was
done because ACC was not providing it.

The reason I had heard for ACC not giving networking access was that it would
put too much strain on the Vax, despite the fact that all the other departments
with machines (like mine) are using the vax for the network gateway.

We recently had some interviews to improve network access and all the students
interviewed (5 out of 14000, I was one) urged that all students be given Vax
accounts with full network access, just like at other schools.  We then started
discussing this on our local usenet group.  A member of ACC stated there that
the reason students are denied network access is because they use it for 
'frivolous' activies as opposed to 'research' uses.  Apparently they feared
the state would take network access away because some students supposedly are
abusing it.

What infuriates me is HOW WOULD THEY KNOW HOW PEOPLE ARE USING THIS STUFF?  
The only why I see that they would know is if they are spying on student 
activties, ie reading their mail to see if its serious or not, etc.  Frankly
this is totally unethical, but is it illegal?  I would think users would have
some right to privacy in their accounts from the sysadms spying on them.

What I would like to know is if this is indeed illegal.  Frankly if it's not
it should be.

Thanks for you time.
-- 
<<                                                               >>
<< Michael R. Brown    CS Graduate Student-Florida Atlantic Univ >>
<< Internet: michaelb@sol.cse.fau.edu                            >>
<< BitNet: m_brown@fauvax                                        >>
From: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Zhahai Stewart)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Registered Keys - why the need?
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:19:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: puddle.18686.2B02FE9B
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/93 - Adelante, Boulder CO

|> Karl Denninger asserts that registration is a prelude to confiscation. |> 
|> In most of the world cars have been registered for many years, yet no |> democratic government has used that as a way to confiscate cars |> (except for those used in law violations).

 AW> True.  But no government where cars are registered has (yet) promoted
 AW> a policy to restrict or ban private automobile ownership.  When one
 AW> does, you can bet the registration lists will be used to aid enforcement.
 AW> Further, *every* government I know that registers cars taxes them.
 AW> Any guess what the registration information is used for?

 Come on, folks, this line of reasoning by analogy is silly from the start,
 and the further analogizing is getting sillier.  We could go into the fact
 that only "registered" modems (and telephones, etc) are allowed on the
 wire networks.  We could follow up the car thing, ad absurdum.

 But the basic premise of the first message didn't make any sense to begin
 with: "registration of guns is always a prelude to confiscation, so if we
 have to register our private encryption keys, eventually the government
 will confiscate them".  All this stuff about "prying my secret keys from
 my cold dead hands" is rotting some people's brains.  If you had to 
 register your secret key with the government, they would *have* a copy;
 they don't need to pry your hands off your own copy and "confiscate" it.
 How does one "confiscate" a key anyway?  Officers look up their copy of
 your key (containing all they need), but nevertheless come bust into your
 house with guns and whistles to force you at gunpoint to turn over your
 own copy of the same information?

 Look, I think the key registration idea is a bad one, and I've spent some
 time trying to explain why.  These silly "keys = guns" arguments are not
 helpful; if I had any doubt that the analogy was more likely to lead to
 confusion than insight, the above "confiscation of keys" thread has
 convinced me!  And if the forces of authoritarianism would like to create
 the impression that privacy advocates are mainly a bunch of (possibly
 armed) nuts, they couldn't do much better than to plant these threads.

 Guns are not cars are not modems are not encryption keys.  Any similarities
 are superficial.
      ~z~


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!104!93!Zhahai.Stewart
Internet: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:7004 alt.privacy:2239 sci.crypt:4731
From: denning@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,sci.crypt
Subject: New Developments on Digital Telephony
Date: 13 Nov 92 11:05:29 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University

Peter forwarded this to me this morning.  I thought you should
know about it because of its likely implications for crypto 
regulation.

  From cgtransition@rock.little.ar.us Thu Nov 12 09:12:46 1992
  Return-Path: <cgtransition@rock.little.ar.us>
  Received: from rock.little.ar.us by cs.gmu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
          id AA17763; Thu, 12 Nov 92 09:13:37 EST
  Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 09:15:10 EST
  Subject: TRANSITION NOTES #76
  
  12 Nov 92
  CONFIDENTIAL -- For team eyes only
  
  We have completed discussions with our prime candidate for
  Director of the FBI and will make the name public shortly.
  Al asked him explicitly about his technology concerns and how
  the new admin can help.  [Director] said he was concerned about
  the so-called digital telephony proposal which, he says, must be
  passed if the FBI is to continue the same level of service to
  the American people.  Al said he could help out in Congress.
  [Director] said that is not enough.  Currently there is one FBI
  agent for every 12,200 Americans, which means that most phone
  calls cannot be monitored even if FBI wanted to.  He proposed
  hiring 100,000,000 new agents so that one can be assigned full
  time to listen to each American telephone line.  He suggested
  this could be the massive jobs program that Bill has been
  looking for -- it would virtually eliminate unemployment in the
  country and go well beyond his promise to the American people.
  He said that Bill could be known as the most listening
  president the country has ever known.  Al said the idea was
  intriguing and he would discuss it with Bill.
  
