November 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: The Crypto Winter
by Faustine 22 Nov '01

22 Nov '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: >Companies have been trying to convince the home computer user that they >should be encrypting for years. Doesn't work. And for not very >surprising reasons. Same thing seen in the home security business, >backups, etc. >(The average user doesn't make any backups. The average homeowner >doesn't do any more to secure his house than what it came with. In other >words, "the defaults." ) Right. I suppose there's not much that can be done for people who expect "security" to be handed down to them from the sky on a silver platter. I'm sure it couldn't be more obvious to most here that if you don't put out the effort to take responsibility for your own security, you aren't going to have it--for your computer or anything else. But then, that sounds suspiciously resonant with "if they're too lazy or stupid to get it, then screw em", doesn't it. I think the real flaw there--what keeps me so uncomforable with it (even though my gut tells me it's a logical conclusion)--is reflected in the sheer number of people I've seen change their minds once they found out a little more about how insecure they really are. Haven't you ever been in a discussion/argument/presentation about computer security with someone, and at some point you notice that moment when it finally registers, you know that it really penetrated something...and they must have that sickening queazy little feeling in the pit of their stomachs when they say: "Oh my God, I had no idea". And at some point, haven't you all felt that sick, queasy shock of recognition yourselves? Maybe from something you read on John Young's site, or in response to being hacked? I certainly did--after that everything was different. It's a great feeling to have someone thank you for giving them the information they needed to wake up and do something to help themselves. The downside is you always risk coming across like a nutcase cyber-Cassandra, but you don't have to if you just let the raw facts do the convincing for you. More generally, I found it puzzling to see everyone getting hysterical over 911 when we're precisely no more and no less vulnerable than we ever were. I didn't learn a thing from it I hadn't already come to terms with on my own. (Having been abandoned as a child and homeless on your own at 17 tends to do an excellent job of ridding a person of any excess sense of security. Not that I'd recommend it...) So maybe for all the people who responded to the shock of 911 with "I'd give up all my civil liberties to feel safe again" there were enough who were jolted into taking responsibility for their own security to make a difference. Something to consider when thinking about the future of crypto, anyway. ~Faustine. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBO/ltPfg5Tuca7bfvEQL/JwCfQQ52fwi89RCGrb09x7HQZLw3/t4AoKFN 5n8Eq5Nqn8kjDbFLGIonDTzT =ADtX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

As dicas do Rudolfo Potter
by infomacao＠giganetstore.com 22 Nov '01

22 Nov '01

ver mais produtos » <http://www.giganetstore.com/index_promocao.asp?channelId=0> Para retirar o seu email desta mailing list deverá entrar no nosso site http:\\www.giganetstore.com <http://www.giganetstore.com/> , ir à edição do seu registo e retirar a opção de receber informação acerca das nossas promoções e novos serviços

1 0

Re: Denning's Geo-crypto
by Major Variola (ret) 22 Nov '01

22 Nov '01

At 11:35 AM 11/22/01 -0800, John Young wrote: Do caves >serve as acoustic resonators to emit recorded whispers up >ventilating shafts? Their waveguide, not resonance, properties might be of interest, if their CO2 emissions -whether speaking or silent- were not so telling. Unless Osama's got a *bunch* of lime. Thermal sig is telling too. They don't grow weed under lights in the karez, do they?

