Treacherous Computing Masterclass: London, November 7th

[Seth Johnson]

(Forwarded from EROS Operating System Architects list)

 Original Message 
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 11:10:13 -0400
From: "David Chizmadia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "EROS Architects"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

I thought that readers of these lists might find this
announcement interesting...

My apologies to those who get this message multiple times.

-DMC

- Original Message -
From: "Andrew Watson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 11:00 AM
Subject: Trusted Computing Masterclass, London, 7th November


Good Afternoon,

Netproject is running a "Trusted Computing Masterclass" in
London on 7th November. Details are below - the speaker
line-up looks very strong, and includes the manager of the
Palladium programme at Microsoft, and leading InfoSec
researcher Ross Anderson.

There's a £50 discount for OMG members - ask when you book.
This event is run by Netproject, not OMG, so please direct
all enquiries to them.

Thanks,

Andrew


Trusted Computing Masterclass

7th November 2002, Central London

Fee £395 plus VAT

If you want the very best, up to date information about
Trusted Computing and how it effects you and your
organisation - then cancel all appointments for Thursday 7th
November.

The leading experts in the world are in town giving the
first ever masterclass on Trusted Computing.

Speakers include:

John Manferdelli, General Manager of Palladium Development,
Microsoft.

Alan Cox, Lead Linux Kernel Developer.

Ross Anderson, Cambridge Computer Labs.

David Everett, Responsible for the NatWest Mondex smart card
scheme.

A lead developer from HP Labs.

This masterclass has been put together at very short notice
- we have a venue but unfortunately with restricted places
so if you wish to attend it is on a 'first come, first
served' basis.

To find out more please click here:

> http://www.netproject.com/courses/TCPA.html

 ... or to make a booking for the event contact Julia
Currell at Netproject directly by telephone, fax or by
email.

  Julia Currell
  netproject
  124 Middleton Road, Morden,
  Surrey, UK
  Tel: +44 (0)20 8715 0072
  Fax: +44 (0)20 8715 7134
  Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


___
eros-arch mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/eros-arch


-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Gary Shapiro: P2P File Sharing is Legal and Moral

[Seth Johnson]

(This essay hits many very effective points.  One of the key
things that needs to be borne in mind, however, is the fact
that technological proposals currently on the table are
implementations of the notion, foreign to American society
and jurisprudence, of creators' "moral rights" -- a term
basically saying that creators dictate how information may
be used.  This essay nevertheless clearly represents a very
significant step forward in the discourse.  Forwarded from
POLITECH.  -- Seth)


 Original Message 
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 22:35:19 -0700
From: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Some background:
http://www.ce.org/press_room/press_release_detail.asp?id=10027
http://www.ce.org/press_room/speech.doc
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-958324.html?tag=cd_mh

File photo:
http://www.mccullagh.org/image/d30-25/gary-shapiro.html

-Declan

---

Speech by Gary Shapiro, President and CEO of the Consumer
Electronics Association.

The Campaign to Have Copyright Interests Trump Technology
and Consumer Rights

We are at a critical juncture in history when the inevitable
growth of technology is conflicting with the rising power
and strength of copyright  owners.  How we resolve this
tension between copyright and technology will  define our
future ability to communicate, create and share
information,  education and entertainment.

Today I would like to share with you my views on this
situation and the  questions we must confront as we wind
through this confusing, but historic  maze.

There is no doubt that this era’s rapid shift to digital and
other  technology is changing the rules of the game.
Reproduction, transmission  and storage technology all are
progressing exponentially, resulting in an  unprecedented
power to copy, send and save all forms of media.
Reproduction  technology has become incredibly cheap and
reliable. Transmission  technology, including satellite,
cable, broadcast, wired or wireless, and  often connecting
through the Internet, has linked everyone at ever 
increasing speeds and competitive pricing. Storage
technologies also  quickly have expanded in capacity as
total storage media costs have plummeted.

With each new technology, the fears of the music and motion
picture  industries have grown. With television and the VCR,
it was going to be the  end of movies. With CDs and
cassettes, it was the supposed harm from  real-time
transfers and one-at-a-time copies. Today’s technologies
make  these perceived threats seem naïve and harmless. With
high-speed  connectivity and the Internet, it’s not buying a
CD and making a copy for a  friend; it’s downloading from a
stranger or making available thousands of  copies with the
touch of a keystroke.

The growth of reproduction, storage and transmission
technology has  terrified copyright owners. The RIAA claims
that 3.6 billion songs are  downloaded each month. The RIAA
also estimates that $4.5 billion has been  lost by the music
industry due to pirating. And the motion picture industry 
also sees the writing on the wall. Fox Group CEO and News
Corp. President  Peter Chernin in an August 21 keynote
speech at an Aspen conference claimed  that Spiderman and
the latest Star Wars movie were downloaded four million 
times following the weekend after their release.

