July 2002 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Ross's TCPA paper
by Anonymous 03 Jul '02

03 Jul '02

[Repost] Bear writes: > A few years ago merchants were equally adamant and believed > equally in the rightness of maintaining their "right" to not > do business with blacks, chicanos, irish, and women. It'll > pass as people wake up and smell the coffee. Unfortunately > that won't be until after at least a decade of really vicious > abuses of private data by merchants who believe in their > god-given right to snoop on their customers. My God, how low the cypherpunk list has sunk. Here we have someone not only demanding that merchants be forced to deal with pseudonymous customers, he invokes civil rights laws to support his argument! Where's Tim May when we need him? His racism is odious but at least he's not trying to force other people to follow his beliefs. I'm sure he'd have a thing or two to say about our wonderful civil rights laws and Bear's proposal to extend similar regulations to cyberspace. Here's a clue, Mr. Bear. The cypherpunks list was founded on the principle that cyberspace can enhance freedom, and that includes freedom to associate with whomever you choose. Racism is evil, but the solution must lie in people's hearts. Pointing a gun at them and forcing them to act in a politically correct manner (which is what civil rights regulations really do) is no solution to the problem. > So yeah, I think that the right to privacy implies the right to > use a pseudonym. For any non-fraudulent purpose, including > doing business with merchants who don't know it's a pseudonym. > > And I think that's a constitutional right, whether the merchants > happen to like it or not... And of course any reference to the constitution betrays utter cluelessness when talking on an international mailing list about technology which spans national borders. Unless you are prepared to be bound by the Iraqi constitution, Mr. Bear, don't ask us to be governed by yours.

12 16

New articles on XSL attacks
by Paweł Krawczyk 03 Jul '02

03 Jul '02

Courtois and Pieprzyk have done significant progress in new class of XSL attacks on block and stream ciphers, resulting in cracking of Japan Toycrypt algorithm, with big perspectives on both fields. ,,Cryptanalysis of Block Ciphers using Overdefined Systems of Equations'' Nicolas Courtois and Josef Pieprzyk http://eprint.iacr.org/2002/044/ ,,Higher Order Correlation Attacks, XL Algorithm and Cryptanalysis of Toycrypt'' Nicolas Courtois and Josef Pieprzyk http://eprint.iacr.org/2002/087/ WARNING: please note that my email address is modified to avoid harvesting from list archives. -- Pawe3 Krawczyk * http://echelon.pl/kravietz/ Krakow, Poland * http://ipsec.pl/

1 0

Re: Hayek was right. Twice.
by Marcel Popescu 03 Jul '02

03 Jul '02

From: "Sampo Syreeni" <decoy(a)iki.fi> > But when the yield does not go to the one who created > the master copy, why should anyone create anything, anymore? (Or, more > realistically, why should people create at an efficient level?) There's no such thing as "efficient level", except in the tautology "the market outcome is always efficient". We both created stuff we didn't expect to be paid for - these emails. Why - this is for psychology to discover. Mark

2 1

data mining for moles
by Major Variola (ret) 03 Jul '02

03 Jul '02

http://www.business2.com/articles/mag/0,1640,41206,00.html According to former and current DEA, military, and State Department officials, the cartel had assembled a database that contained both the office and residential telephone numbers of U.S. diplomats and agents based in Colombia, along with the entire call log for the phone company in Cali, which was leaked by employees of the utility. The mainframe was loaded with custom-written data-mining software. It cross-referenced the Cali phone exchange's traffic with the phone numbers of American personnel and Colombian intelligence and law enforcement officials. The computer was essentially conducting a perpetual internal mole-hunt of the cartel's organizational chart. "They could correlate phone numbers, personalities, locations -- any way you want to cut it," says the former director of a law enforcement agency. "Santacruz could see if any of his lieutenants were spilling the beans." The central feature of the facility was a $1.5 million IBM AS400 mainframe, the kind once used by banks, networked with half a dozen terminals and monitors.

1 0

Re: Hayek was right. Twice.
by Michael Motyka 03 Jul '02

03 Jul '02

"Marcel Popescu" <mdpopescu(a)subdimension.com> wrote : > >From: "Sampo Syreeni" <decoy(a)iki.fi> > >> But when the yield does not go to the one who created >> the master copy, why should anyone create anything, anymore? (Or, more >> realistically, why should people create at an efficient level?) > >There's no such thing as "efficient level", except in the tautology "the >market outcome is always efficient". We both created stuff we didn't expect >to be paid for - these emails. Why - this is for psychology to discover. > >Mark > The why is easy - for some reason you think that strutting around in this barnyard is going to get you more chicas. Mike

1 0

�ִ��ҵ��ֶ�
by hrdept＠part-time.cc 03 Jul '02

03 Jul '02

Hello: (If you can't read the email,please click here http://www.jjyx.com/serve/advertise.htm) Thank you ��ã�� ֮�ǹ�� ȫ��緶Χ��Ϣ��Ͷ�Ź�档 һ ��ʼ��ɸ��Ҫ��ڹ��ָ��򣬵ص��ҵ��й��ʼ��Ϣ��ȡ��ص��ǣ��Χ�㣬ʱЧ�ߣ��۸�ס�10��ⶨ��ʼ��300��1000��ʼ��ַ��۽�150Ԫ��ʼ��ϸ��http://www.jjyx.com/serve/advertise.htm ��ӵ�а�ȫ��ҵ��ǧ��ʼ��ַ��Ƶķ��ϵͳ��ʱΪ��ṩ��ķ��񡣻��ѵã��Ͽ��ж��ɣ��ҵ��˾��̻��ý��------��E-MAIL�� 70��ʼ��Ⱥ��ָ��Ч��ܶ�ʱ��ڻ��ָ��Ѽ��ҵ��˾… �� ע�� ½ȫ��6000��Ӣ��(��YAHOO��GOOGLED��)��200��(��ף��Ż��)��վ��ȫ�򡣣��ֵ��ػݼ�400�� Ϣ��֮�ǿ��Խ��ۣ��̻��ҵ��Ϣ�Զ��֪��3300��ó�׹��͹��ǧ��BBS��̳��ȡ��޶��ҵ��ᡣ��ֵ��350Ԫ�� ʼ�Ⱥ��http://www.jjyx.com/serve/advertise.htm ��ʼ�Ⱥ��http://www.jjyx.com/serve/advertise2.htm ��ֱ�ӻظ��email�� serve(a)jjyx.com ��ǰ��Ǣ̸�� ֮�� If you can't read the email,please click here http://www.jjyx.com/serve/advertise.htm Thank you

1 0

Re: [OT] why was private gold ownership made illegal in the US?
by Michael Motyka 03 Jul '02

03 Jul '02

Anonymous <nobody(a)remailer.privacy.at> >> Just curious, but what was the rationale under which private posession >> of gold was made illegal in the US? It boggles the mind... > ><snip> > >However doing a straight devaluation was politically unacceptable >at the time. Because the dollar was pegged to gold, devaluing the >dollar meant in effect increasing the value of gold in terms of dollars. >This would represent a tremendous windfall to holders of gold. And gold, >by and large, is owned by the rich. > ><snip> > >By eliminating private gold ownership, Roosevelt was able to take a >necessary step to invigorate the economy, devaluing the dollar, while >reducing the risk of a civil war. The rich protested, of course, but >in practice they went along with the measure as they were terrified >of a workers' revolution. > ><snip> > IIRC many of the wealthy were quick enough to ship huge amounts of gold to Europe. That is one reason I have heard given that the St Gauden's $20 gold pices of that era are possibly poor investments - there is a reservoir of them overseas. Mike

2 1

Hello
by Andrew Sowho 03 Jul '02

03 Jul '02

I am Andrew Sowho, We have not had the pleasure of each others acquaintance but I hope this will be remedied soon. I am in search of an Investment Manager who can invest and manage the sum of Sixteen Million United States Dollars into a viable endeavour, capable of yielding reasonable annual return as profit on principal amount invested. Given the antecedent of the ownership of the fuuds.I need someone who can clear the funds into his/her account , carry out the actual business and remit profit to my account without trouble.For avoidance of doubt, I require someone to be my eyes,ears and hands , someone who is reliable and trustworthy and above all cautious. should you be interested and capable please contact me via email for further details. I will not contact anyother person until I hear from you.

1 0

[OT] why was private gold ownership made illegal in the US?
by James A. Donald 03 Jul '02

03 Jul '02

-- On 3 Jul 2002 at 2:36, Anonymous wrote: > At the time, the U.S. faced a significant chance of a > Communist/Socialist revolution such as had been seen in several > other countries. Class warfare was widespread, The high point of support for socialism among the masses in the US was the 1870s, give or take a couple of decades. By 1900 socialists around the world had given up all hope of genuinely revolutionary seizure of power, and were pursuing conspiratorial paths. The 1930s was the high point of support for socialism among the intellectuals, the privileged, and the elite. Their efforts to foist their preferences on the American masses met with resounding hostility and reluctance. Not only was there no danger of a socialist revolution, in the US or anywhere else, but in the US the leadership's attempts to force socialism down peoples throats met stubborn resistance. There was more mass support for socialism in other countries, but no socialist revolutions in those countries, nor any danger of such revolt. There were socialist coups, and conspiratorial seizures of power by socialists in other countries. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 3x+jv+MnH33X3HSDdYMeLIgT55+H4ekUhpOMDJDS 2vKGDwf7SNzlVqX8Hi5qcbp51h1c6SSx0sz6gRDeI

2 1

Re: [OT] why was private gold ownership made illegal in the US?
by Ian Grigg 03 Jul '02

03 Jul '02

> From: Anonymous <nobody(a)remailer.privacy.at> > > > Just curious, but what was the rationale under which private posession > > of gold was made illegal in the US? It boggles the mind... > > Roosevelt needed to in effect devalue the dollar during the Great > Depression. In a deflationary depression, this acts as an inflationary > force to cancel the negative effects of the deflation. Even libertarian > monetarists such as Milton Friedman agree that this is the proper approach > when dealing with a depression. Roosevelt did not have the advantage > of modern economics and he made many economic mistakes which prolonged > the depression, but devaluing the dollar was not one of them. > > However doing a straight devaluation was politically unacceptable > at the time. Because the dollar was pegged to gold, devaluing the > dollar meant in effect increasing the value of gold in terms of dollars. > This would represent a tremendous windfall to holders of gold. And gold, > by and large, is owned by the rich. > > At the time, the U.S. faced a significant chance of a Communist/Socialist > revolution such as had been seen in several other countries. Class > warfare was widespread, with armed violence between workers and management > a common occurance. Transferring a huge bounty into the hands of the > rich would have inflamed the working class and risked plunging the > country into chaos and revolution. > > By eliminating private gold ownership, Roosevelt was able to take a > necessary step to invigorate the economy, devaluing the dollar, while > reducing the risk of a civil war. The rich protested, of course, but > in practice they went along with the measure as they were terrified > of a workers' revolution. > > Looking back, since there was, in fact, no revolution, it is easy to > forget today how perilous the state of the country was in those times. > For all those who curse Roosevelt's name, the U.S. at least ended up > the decade in better shape than many countries, and things could have > been far worse. Americans could be living in a People's Republic today. > Confiscating gold was clearly the lesser of the evils. One is troubled by this rather excellent post by anonymous. I accept at face value the comments made, and they certainly seem to match the facts and circumstances of the times (the arisal of Keynsianism from the roots of the Great Depression). What troubles me is the pressumption of modern economics somehow presenting an advantage. What would that advantage be? And if that advantage would somehow ease the pain of the Great Depression, or not have started it in the first place, why is it that the IMF (claimed by some to be a body that dispenses American economic thought and American loans), advised the Argentinian government to peg the peso, and gave them lots of loans to keep it there? Argentina is now in its 1st Great Depression of this century, and it's pretty clear that the IMF and the fixed exchange rate together were responsible as the external events. The only way I can reconcile this is to negate the advantage or benefit conferred by modern economics? Any other takes? -- iang

2 1