1 0

Re: The Crypto Winter
by Petro 22 Nov '01

22 Nov '01

On Sunday, November 18, 2001, at 01:53 PM, Faustine wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > Faustine wrote: > Tim wrote: >> Getting away fron digital cash for a moment, If you'd care to point me >> to any examples of crypto companies really focused and committed to >> developing >> applications that are commercially appealing to Joe Sixpack AOLuser, >> I'd be interested to hear about them. >>> SSL/RSA built into every financial transaction with the common >>> browsers. >>> Visit Amazon, Ebay, etc., and note the secure connections. >>> User-transpaperent, of course, but then, of course, this is precisely >>> what a "Joe Sixpack AOLuser" [SIC] application _must_ be. > You know as well as I do that the real push for improving transaction > security > is coming from commercial interests, not demand by the average user. Really? When was the last time you worked a Customer Support line for a web site that did CC transactions? End users care about, and insist on security. They don't know JS about it, they don't begin to understand it, but they "know" that 128 bit SSL is better than 40bit, and they know that it "keeps hackers away from their credit cards". >> Is it really such a stretch to say that most >> people in the crypto community don't really give a damn about Joe wants >> or needs? How many times have you heard people here implicitly echo the >> sentiment: "If they're too lazy or stupid to get it, then screw em." >>> Well, you are the one using the expression "Joe Sixpack AOLuser." >>> As for me, I'm a neo-Calvinist Nietzscheian. It is of little concern >>> to >>> me whether crypto is dumbed-down to the point where Mr. Rogers uses >>> it. > I'm a neo-Schopenhauerian Cynic-Stoic eudaimonist. Which is entirely > beside the > point that if you or I were trying to _make money_ selling crypto > directly to > average home users, we certainly ought to put some real effort into > hiring > people who know what average home users really want and are comfortable > with. You *can't* sell crypto to home users. Crypto is not a product, it's infrastructure. You sell email clients and web browsers to end users. You sell them Chat Clients and MP3 players. Crypto is (or should be) a part of those, and to be a part of those, it's got to be seamless. Back in 1996 when the "Open Source" movement was going public and picking up steam I came to the conclusion, which I am as certain of today as I was then, that the problem with Open Source, and what I now believe the problem with Crypto-enhanced products to be is the "Last Mile". Solving problems is fun. Solving hard problems is a lot of fun. Doing a proof of concept of these problems is interesting. Putting a useful interface on these proofs of concept is a lot of boring work. Why aren't there any *good* Open Source word processors (usable, yes. functional, well, yes. *good* well integrated consistent, no) other than possibly OpenOffice/StarOffice, which is, well we all know it's lineage. > Even with a whole laundry list of reasons behind the recent troubles > (i.e. failures) of ZKS and Network Associates, I don't think you ought > to > dismiss the "intelligence divide" problem out of hand. Maybe you can, > but I > think it's still worth considering. It's not the "intelligence divide", it's ease of use, and a belief in the utility. Why are there no (or damn few) IRC clients/servers that support SSL? Why is there only one (that I'm aware of) chat client that uses crypto? Why the fuck isn't *everything* on the wire encrypted at least once? Because very few people see the utility in it. And they may be right. -- "Remember, half-measures can be very effective if all you deal with are half-wits."--Chris Klein

2 1

The generosity of capitalism
by Faustine 22 Nov '01

22 Nov '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 And now, for a special thanksgiving message from a closet Objectivist- libertarian in the Bush administration... :) *** The generosity of capitalism The US is the world's biggest giver because its ethos of individualism encourages humanitarianism, argues Lawrence Lindsey, Financial Times Published: November 21 2001 19:54 | Last Updated: November 21 2001 22:09 Approximately $1.3bn has been donated to benefit the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks. While this is a considerable sum, it is consistent with Americans' generosity. According to the American Association of Fundraising Counsel, in 2000 Americans gave $203bn to charitable organisations, or 2 per cent of gross domestic product, far surpassing the contributions of any other nation. Further, those other countries that were runners-up in private philanthropy were nations that share US values and traditions. Why are Americans such big givers? Some say this generosity is merely the outgrowth of the spectacular success of capitalism at wealth creation. And no one should argue with capitalism's success in generating wealth, or that possessing wealth beyond that required to meet one's immediate needs makes contributing to humanitarian causes easier. But surely there is more to the link between capitalism and humanitarianism than wealth creation. After all, there are plenty of things one can do with one's wealth other than contribute it to meeting the needs of others. Humanitarianism rests not just on wealth but on an ethos. And two aspects of the ethos of capitalism - materialism and individualism - are what make humanitarianism possible. Materialism is the belief that the quality of one's life on earth is important: that life should be more than a daily struggle to meet immediate needs. This is important, for if one does not believe that the material conditions of life are important, no value exists in meeting the material needs of others. The individuals who commandeered the aeroplanes and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon did not think the material conditions of life mattered. Indeed, they did not think life itself mattered. They willingly brought death to themselves and thousands of others and suffering to tens of thousands for a non-material purpose. Indeed, their acts and the rhetoric of their leaders are not just non-material, but anti-material. They believe in tearing down. Capitalism, by contrast, is the ideology of building up; it is the best ethos for making our dreams and aspirations concrete that mankind has ever found. Indeed, "Man Also Rises", the painting by Frank O'Connor, husband of novelist Ayn Rand, is a rendering of a skyscraper under construction. The symbolism behind our enemy's choice of targets is profound. So, of course, materialism is also necessary for wealth creation, which in turn makes humanitarian acts possible. But materialism as an ethic, as well as materialism in its substance, is a precondition for meeting the needs of others. The second ethic of capitalism that is necessary for humanitarianism is a belief in the individual. Individualism places value on the sin gle person apart from the value of the group. It requires rebuilding an individual's spirit. Humanitarianism is not the act of helping humanity in the collective - indeed, such an act is difficult to imagine. It is the act of helping to meet the needs of an individual or a number of individuals and thereby assisting humanity. This point is lost on the US's new mortal enemy. But it was also lost on that other mortal enemy: communism. Communists often speak of the needs of humanity. But this does not make them humanitarians, for they never care about the needs of a single individual. Indeed, it is communism's lack of caring for the individual that ultimately stopped communism from meeting material needs. As Margaret Chapman, founding president of the US-Russia Business Forum, wrote of the dying days of the Soviet Union: "It is often said people are willing to die for their country but not to work for it." Unlike communism or nationalism, humanitarianism is not advanced by anyone's heroic death. Humanitarianism is never that easy. It requires hard work and sacrifice to improve the life of another individual. It requires being there day in and day out. Indeed, the ethic of communism or socialism works to undermine humanitarianism. If one is told that the state will care for the needs of the individual, individuals are absolved from the responsibility of caring for their fellows. The reality of this was brought home to me when I visited Romania in the early 1990s to adopt our daughter, Emily. What we think of as civic society had been destroyed in Romania by years of brutal Communist dictatorship. The elderly were starving in their apartments because they could not leave to get food and no one thought it their duty to help. A neighbour of one of the consulates died, leaving a widow and several children. The consul offered help in the form of food and a small amount of cash. Her Romanian employees were furious, insisting that the condition of the neighbour's family was none of her business. Taking care of people was viewed soley as the state's responsibility. The basis for even elemental acts of kindness, let alone humanitarianism, had been destroyed by an ethos that denied individualism and individual responsibility. Individualism as an ethic defines the individual not only as the ultimate beneficiary but also as the ultimate problem-solver. While government can perform many important functions, it is hard to think of the state as humanitarian. Indeed, most religions recognise the individual's role in this function. Christianity recognises charity as one of the seven holy virtues, along with faith, hope, prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude. Islam considers alms to the poor as one of its four pillars. Judaism has a similar concept: tzedakah. Each of these - charity, giving alms, or tzedekah - involves an individual act. There is no collective short cut. The point is that it is no accident that the US's attackers on September 11 were those who did not value the material and had no concern for the individual. It is also no accident that Americans' response to their fellow citizens' tragedy has been so generous. Paradoxical as it may seem, men and women who are free to pursue individualism and material wealth turn out to be the most compassionate of all. The writer is President George W. Bush's economic adviser and director of the National Economic Council at the White House -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBO/10Tfg5Tuca7bfvEQJSowCbBHVIW9D1X1tL46DF07bzoqLyk/YAoIiX VKPcLgweK9fPSrGSRMM3AaTk =7Zpk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: The Crypto Winter
by Petro 22 Nov '01

22 Nov '01

On Sunday, November 18, 2001, at 02:16 PM, Faustine wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > declan wrote: >> Not so with digital cash. It also suffers from deployment problems, of >> course, but far more substantial regulatory ones. You need two >> consenting users -- and a tie-in to the banking system (preferable) or >> at least some exchange of value (like e-gold) that's sufficiently >> trusted. Crypto may peeve the FBI, but widespread digital cash is far >> more alarming to governments, which will not permit true digital cash >> to be deployed in any popular way. One obvious way to limit its utility >> is to restrict its tie-ins with the banking system, or prohibit >> businesses >> within their borders from using it. >> That's the crypto winter. > > On a scale of 1 to 10, how likely do you think it is that these > problems will > be resolved in, say, the next decade? Where are the people most likely > to make > it happen? Fascinating stuff. 0. Can't happen, and won't. Why? there's no margin in it. RH was always going on about Digital bearer Certs being 2 orders of magnitude cheaper to clear than a book entry transaction, and he may well be right. But Citibank, AmEX and the others make their money making those transactions, and they aren't stupid people. They're not going to cut their own throats--they realize that the costs of setting up and running a clearing house for DBC/Ecash/whatever are trivial compared to running a clearing house for credit cards. And the government realizes what happens when they can no longer track the money. I used to have one thin wedge of hope, that someone with the brains, the code and the capital would realize that there could be a killing made in the Adult Entertainment side of things--porn and gambling. Areas where (1) Participants do not necessarily trust each other, (2) People often wish to be anonymous, and (3) large amounts of cash change hands. However the Porn Sites are obviously doing quite well getting True Names from people, and the people obviously don't mind much that these sites will often double charge their credit cards &etc. And the gambling people, well, they're heavily regulated. -- Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws. Plato (427-347 B.C.)

1 0

huge-mail.com, Target Your Greetings....
by Huge Mail Offers 22 Nov '01

22 Nov '01

1 0

Re: The Crypto Winter
by Petro 22 Nov '01

22 Nov '01

On Sunday, November 18, 2001, at 10:37 PM, CDR Anonymizer wrote: > At 08:29 PM 11/18/01 -0800, CDR Anonymizer wrote: >> Because they could. > > This goes beyond gratuitous demonstration of power and ability, > there is an economic reason behind it all. > What is / their / economic reason? Same as it always is. Control. -- Interfaces matter. You need mathematical bones; engineering muscle; but you won't replicate without beautiful skin. Bits, transistors, wires, code, gummint velveeta is free. Will is expensive. Gutenburg. Smith. Ford. Moore. Postel. Steam engines were neat. Steam engines pulling trains were amazing. Computers were neat. Computers networked were amazing. Warning grunts are useful. The ability of a charistmatic speaker to fuck with your head is disastrous. --Blank Frank(anonymously)--

1 0

Nada m�s, nada menos...
by MisProductos.com 22 Nov '01

22 Nov '01

1 0

Jamming technology blocks cell phone rings
by mean-green＠hushmail.com 22 Nov '01

22 Nov '01

[I've played around with an expensive version from another vendor. It appeared to function (my dual mode CDMA PCS phone quickly became inopperative). Range was limited due to low power output (about 12wm). The circuits are very simple and the addition of an inexpensive 10-12db power amp stage for both the 1900 and 800 MHz bands would extend effective ranges to 50m or so. This is a good candidate for anonymous cash sale. It could become the next teen gota have prank product (the laser pointer "dotting" thing is about played out.)] Jamming technology blocks cell phone rings By Reuters November 21, 2001, 10:00 a.m. PT HONG KONG--A Hong Kong company hopes to sell signal jamming technology, previously used by the military to thwart lethal missiles, to block annoying cell phone calls in places such as hospitals, places of worship and restaurants. http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1004-200-7942522.html?tag=lh

1 0