Based on these and similar threats the content community has
gone on a  scorched earth campaign ­ attacking and burning
several new recording and  peer-to-peer technologies. They
have used the Congress, media and courts to  challenge the
legality of technology and morality and legality of 
recording. In the same Aspen speech, Chernin attacked
computers as  untrustworthy and the Internet as primarily
used for pornography and  downloading.

I believe that hardware and software companies have a mutual
interest in  working together, so that they can sell more
products. For years, consumer  electronics companies have
been working with both the recording and motion  picture
industries on developing technological measures that meet
the needs  of both industries. For instance, the DVD
standard includes anti-copying  protection. It also includes
an anti-fast forward technology designed to  ensure
copyright warnings are shown, but instead is being used to
require  consumers to sit through movie previews. CE
companies also have provided  digital interfaces that allow
consumers to share content among their own  devices while
restricting unauthorized redistribution to the Internet. By 
protecting content at the source, content providers can be
assured their  intellectual property rights are respected,
while consumers can enjoy  unimpeded personal use. However,
source protection should not be used to  mislead consumers
to purchase CDs that can only be played on certain CD 
players.

Indeed, despite the cooperative efforts, the copyright
community has  declared war on technology and is using
lawsuits, legislatures and clever  public relations to
restrict the ability to sell and use

Universal Content Control

[Seth Johnson]

And *this* is *exactly* what's wrong with Palladium and
TCPA.

They want you to talk about how "consumers will benefit,"
while you overlook what they really mean:

*Universal content control* -- the social engineering of an
abject obliviousness to the plain fact that *information is
free.*  It's not that it *wants* to be; it *is* and it
always has been.

Exclusive rights only cover expression, not the elements
thereof.  Nobody has exclusive rights to facts and ideas.

There is simply no reasonable argument anyone is ever going
to be able to concoct to support the ludicrous notion that
constraining our right to use the information we receive,
meets even the most basic of principles of a free society.

Seth Johnson


"John S. Denker" wrote:
> 
> bear wrote:
> >
> > ... I have one box with all the protection I want:
> > it's never connected to the net at all.  I have another box
> > with all the protection that I consider practical for email
> > and web use.  Both run only and exactly the software I have
> > put on them,
> 
> > That is trusted computing sir, and TCPA/Palladium is a huge
> > step *backward* from it.
> 
> Brother Bear belabors one obvious point while missing a
> more-important obvious point.  What some people want
> is not what other people want.
> 
> The TCPA/Pd designers don't much care whether the
> person who has custody of the machine trusts it.  They've
> been shipping untrustworthy software for years.  The
> thing they care about, probably the only thing they deeply
> care about, is whether _they_ can trust the machine while
> it is in _somebody else's_ custody.
> 
> To a first approximation, TCPA/Pd is for !!their!! direct
> benefit, not for yours.  But to a second approximation,
> they are not entirely wrong when they say consumers will
> benefit, because there are indirect benefits of having
> some sort of system whereby authors, performers, and
> inventors get paid for their work.  Things that are
> simply not available now would become available if there
> were a way people could get paid for creating them.
> 
> You can wish for some Land of Cockaigne where you get
> paid but nobody has to do any paying, but that's a
> long way from reality.

-- 

[CC] Counter-copyright:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. 
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but
only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual
practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no
claim of exclusive rights.


-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Internet Society on Digital Restrictions Management

[Seth Johnson]

(Forwarded from CYBERIA list)

 Original Message 
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 18:02:06 -0400
From: "R. A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--- begin forwarded text


Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 22:18:29 +0100
From: Somebody
To: "R. A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Statement of the Internet Society on Digital Rights
Management


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 15, 2002

Contact: Julie Williams
703-326-9880, x111; 703-402-6715 cell

Statement of the Internet Society on Digital Rights
Management

Washington, D.C. - The Internet Society strongly opposes
attempts to impose governmental technology mandates that are
designed to protect only the economic interests of certain
owners of intellectual property over the economic interests
of much larger portions of society.  The current debate in
many countries of the world regarding digital rights
management (DRM) has illustrated the inevitable conclusion
of technology mandates in law: a world where all digital
media technology is either forbidden or compulsory. The
effect of these mandates is to grant veto power over new
technologies to special interest groups who have continually
opposed innovation.

There are many policy reasons that can be advanced to oppose
government intervention in technology.  Society at large has
a powerful economic interest in promoting research resulting
in the creation of new products and services as well as new
jobs. Many of the legislative proposals currently under
consideration would shackle technology and the research
needed to support it, solely for the benefit of one small
group. From the standpoint of sound public policy,
intellectual property rights must be respected but must also
be kept in balance with other rights and interests. In
particular, copyright law is a kind of "bargain" between
rights owners and consumers. Copyright, except in rare
instances, is not perpetual, and there are a wide range of
fair use exceptions to copyright that limit its restraints.
Without these limits, copyright would soon become an
oppressive burden on creativity and freedom of expression.
The Internet Society acknowledges these policy
considerations, but also believes that there are other even
more persuasive arguments, based on sound engineering and
technological principles, that show the folly of government
mandated technology.

Technology mandates are inherently anti-innovative. The
entire concept of a mandate is that it freezes a particular
technology at a point in time, and inhibits research and
development on new and better technology. Technological
standards are desirable and even necessary for widespread
implementation of new technology, but all standards sooner
or later must give way to new standards. This process should
not be impeded by legislation that effectively prohibits
research and development.

A classic illustration of the dangers of DRM legislation may
be found in legislation enacted by many countries as part of
their treaty obligations under the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO) copyright treaties. The
so-called Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), passed by
the United States Congress in 1998, is an example. Under the
WIPO treaties, the United States, like the other countries
bound by the treaties, had an obligation to "provide 'legal
protection and effective legal remedies' against
circumventing technological measures, e.g., encryption and
password protection, that are used by copyright owners to
protect their works from piracy . . ." [See S. Rep. No.
105-190, at 8, 10-11 (1998)].  The DMCA, in responding to
this obligation, illustrates the "law of unintended
consequences." While purporting to help copyright owners, it
seriously threatens research in the field of encryption for
security.

The DMCA prohibits "circumvention" of existing technological
measures (such as encryption) that control access to a work
and encryption; it prohibits "trafficking" in technology
designed to circumvent access control; and it prohibits
"trafficking" in technology designed to circumvent copying.
These prohibitions are subject to certain exceptions; the
DMCA acknowledges rights of fair use, so that, in certain
limited circumstances, circumvention of copying protection
for purposes of fair use of an encrypted work does not
violate the act.

Another important exception is the separate provision of the
DMCA that allows circumvention of access controls for the
purpose of encryption research to identify flaws and
vulnerabilities of encryption technology. This provision is
narrowly drawn with explicit conditions relating to good
faith in performing research. Most significantly, the
exception is for access only; it does not permit what the
act refers to as trafficking in such research.

The danger to research presented by statutes like the DMCA
is best illustrated by a real world example of a researcher
in the field of encryption. Just because cryptography can be
or is being used for purposes other tha

Glimpse of a Palladiated Future

[Seth Johnson]

(Forwarded from DMCA Activists list.  Article text pasted
below.  -- Seth)

 Original Message 
Date: 15 Aug 2002 12:30:02 -0400
From: Matthew Caron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: DMCA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4477138,00.html

In short:

1.) Guy rips CD's using Windows Media Player, and forgets to
turn the "Copy Protection" option off.

2.) Guy copies files off machine.

3.) Guy reloads machine

4.) Guy puts files back.

5.) Files no longer play.

Now, the article talks about ways to get around it, even to
stop it from happening in the first pace, but:

1.) What if there is no "copy protection" option anymore in
WMP?
2.) What if WMP is the only Palladium "trusted app" so
another app is out of the question?
3.) Given 2, what if therefore WMP is the only way to play
CD's?

Sounds to me like a central licensing authority will know
every time you rip a CD, and play a ripped CD.

And, of course, we won't even get into the fact that forging
the necessary licenses to play the music, or reverse
engineering the file format to dump it to another type (if
possible) is a violation of the DMCA...

