September 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

Borders UK and privacy
by Allan Hunt-Badiner 02 Sep '01

02 Sep '01

BORDERS U.K. USES FACE-RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY TO MONITOR CUSTOMERS Borders Books in the U.K. is employing SmartFace technology to compare the "unique digital face-maps" of customers against similar face-maps of known shoplifters. Privacy advocates such as the director of the Scottish Human Rights Centre are outraged by the development: "I can see why they don't want shoplifters in their store, but I would question whether this is proportionate to what they are trying to do. We are talking about having a bank of pictures of everyone going into the shop -- I would consider that a serious breach of privacy. There is no control over what they do with those pictures, or how they are kept -- are they safe? Nor is there much control over whether Borders could sell the information on, or whether people will actually know this is happening." (Sunday Herald 26 Aug 2001) http://www.sundayherald.com/18007

7 10

Re: secure IRC/messaging successor
by Bill Stewart 02 Sep '01

02 Sep '01

At 06:41 PM 08/30/2001 +0200, Eugene Leitl wrote: >Gale http://www.gale.org/ seems a well thought out infrastructure. Is the >consensus "this is it", or have I missed any alternatives? Jabber seems to be emerging as the main cross-ISP instant messaging platform. I'm not sure how much security it offers, but I've heard that somebody's doing something along those lines.

1 0

need
by keo kong 02 Sep '01

02 Sep '01

to cypherpunks I am keo and I would like to order no brand CD-R over 50000 per mounth, could you let me know about the price, I need you send me to nongkai onething if the CD-R can not use ,can I return? onething could you let me know where is your address and your phone number for me easy to connect. Please reply me as quick as possible I look forward to hearing from you. best regard keo _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

1 0

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
by Nomen Nescio 02 Sep '01

02 Sep '01

On 31 Aug 2001, at 12:13, georgemw(a)speakeasy.net wrote: > On 31 Aug 2001, at 19:50, Nomen Nescio wrote: > > This means that the operators > > choose to whom they will market and sell their services. > > Here I disagree completely. I think in a properly designed > anonymity system the users will be, well, anonymous, and > it should be impossible to tell any more about them than that they > pay their bills on time. Certainly most potential users would balk at > requirements that they prove who they were and justify their desire > to use such a system, since that would tend to defeat the purpose. Yes and no. The users aren't all that anonymous, or they wouldn't need anonymous technologies, would they? The remailer network sees where this message originates. If you use Zero Knowledge software, their network knows exactly who is using it at any time. If a digital cash bank came into existence, payments transferred into the digital system from outside would largely be from identified sources. Nevertheless it's true that the operators would probably not find it cost effective to try to identify every single customer. (Although ZKS will cancel your nym if you spam with it.) The real issue is the clause above about "market and sell". This was the original point raised by Tim May: what markets do we select? His whiteboard exercise teaches that you need to identify, select and target particular markets which make sense. And if you care about the world you are creating, that's where the moral issue comes in. > I don't think it serves > any purpose to discuss who constitute "valiant freedom fighters > resisting a tyrannical government" and who are "bloody terrorist > fanatics attempting to overthrow a benign legitimate government > and replace it wth a worse one" in this forum. We may have strong > opinions on this matter as individuals, but it is completely > unreasonable to expect us to come to any kind of consensus as a > group. Nonsense. Most participants in this forum DO share common philosophical goals: the preservation and enhancement of individual freedom via technological means. This is our common heritage. People make moral judgements every single day on this list based on exactly this framework. And it is this moral view which tells us that bin Laden and his terrorist groups are not the market which we should target in order to advance these goals. > Nor is it necessarily beneficial to do so. Would a system > useful to the "virtuous" seperatist Kurds in Iraq be different in any > technical way from a system used by the "evil" seperatist Kurds > in Turkey? No, probably not. However the world seems strangely short of virtuous freedom fighters right now. In fact "freedom fighters" are probably not an appropriate target market for cypherpunks. They may be well funded but most of them are wedded to violence. If they get into power they're not going to make things any better. James Donald made this point: few countries are undergoing true popular revolutions. It would be better to target technologies that would benefit groups where there is a large, oppressed minority, people who just want to be left alone. Unfortunately, almost by definition, oppressed minorities tend to be poor. So it is a hard problem to do this profitably. > > It is important to identify markets which will advance the cause rather > > than set it back. Tim May made a good start on this in his earlier > > posting. Those who reject the idea of judging groups and markets by > > their morality are the ones who are missing the point. > > Wrong. When discussing design of a system, it makes sense to > limit discussion to parameters relevant to system design. How > much individuals might be willing to pay to protect their privacy, > how great of injuries they might suffer if their privacy is > compromised, is relevant to system design. Why they > want privacy, whether you or I as individuals would think of them > as "good guys" or "bad guys", really isn't. It's true that this does not directly impact the design. But we can't ignore the question, is this a market we want to pursue. For example, there are any number of papers on key escrow systems, or "fair" electronic cash (where only the government can trace it). Legitimate businesses might well be willing to use such systems. So there is profit to be made, all the more profit since the government is less likely to hassle you. Would you say that discussions of such technologies would and should be encouraged on the cypherpunks list? That it doesn't matter whether this helps us in or long-term goal or not? Surely not. Morality plays a part in everything we do. We have goals in common. We should structure our efforts so that they are in accordance with our highest goals. Having principles is nothing to be ashamed of. We all have them, and we should be proud of that.

4 4

Re: News: 'U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship'
by Greg Broiles 01 Sep '01

01 Sep '01

At 03:19 PM 9/1/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote: > > > > When you talk about "collaborating" and ZKS selling beta software to > > the NSA, are you saying you've got information that ZKS gave the NSA > > access to more information than the general public got, and/or that > > the NSA got their access or information meaningfully earlier than the > > general public? > >Actually, it would be far more more informative to get them to explain >exactly what happened instead of relying on third-party empty hearsay and >hot air from me, since honestly that's all I've got. But I'm sure there are >a lot of reasons--some of them contractural--you'll never hear the whole >story. Especially given that you'll never get anything more than loose talk >from the other side. Well, if all you've got is hearsay and hot air, then I think it's unfair to tag them with words like "collaborator" or suggest that they're not trustworthy - those are pretty serious allegations to make. I'm aware of examples of cryptosystems and companies which were compromised by intelligence agencies - and also aware of baseless FUD and conspiracy theories spun against uncompromised software unfairly. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles(a)well.com "We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids

2 1

Re: Using supercomputers to break interesting ciphers
by Faustine 01 Sep '01

01 Sep '01

Faustine wrote: Tim wrote: (snip) >You are now backpedaling furiously away from your "common to newbies" >claim that fast computers might be used to break ciphers. Here's a chunk >of dialog from an August 8 post of yours: >(comments after ">" are from Tim) > >Except when was the last time you heard of a Cypherpunks-interesting >>cipher being broken with _any_ amount of computer crunching? >"Since when did people stop trying? The last time I heard a researcher >>talk about trying to break a Cypherpunks-interesting cipher was last >>Thursday." >This, and similar comments you made about the Sandia and IBM >supercomputers, clearly imply you think one of the uses of these >supercomputers is to "try" to break what I called >Cypherpunks-interesting ciphers. If I had known that to you "computer crunching" is synonymous with "brute forcing large keys" I certainly would have expressed myself differently. >Many who are exposed to crypto to the first time, and who haven't >thought about the issue of factoring large numbers, simply "assume" that >a worthwhile goal is to "try" ("Since when did people stop trying?") to >break such ciphers with faster computers. >(To be sure, there are interesting projects on faster factoring methods, >better quadratic sieves, searches for Mersenne primes, all that good >number theory stuff. Some of it is even being done at Sandia. But this >is a far cry from the common belief that Cypherpunks-interesting ciphers >may fall to attacks with mere supercomputers. Do the math on what a >trillion such Sandia computers could do if they ran for a billion >years...then realize there are keys already in use today which cannot be >attacked by brute-force (or probably any other direct means) with all of >the computer power that the universe could ever support. Mind-boggling, >but I realized this via some calculations just after starting to look >closely at RSA.) >You are now backpedalling, claiming you never meant this. Backpedalling has nothing to do with it. "trying to break Cypehrpunks- interesting ciphers" does not equal "using supercomputers to brute-force large keys." "Interesting cryptograhic applications" does not equal "brute- forcing large keys". Why is this so difficult. >Similar to the way you claimed "if someone else is convinced it's >interesting enough to be willing to foot the power bill (as I had >anticipated would be the case)," well AFTER I posted an article pointing >out that the power bill alone for running older Pentiums and G3s would >pay for faster new CPUs to make the old DIY machines a waste of time. >Fact is, you HADN'T "anticipated" this...you saw my calculations of >watts and MIPS and only _then_ did you retroactively "anticipate" that >power concerns make such arrays of old machines a lose. Check the >archives. The "as I had anticipated would be the case" refers to being allowed to build it in someone else's facility, on their dime. I never said the first thing about having done any of the calculations mentioned in your post. It's their facility, I anticipate they find it interesting enough to let me build it there, they foot the power bill. What's so tricky about that. In fact, I meant for the passage to serve as a sort of explanation of the circumstances in which power costs weren't enough of a central issue for me to have considered them. The end of the sentence you omitted, "where's the downside?" might make this clearer. Obviously, not clear enough. >When some adds a gratuitous "As I had anticipated would be the >case" under these circumstances we know we are in the presence of a faker. You interpreted it as referring to what you thought it ought to in order to bolster whatever view you want to have of me. Nothing new. ~Faustine.

1 0

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
by Nomen Nescio 01 Sep '01

01 Sep '01

Tim May writes: > And in both of these examples I gave, "Nomen Nescio" took a literal > reading of the examples. "But Ireland is not a communist regime!" "But > they are not Jews!" > > Examples, like the half dozen I gave, are designed to convey to the > reader the range of uses, needs, and justifications. The specific stands > for the general. > > Both Nomen and Aimee are remarkably block-headed in seeing the big > picture. You need to read your own posting more carefully: > Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools > for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the "far out' sweet > spot applications are not necessarily immoral: think of freedom fighters > in communist-controlled regimes, think of distribution of birth control > information in Islamic countries, think of Jews hiding their assets in > Swiss bank accounts, think of revolutionaries overthrowing bad > governments, think of people avoiding unfair or confiscatory taxes, > think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are > forbidden to. You yourself were the one who raised the issue of morality. Your examples were intended to be cases of "sweet spot" (that is, profitable) applications which were also morally acceptable. It is entirely appropriate in that context to examine whether these examples meet the test of both being profitable and moral. When you were asked where were all the supposed wealthy freedom fighters in communist controlled regimes, you came back with Osama bin Laden. Do you think that bin Laden, if he succeeded, would bring in an era of enlightened government supporting individual liberties? The man is a religious fanatic. He is associated with the Taliban in Afghanistan, which he helped put into power. This is the same Taliban which has destroyed priceless cultural treasures because they were not Islamic, forbids women to work or attend school, and sends armed police to attack when men and women eat in the same room behind closed doors. Oh, and last week they banned the Internet. Osama bin Laden, a perfect poster child for the cypherpunks. We're definitely not seeing the same "big picture" if you think he is a good example of someone cypherpunks should support.

6 9

The History Place - Triumph of Hitler
by Jim Choate 01 Sep '01

01 Sep '01

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-fuehrer.htm -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Using supercomputers to break interesting ciphers
by Tim May 01 Sep '01

01 Sep '01

On Saturday, September 1, 2001, at 01:53 PM, Faustine wrote: > Tim Wrote: >>> On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 11:43 AM, Faustine wrote: >> >>> Consistent with your misconception about big computers being useful >>> for >>> brute-force cryptanalyis, >> >> I never said that and you know it. Nice troll, though. > >> You did indeed. Several times you alluded to what big and powerful >> computers the NSA must have, the better to blow our house down. When it >> was pointed out to you the nature of brute-forcing a big key, and how >> useless computers are, you seemed not to get the point. > > Oh, well that might have a little something to do with the fact that I > never made the point that brute-forcing keys was the way big and > powerful > NSA computers are going to blow our house down, mightn't it. The fact > that "brute-forcing keys" was the only thing you could think of when you > saw my phrase "interesting possibilities for cryptographic applications" > and then chose to fixate on proving what a damn poopy head > whippersnapper I > am instead of deigning to bother over what methods I meant to refer to > is > indicative of your own limitations, not mine. You are now backpedaling furiously away from your "common to newbies" claim that fast computers might be used to break ciphers. Here's a chunk of dialog from an August 8 post of yours: (comments after ">" are from Tim) >Except when was the last time you heard of a Cypherpunks-interesting >cipher being broken with _any_ amount of computer crunching? "Since when did people stop trying? The last time I heard a researcher talk about trying to break a Cypherpunks-interesting cipher was last Thursday." This, and similar comments you made about the Sandia and IBM supercomputers, clearly imply you think one of the uses of these supercomputers is to "try" to break what I called Cypherpunks-interesting ciphers. Many who are exposed to crypto to the first time, and who haven't thought about the issue of factoring large numbers, simply "assume" that a worthwhile goal is to "try" ("Since when did people stop trying?") to break such ciphers with faster computers. (To be sure, there are interesting projects on faster factoring methods, better quadratic sieves, searches for Mersenne primes, all that good number theory stuff. Some of it is even being done at Sandia. But this is a far cry from the common belief that Cypherpunks-interesting ciphers may fall to attacks with mere supercomputers. Do the math on what a trillion such Sandia computers could do if they ran for a billion years...then realize there are keys already in use today which cannot be attacked by brute-force (or probably any other direct means) with all of the computer power that the universe could ever support. Mind-boggling, but I realized this via some calculations just after starting to look closely at RSA.) You are now backpedalling, claiming you never meant this. Similar to the way you claimed "if someone else is convinced it's interesting enough to be willing to food the power bill (as I had anticipated would be the case)," well AFTER I posted an article pointing out that the power bill alone for running older Pentiums and G3s would pay for faster new CPUs to make the old DIY machines a waste of time. Fact is, you HADN'T "anticipated" this...you saw my calculations of watts and MIPS and only _then_ did you retroactively "anticipate" that power concerns make such arrays of old machines a lose. Check the archives. When some adds a gratuitous "As I had anticipated would be the case" under these circumstance we know we are in the presence of a faker. --Tim May

1 0

Re: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
by Faustine 01 Sep '01

01 Sep '01

Tim Wrote: >> On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 11:43 AM, Faustine wrote: > >> Consistent with your misconception about big computers being useful for >> brute-force cryptanalyis, > > I never said that and you know it. Nice troll, though. >You did indeed. Several times you alluded to what big and powerful >computers the NSA must have, the better to blow our house down. When it >was pointed out to you the nature of brute-forcing a big key, and how >useless computers are, you seemed not to get the point. Oh, well that might have a little something to do with the fact that I never made the point that brute-forcing keys was the way big and powerful NSA computers are going to blow our house down, mightn't it. The fact that "brute-forcing keys" was the only thing you could think of when you saw my phrase "interesting possibilities for cryptographic applications" and then chose to fixate on proving what a damn poopy head whippersnapper I am instead of deigning to bother over what methods I meant to refer to is indicative of your own limitations, not mine. ~Faustine.

1 0