  W.C.

Dorothy Denning
denning@cs.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:03:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.213554.2337@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
> 	... why did we grow faster than other countries during
> 	the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when our
> 	universities were mediocre, and why is our productivity
> 	lagging behind other nations now that our universities and
> 	their scientific achievements lead the world?

Massive unrestricted development of natural resources, which have now been
reduced to the point where we can't maintain the same rate of growth simply
by pulling wealth out of the ground.
-- 
% Peter da Silva % 77487-5012 % +1 713 274 5180 %
true(<<VV$@\\$'&O 9$O%'$LT$&$"V6"$&$<4$?'&$ #I&&?$=$<<@)24 24 scale 3 21 moveto
{dup 36 eq{pop not}{dup 7 and 4 sub exch 56 and 8 div 4 sub 2 index{rlineto}{
rmoveto}ifelse}ifelse}forall stroke pop showpage % Har du kramat din varg idag?
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy
From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705)
Subject: Re: Registered Keys - why the need?
Organization: New Jersey Re-Education Facility for the Differently Clued
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:59:22 GMT
	<Bx7v6J.1wD@portal.hq.videocart.com> <1992Nov5.214347.27535@netcom.com>

In article <1992Nov5.214347.27535@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
   Karl Denninger asserts that registration is a prelude to confiscation.
   In most of the world cars have been registered for many years, yet no
   democratic government has used that as a way to confiscate cars
   (except for those used in law violations).

In addition to Perry's good examples, try keeping unregistered cars on
your back lawn for a while, or driving without your papers being in order.
They'll generally be confiscated.  

Or try engaging in political crimes, like possessing marijuana NOT in a car,
and watch your driver's license get revoked under the Federally-encouraged 
"Smoke a joint, lose your license" laws.

And if you live in a state with personal property taxes, like parts of
the US south, they'll demand taxes from you every year merely for possessing a car.
--
#				Pray for peace;      Bill
# Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
# Nov 12 - Anniversary of Indonesian massacre in East Timor, 1991
# Indonesia first invaded in 1975, and about 1/3 of the people have been killed.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Usenet poster censored by site due to email complaints
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Distribution: inet
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1992 00:26:56 GMT


So what's preventing DiNardo from finding another place to do his
newsgroup bombing runs from?
-- 
Who was that masked man?
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: Ronco.D.@f138.n101.z1.fidonet.org (Ronco D.)
Subject: FBI Raids
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:59:06 GMT

From: Dean.O'Donnell@f1389.n101.z1.fidonet.org
 
I'm reading _The Hacker Crackdown_ and starting to think about some
things.
 
First, about four months ago I read in the Boston Globe that the FBI,
in conjunction with the SPA, had raided a local BBS, Davy Jones' Locker
in Quincy, MA and confiscated all electronic equipment on the premises.
According to the story, the sysop was charging users $40 for access to 
the file areas which contained commercial software like Microsoft Word,
Lotus 1-2-3, and Wordperfect for downloading.  
 
Included in the confiscation were records of everyone who'd ever called
the BBS.  Now, somewhere in the back of my mind I seem to remember calling 
Davy Jones' Locker a year or two ago, entering all the standard "new user" 
info (name, address, phone #), browsing around the message areas, seeing 
the $40 fee, and not bothering to ever call back.  ("Forty bucks to get 
on a BBS?  Right!" I seem to remember saying.)
 
But now I'm wondering-- I haven't heard or read anything further about
the case-- and somewhere the FBI has a record that I called a "pirate"
BBS, and they know my name and address.  
 
Now I'm not overly worried about this, but does anyone have any idea
what the FBI does with the info they get from a BBS raid?  Has anyone
else heard about this case, and do you have anymore information on it?
 
Also on a somewhat unrelated topic, I heard on the radio (NPR) last night
that Boeing has called in the FBI because they suspect a "hacker break-
in" of their computers.  According to the radio, the "hackers" could 
have stolen plans to Boeing planes, and they implied that these plans 
could be sold to foreign competitors, causing the U.S. to lose our edge 
in the aerospace industry.  Another example of media hype, or what?
 
Dean
 
 

--  
 --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
Ronco.D.@f138.n101.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd