December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Hacking Mobil Telephone System ?
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 11 Sep 1996 14:00:24 +0200 (MET DST), Stephan Schmidt wrote: >If a hacker is able to phone using the number >0171 / 3 28 99 66 in Germany with a hacked code, >the company will pay 100.000 DM (~65.000$) to a non >profit organisation of the hackers choice. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I'm setting up a nonprofit organization: The Chris Adams PentiumPRO Fund. Please support it! Seems like a fake test. If they were giving out $64k to the hacker, you'd see a LOT of intrest! Hackers just tend not to be the most concerned with the problems of others... # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # cadams(a)acucobol.com | V.M. (619)515-4894 "I have never been able to figure out why anyone would want to play games on a computer in any case when the whole system is a game. Word processing, spreadsheets, telecoms -- it's all a game. And they pay you to play it." -- Duncan Frissell

1 0

Re: talker
by saione＠primenet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CC`d to cypherpunks mailing list: I recieved this this afternoon (11/9/96), this has gone far enough, would anyone here care to join me in mailbombing this guy? just reply this mail to him at doom13(a)juno.com about 100 times or so, if we get about 100 people to do this it should generate enough traffic to close his account down. my reply to his mail is at the bottom: > Listen up you son of a bitch! Don't fucker call me a peice of horse shit > you cocksucker or I'll mailbomb your ass so many times you won't even > think of replying. You don't know shit about my hacking mother fucker. > Fuck you and go suck on some media crypto pussy shit. Listen you spotty socially unskilled adolescent masturbator: Your petty and pathetic claims amuse me, I laugh at your worthless and dirty existance peon. What have you ever hacked, have you broken any encryption codes, have you found security weaknesses by new and ingenious methods, have you practised within the hacker ethic? I think not You are a *WANNABEE*, a punk who knows not the slightest thing about systems security, can`t code, and couldn`t hack his way out of a wet paper bag, your mailbombing threats are about as technical as you can get. in addition your flames show no linguistic creativity, just a bunch of crude words thrown together, get an education you trailer butt-fucker. Mailbomb me, go ahead punk, make my day, if you dare to even think about doing so I will kick your ass, I will hurt you in ways you cannot imagine, I have carried out vindictive personal vendettas before and will do so again if necessary. Go on, I dare you, I double dare you motherfucker. Yours with the greatest respect: Paul Bradley MbM Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Http://www.fatmans.demon.co.uk/crypt/ "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6 mQCNAjH9j+cAAAEEAMBvREiQR0ot9dFCO0TiSCSunAYLv2g1Bc6I3bz8FzKXNH53 6mieJf/W4rD+CxJpT0q9RQaaoRtkHJLwbjfK2il3D7mEahMAyqvF/xRJNqkXfhM3 sRJM0Jh43l+W0M5vwokbEbk25/bxWWGspTsLD3YHbzKnG6pOcL5OPIRbv66xAAUR tCdQYXVsIEJyYWRsZXkgPHBhdWxAZmF0bWFucy5kZW1vbi5jby51az4= =riHc -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

2 1

Re: Court challenge to AOL junk-mail blocks
by watson＠tds.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NetSurfer said: If you know a valid email address on the spammers system you can always bounce each message back to them. If enough people turned the messages back on them it might give them the opportunity to experience first hand what its like to receive tons of mail you don't want or need... Doesn't seem to work that well. The "green card lawyers" were reported to have received hate-mail in the hundreds of thousands. The happily waded through it all and pulled out a few valid replies who apparently made it all a net profit for them, apparently. What we really need is to improve our defensive filtering mechanisms. Someday soon we'll all have our own personal software agents that will handle all this stuff for us. Optimistic Dave

1 0

[Fwd: Nonsense, absolute nonsense... [Fwd: HipCrime and Spam]]
by HipCrime 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does this maillist filter out messages from NON-subscribers? To: HipCrime <robert(a)precipice.V-site.net> Subject: Nonsense, absolute nonsense... [Fwd: HipCrime and Spam] From: Admin <admin(a)superhot.com> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 15:14:26 -0600 Cc: CYPERPUNKS(a)TOAD.COM, Geoff White <geoffw(a)precipice.V-site.net>, <julf(a)penet.fi>, jlasser(a)rwd.goucher.edu At 01:52 PM 9/11/96 -0700, you wrote: This is an absurd and inaccurate analogy. The mailBot simply pushes *mailto:* tags that people have willingly placed on their public websites. They invite the mail so a more accurate analogy would be that City Hall puts up a public suggestion box and invites comments. The bot then puts one, and only one, unsigned anonymous suggestion into the box. It then goes on to the Art Gallery where they too have put up a public suggestion box, and the bot places one, and only one, anonymous suggestion in that box also...and it moves on to the next publicly accessable suggestion box that it finds, each time putting in one, and only one, message. Can the College-aged mind these days not develop a rational, concise, accurate and logical analogy that stays on point? Think about it... or take down the public suggestion boxes if one doesn't like what one finds inside. If you invite feedback...it will come. admin There is > >HipCrime <na673130(a)anon.penet.fi> wrote: >> Be honest, all you really care about is something which >> "threatens the existence" your little baby. > >I think you were referring to yourself, Robert. :) > > >Since you don't seem to understand the concept of spam very well yet, >try this little experiment: > >Go downtown to City Hall and post advertisements for your website on >all the walls and doors. Be sure to put one on the Mayor's office and >all the members of the City Council. If they complain, explain to them >why they are weak-minded souls who can't remove unwanted messages. > >Go to the local art gallery and post your signs all over. Tell people >that since your web site is an "art project", that you are posting EXACTLY >on topic, to an "appropriate group". Ask, "So, what's your problem ?!?" > >Pass out survey forms. Ask people where they want to see advertisements. >Go to these sites and spray-paint your http address. If people complain >that you are "harassing" them, ask them why a whopping eighteen letters >written on the wall is harassment. Tell them it's not *your* fault, >that you're just doing what other people told you to. Explain how many >trees you are saving by using spray-paint instead of paper. > >When the police handcuff you and take you away, complain that they are >censoring you. Tell the judge that you want to sue the cops for violating >your civil rights. While you're in jail, think about why what you did >was wrong. > <>________________Lowest_Priced_Long_Distance__________________<> ||Long Distance 9.9¢/min |Helping hardworking people || ||9.9¢ Anytime, Anywhere in US! |like yourself pay the || ||Free sign-up, 6 second billing |lowest possible price for || ||http://www.superhot.com/phone |high quality LD service. || <>-----------------------1_303_692_5190------------------------<>

1 0

NewsBytes ****Singapore - Leased Line Customers Bypass Censorship
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

****Singapore - Leased Line Customers Bypass Censorship By Martyn Williams. Individual users of the Internet in Singapore may not be able to access the latest online images from Playboy after next Monday, but those at major corporations and large companies will find no restrictions to their World Wide Web surfing. [Newsbytes, (I just have the header, not the full article; sorry.) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # You can get PGP software outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto

1 0

Re: Child porn as thoughtcrime
by Chuck Thompson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well Andrew, pornography is meant to lead to arousal, which can lead to aggression, which may lead to abuse. It's a fairly common path according to what I've read on deviancy. Following is one association's opinion, but don't stop there, read for yourself what some of the deviants themselves have to say: <http://www.casti.com/NMV/html/nmv19.html> An excerpt from the American Pyschiatric Association <http://vanbc.wimsey.com/~igregson/philias.html At 01:59 PM 9/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >> The argument is not dependent upon whether or not actual >> children are used, any more than whether or not an actual gun >> is used in a robbery - the net effect is the same. Children >> are harmed by the promotion of child porn because it leads to >> the abuse/exploitation of kids. > >I don't believe you. Prove that drawings of children having sex leads to >the abuse/explaitation of kids. Provide some evidence... > > >andrew > Regards, Chuck Thompson

1 0

RE: Child Porn as Thoughtcrime
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Chuck Thompson , a True Believer, inquired: > >What in the devil are you trying to say? Maybe I'm one of those stupid >citizen units. I just don't get it - I'd like to, but I don't. How about >rephrasing your comments so that us average citizen units can understand >your wisdom. >........................................................... > > >Well then I'll spell it out for you: > >. I actually said that it is "a government" which will posture as >sympathetic towards the whiningH^H^H^H^H^Hconcerns of citizens. > >. Political candidates very well know that citizens (voters) are looking for >someone to save them from what ails them. Therefore many candidates will >make the right statements about upholding similar values. They start making >sounds like they are going to "do something about it" (about whatever the >latest issue is). And their supporters will like these sounds. Reagan >made a quote about this sometime, something like: "They may not hear the >lyrics, but they hear the music." The voters feel good because they expect >that their discomfort will be taken care of. Therefore they vote for the >candidate most positive towards their needs. The candidate is elected to >the office for which they are running and thereby achieve their goal. > >. The more that voters seek the attention of government assistance for their >myriad problems, the more that the sphere of government involvement in the >details of everyone's daily lives enlarges. This enlargement of the >government sphere of involvement, as encouraged by citizens, expands as >people find more things to complain about. The more personal control over >their problems which they abdicate to the government, the more control it >accrues. > >. Of course a government does not want to appear to be in totalitarian >control. Many citizens do want *someone* to be in control, however. They >want a benevolent overseer to be in control. As the scope of benevolent >services, as controlled by government, spreads out across the land, many >people are happy that someone is in control. > >. Some people are so happy about benevolent government control that they >want it extended towards things like their own moral preferences. Any time >that they see the evidence of anything contrary to their own moral >preferences, they want these visible signs of contrariness removed. Moral >preferences and how they relate to national circumstances are a tricky >subject for governors and legislators. But if it makes the citizens happy >and keeps the governors in office, they are willing to oblige in removing >these offenses by pursuing the "offenders". > > . Reducing the expressions of these offenders helps the governors, because >it enhances their position of control. It helps to legitimize their >activities and again enlarges their arena, their domain, of command. They >can become quite meticulous in determining what may or may not be expressed >or said which might be offensive to someone - in particular, to themselves >(because it may weaken their image of being benevolent and "in command" of >the situation). > >. At that point, anyone who can think in the abstract will be able to see >that, as expression derives from thought, that what is wrong therefore with >all of the "offenders" is their thoughts. That is why TC May called this >kind of offense the equivalent of "thought crime". There is a book about >"thought crimes" against the State which you may have heard about, though you >may not have read. > >. Thought and its relationship to the State is a deep and complex >philosophical subject. There are many posts in the cpunk archives which can >provide you with insights into the anarcho-capitalist libertarian position. > >. If you need any more details on "thought criminality", maybe Tim can >answer them for you, as he's the one who brought up the subject. I was >merely agreeing with him. <g> > > .. >Blanc > >

1 0

Re: China joins Singapore, Germany, ....
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:43 PM 9/10/96 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >I respectfully disagree. I spend most of my time going through sites like >cnn.com, hotwired.com, news.com, altavista.digital.com, yahoo.com, >lycos.com, hotbot.com, eff.org, well.com, mit.edu, whitehouse.gov, and so >on. Search engines and directories, in particular, are good chokepoints to >block. > >Blocking 100 sites would certainly be significant to me -- as long as >they're the right ones. Before the technical fixes, that is. But aren't you, the Nazis, Lee Kwan Yew, and the Heathen Chinee all committing the "Web Fallacy" -- the belief that the Web = The Net? Have you seen *any* examples of mailing list censorship? Even the mild newsgroup censorship attempts are easily dodged by picking up your news from a distant server (which is not a *technological* fix but an ordinary part of reading news since many ISPs don't carry all 30K of groups in any case). If almost all sites are ignored, if news is available from thousands of servers, and if mailing lists, IRC, telnet, ftp, gopher, etc are ignored; can we say that there is much actual net censorship going on? DCF "The Net -- where any 12 year old can defeat the governments of the world with 15 minutes work."

1 0

na673130@anon.penet.fi gone [Anonymous service rejected your mail.] (fwd)
by Andy Dustman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Looks like Spambo either deleted his id or Julf pulled the plug on him. Andy Dustman / Computational Center for Molecular Structure and Design / UGA ===== For PGP public key: finger andy(a)neptune.chem.uga.edu | pgp -fka ===== Sure, the Telecomm Act will create jobs: 100,000 new thought-cops on the net http://charon.chem.uga.edu/~andy mailto:andy@CCMSD.chem.uga.edu <}+++< - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 96 04:36:13 +0300 From: daemon(a)anon.penet.fi To: andy(a)ccmsd.chem.uga.edu Subject: Anonymous service rejected your mail. You, andy(a)ccmsd.chem.uga.edu, have requested mail forwarding to na673130. This was rejected, as the user is unknown. Either the id has never been allocated, or the id has been removed at the request of the user. Contents of message follows: [deleted] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMjdsIy0jMb7JduJJAQHl1AQAoLN85rIEqLBSKm/0dVjj7eD/aDh6lpKX B75xki8v20+LFku9ddXy1rb8KEKqnMVy/WSGlB18gNvqFJTbw4obzB4/M+df3JPy 893mVkaJd24d+OZWYwTx1Nc19VIho9WXSC/8ohJhVN+R44R4+yWjHzupCAMxGfiY wWzgMqQXlwI= =7KZS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Jury Nullification = Voting One's Conscience
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:18 PM 9/11/96, Brian Davis wrote: >On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, jonathon wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, Gary Howland wrote: >> >> > > But the public *is* asked to assent to those methods - your chance >>to vote >> > > on them is known colloquially as "jury duty". >> >> But judges have said that Jury Nullification is not acceptable >> legal practice. > >And other judges have said the opposite. And I don't think there has _ever_ been a case of a juror prosecuted/jailed for voting his or her conscience, regardless of jury instructions. Short of explicitly selling one's vote, or discussing the case during deliberations with outsiders (and probably not even then), one is essentially free to vote one's conscience (however foolishly, as the O.J. case showed). And the principle is a good one: jurors should not have to fear prosecution for voting their consciences, regardless of technical details imposed by a judge. And, of course, jurors are not required to give a court their "reasons" for voting as they do. Though I often condemn aspects of the American political and legal system, it is true that an awful lot of things are done right. --Tim May, who served _once_ on a jury (for a speeding case) in 1973, who was called once since then, but not actually called for a jury. (I vote every election, I am duly registered with the DMV, so I wonder why I have only served once in 24+ years of eligibility.) We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: Hacking Mobil Telephone System ?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:13 PM 9/11/96 -6, Peter Trei wrote: > >The differences between US and European nomenclature can be subtle, yet >important. Quick - which is likely to have had warmer weather: 1/8/96, or >8/1/96? Sorry to add more complication, but "northern or southern latitude?" Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Nonsense, absolute nonsense... [Fwd: HipCrime and Spam]
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sirs: I must agree that having a website invites unsolicited e-mail, if only to comment that people have seen the site. I send unsolicited e-mail to website owners as part of my marketing plan. On Or About: 11 Sep 96 at 21:34, Andy Dustman wrote: > You're sending out messages, inviting people to visit your web site, but > you're using anonymous remailers because... you don't want people to know > who you are? Then why invite them to your site (or even have a site)? That's what makes it smell fishy. When I send unsolicited e-mail I give up the whole deal: phone number and all. If someone complains, I make great effort to never contact that person again. Either you want people to know who you are or you don't. > Which is precisely what you're doing: Sending someone e-mail > costs them time and it often costs them money. As I said having a website invites comments. It's like being a public figure. In effect you are publishing your e-mail address. > 4) It's giving us a bad > rap, man, and that's the *last* thing the remailer net needs now. > The remailers of the world don't exist > to provide non-anonymous anonymous advertising, which you could do just as > well on your own sending forged e-mail headers from netcom. Just like all the seedy low life multi-level-marketing jerks! No need to use a remailer for that. Just 2 cents worth. Ross =========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0