-- 

MS Windows is only cheaper than Linux if you steal it.
- Matt and Liz
~~~ Matt Caron ~~ 

___
DMCA-Activists mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dmca-activists



> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4477138,00.html

Ask Jack 

Send your questions and comments to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Jack Schofield
Guardian

Thursday August 8, 2002


Catch WMP

I have been collecting music using Windows Media Player to
copy from CDs. When I needed to reformat my hard drive, I
copied all my files to CD-R, re-installed my operating
system and copied them back, only to find my music would not
play. 

Rowan Burgess 

Jack Schofield replies: Microsoft's web site says: "By
default, Windows Media Player [7.x] is configured to protect
content that is copied from a CD to your computer from
unauthorized use by using Personal Rights Management. When
this feature is enabled, each track that is copied to your
computer is a licensed file that cannot be played on any
other computer unless you backup and restore your licenses
on the other computer." 

Reformatting the hard drive has made your PC, in effect, a
different computer. Since you did not back up and restore
your licenses, there is no obvious way to play the protected
files. However, Michael Aldridge, lead product manager in
the Windows Digital Media Division at Microsoft in Seattle,
says: "There is still a way to get these licenses back and
it is pretty easy using our Personal License Migration
Service (PLMS), [which] was designed to address the exact
situation you outline. The customer just has to be connected
to the internet, then they can automatically restore their
licenses just by playing the music files in question.

Windows Media Player will recognise that the music had a
license and will go out on the web and update their music
files with new licenses. All this service does is note these
files once had a license and provides a new one. No internet
connection is required for playback after that. "If the
reader is connected to the internet and this is still not
working, it is most likely because they created their music
collection with an earlier version of Windows Media Player
(7.0) and then upgraded on top of that collection. We did
anticipate this scenario and developed a tool to help them
update their licenses: the Personal License Update Utility.
This must be run before they upgrade their system or
transfer their music files to a new PC. 

If they don't use this utility they will need to re-create
(re-copy) their music CDs into their music library on their
PC. Find out more information about this process at
www.microsoft.com/ "You can also choose to turn off copy
protection when you create your music collection, which can
be done easily in any version of [WMP7.x or later]. 

When you first run Windows Media Player, it will ask if you
want to keep copy protection on, and you can turn it off if
you wish. If you missed that dialog box, it is still easy to
turn off copy protection by going into the Tools|Options
menu. Click on the Copy Music tab, and under Copy Settings,
uncheck the 'Protect Content' box. In previous versions,
this box was called the 'Enable Per sonal Rights Management'
check box." Turning off copy protection would seem the best
idea.


-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

MS recruits for Palladium microkernel and/or DRM platform

[Seth Johnson]

(Forwarded from Digital Bearer Settlement List)

 Original Message 
Subject: MS recruits for Palladium microkernel and/or DRM
platform
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:13:48 -0400
From: "R. A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Digital Bearer Settlement List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26651.html

MS recruits for Palladium microkernel and/or DRM platform
By John Lettice
Posted: 13/08/2002 at 10:23 GMT

Microsoft's efforts to disassociate Palladium from DRM seem
to have hit their first speed bump. Some voices within the
company (and we currently believe these voices to be right
and sensible) hold the view that Palladium has to be about
users' security if it's to stand any chance of winning
hearts and minds, and that associating it with protecting
the music business' IP will be the kiss of death. So they'll
probably not be best pleased by the Microsoft job ad that
seeks a group program manager "interested in being part of
Microsoft's effort to build the Digital Rights Management
(DRM) and trusted platforms of the future (Palladium)."

Oh dear. It's one of a clutch of Palladium job ads currently
up on the site, and is the most blatantly off-message one.
While the authors of Microsoft's discussion white paper on
Palladium say, "Palladium will not require Digital Rights
Management (DRM) technology, and DRM will not require
Palladium... They are separate technologies," the author of
this ad continues: "Our technology allows content providers,
enterprises and consumers to control what others can do with
their digital information, such as documents, music, video,
ebooks, and software. Become a key leader, providing vision
and industry leadership in developing DRM, Palladium and
Software Licensing products and Trust Infrastructure
Services. If you are looking for an opportunity to get in on
the ground floor of a critical new area for MS and a
position with autonomy and growth, then this is an ideal
position."

Content providers controlling their documents, music, video,
ebooks, a critical new area for MS, oh dear oh dear. And we
quite liked: "Additional responsibilities include defining
the industry..." Gosh, the whole industry? That's a
responsible job, but we thought Microsoft was supposed to
have given this sort of thing up. The post will also
"include collaboration and technology sharing across CSBU
[Content Security Business Unit, whose bag Palladium is] and
with other MS teams, such as Office, STS, Avalon, CLR,
Windows Media Foundation, eHome, Pocket PC, Mira, MSXML,
GXA, and .Net Framework."

There's a handy list of current MS teams for you, people. So
Windows Media is a Foundation now, and what's an Avalon when
it's at home, anyone?

Job two, SDE lead, is much more on message and quite
interesting, as it provides some clues about the way
Palladium will be built. "What is Palladium? We are a
windows team working on new, trust-oriented Windows
features, re-architecting and re-developing the Windows PC
platform from the hardware up. We will dramatically enhance
the level of Security available to any customer who wishes
to enhance the Privacy, Security, and Data/Content
Protection aspects of their applications. We will offer
customers a very high level of data protection, no matter
where they live, who they are, or what they are trying to
protect." Aside from that Data/Content Protection, it's
almost unworrying. Here's the techie bit:

"Own lean and mean team of 4 senior developers building the
very guts of this new security software. This is one of the
very few opportunities to build a micro-kernel from scratch.
We're keeping everything that's cool about a micro-kernel
and nothing that's not. Responsibilities include:
abstraction of hardware from the security modes of the new
CPUs to cryptographic input devices, process control, from
laying out the image in memory, to providing system
services, from providing memory management to interrupt
handling, from a debugger to the fundamentals of structured
exception handling. No file system, no networking, nothing
complicated, only elegant. This is a dream job."

Indeed it is. The approach sounds similar to the one the
early NT development team took, before marketing started
maiming the thing.

Also wanted is a secure application architect, who "will be
responsible for application strategy and design. The Secure
Application Architect will work with development, marketing
and internal and external customers to identify trusted
application scenarios that will be supported. He/she will
then be responsible for executing the strategy: providing
support and guidance for application developers, and working
with the internal Palladium team to ensure that the
necessary system services and infrastructure are in place."
So this one could be the nark. Apply here, here or here.

-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation

44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may 

MS White Paper Says Palladium not DRM

[Seth Johnson]

> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26231.html

MS white paper says Palladium open, clean, not DRM
By John Lettice
Posted: 17/07/2002 at 09:25 GMT


A final draft of Microsoft's Palladium consultation white
paper appears to have escaped, and is currently being hosted
by Neowin.net. Microsoft intends to open Palladium up for
discussion, but it's not as yet clear to us whether this
means it will be distributing the white paper to all and
sundry, or whether it envisages a more restricted
distribution list. In any event we haven't been able to nail
down anywhere on the Microsoft site you can get it,* or any
mention of the Microsoft Content Security Business Unit,
which authored it. 

There's much in the paper that's interesting, and it's even
interesting that it's in PDF format, rather than Word - the
authors are clearly having a bash at being ecumenical.
Palladium, it stresses, is not an operating system, but a
collection of trusted subsystems and components that are
opt-in. You will not get the advantages of Palladium if you
don't opt in, of course, but you don't have to. It's als
some years off, but one of the objectives is to make "a
Windows-based device a trustworthy environment for any
data." Which is a tall order. 

Software will have to be rewritten or specially developed to
take advantage of Palladium, and software of this class is
referred to as a Trusted Agent. Users will be able to
separate their data into "realms," which are analogous to
vaults and can have varying access and security criteria.
The system does not need to know who you are, indeed doesn't
really want to know who you are, because it's about
verifying the identity of machines. So a company could
identify an employee's home machine for secure operation
remotely on the corporate network. 

Then it gets really interesting. "Palladium will not require
Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology, and DRM will not
require Palladium... They are separate technologies." Now,
we know they don't need to be separate technologies, we know
that Palladium could enhance DRM considerably, and we
suspect that at least some people at Microsoft would take
this route if they thought they could get away with it. But
the authors here seem to have concluded that Palladium will
not fly if it has a whiff of DRM about it, and are
determined to distance themselves. This is good, people, if
we all keep shouting 'DRM bad!' they stand a chance of not
having their minds changed for them. 

Deeper into the Department of Bizarre Revolutions we have:
"A Palladium system will be open at all levels." The
hardware will "run any TOR" (Trusted Operating Root), the
TOR will run "trusted agents from any publisher," will "work
with any trusted service provider," (the authors envisage
this as a new service category) and it'll all be
independently verified. 

TOR source code will be published, Palladium will be
regularly examined "by a credible security auditor" and
anyone "can certify Palladium hardware or software, and we
expect that many companies and organizations will offer this
service." 

Of course, right now these are only words, the terms and
conditions for publication, verification and auditing
haven't been revealed, and Microsoft has a long and
inglorious record in Untrustworthy Industry Leadership to
overcome before we entirely buy the Trustworthy Computing
pitch. However, as far as it goes, this little lot sounds
plausible. If it were any other company, you might even be
inclined to take it at face value. Keep talking, people, and
prove you mean it. ® 

* We have, bizarrely, found an entirely unconnected
Palladium white paper on an entirely different Palladium
from Templar Corporation. You're probably not interested
(we're not), but it's here.


-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Thanks, Lucky, for helping to kill gnutella

[Seth Johnson]

TCPA and Palladium are content control for the masses.  They
are an attempt to encourage the public to confuse the public
interest issues of content control with the private interest
issues of privacy and security.

Seth Johnson

-- 

[CC] Counter-copyright:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. 
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but
only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual
practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no
claim of exclusive rights.


-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]