[Fwd: Nonsense, absolute nonsense... [Fwd: HipCrime and Spam]]
by HipCrime 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing. -- Hellen Keller To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Nonsense, absolute nonsense... [Fwd: HipCrime and Spam] From: Admin <admin(a)superhot.com> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 15:20:35 -0600 Cc: remailer-operators(a)c2.org Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >This is an absurd and inaccurate analogy. The mailBot simply pushes >*mailto:* tags that people have willingly placed on their public websites. >They invite the mail so a more accurate analogy would be that City Hall puts >up a public suggestion box and invites comments. The bot then puts one, and >only one, unsigned anonymous suggestion into the box. It then goes on to the >Art Gallery where they too have put up a public suggestion box, and the bot >places one, and only one, anonymous suggestion in that box also...and it >moves on to the next publicly accessable suggestion box that it finds, each >time putting in one, and only one, message. > >Can the College-aged mind these days not develop a rational, concise, >accurate and logical analogy that stays on point? > >Think about it... or take down the public suggestion boxes if one doesn't >like what one finds inside. If you invite feedback...it will come. > >admin > > >There is >> >>HipCrime <na673130(a)anon.penet.fi> wrote: >>> Be honest, all you really care about is something which >>> "threatens the existence" your little baby. >> >>I think you were referring to yourself, Robert. :) >> >> >>Since you don't seem to understand the concept of spam very well yet, >>try this little experiment: >> >>Go downtown to City Hall and post advertisements for your website on >>all the walls and doors. Be sure to put one on the Mayor's office and >>all the members of the City Council. If they complain, explain to them >>why they are weak-minded souls who can't remove unwanted messages. >> >>Go to the local art gallery and post your signs all over. Tell people >>that since your web site is an "art project", that you are posting EXACTLY >>on topic, to an "appropriate group". Ask, "So, what's your problem ?!?" >> >>Pass out survey forms. Ask people where they want to see advertisements. >>Go to these sites and spray-paint your http address. If people complain >>that you are "harassing" them, ask them why a whopping eighteen letters >>written on the wall is harassment. Tell them it's not *your* fault, >>that you're just doing what other people told you to. Explain how many >>trees you are saving by using spray-paint instead of paper. >> >>When the police handcuff you and take you away, complain that they are >>censoring you. Tell the judge that you want to sue the cops for violating >>your civil rights. While you're in jail, think about why what you did >>was wrong. <>________________Lowest_Priced_Long_Distance__________________<> ||Long Distance 9.9¢/min |Helping hardworking people || ||9.9¢ Anytime, Anywhere in US! |like yourself pay the || ||Free sign-up, 6 second billing |lowest possible price for || ||http://www.superhot.com/phone |high quality LD service. || <>-----------------------1_303_692_5190------------------------<>

1 0

What is best policy paper on crypto?
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I happen to know that an influential Congresspern will be meeting with some Cato folks tomorrow morning, so I'm assuming this isn't an idle request. -Declan // declan(a)eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan(a)well.com // ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 16:46:09 -0400 From: Solveig Bernstein <sberns(a)cato.org> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: What is best policy paper on crypto? If you folks were to pick one policy paper or book or magazine article that did the best job of explaining why export controls on crypto were bad, and/or why key escrow is not a good idea, which one would you pick? I'm looking for something that would be helpful to a Congressperson. Please feel free to e-mail suggestions to me privately so as not to clutter up the list. ********************************************************************** Solveig Bernstein, Esq. (202) 789-5274 (202) 842-3490 (fax) Assistant Director of Telecommunications & Technology Studies Cato Institute 1000 Mass. Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001

2 1

That Evil Internet, Pt. XXIII
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Caught an interesting segment on this evening's PBS news program with Jim Lehrer. Two senators were discussing whether the U.S. should sign the international agreement banning chemical warfare. Sen. Kyl maintains that verification is impossible and that Iraq, Libya, and North Korea will never participate. Sen. Nunn responds that we should sign anyway. Besides, he adds in the non sequitur of the week, anyone can get instructions on how to build chemical weapons on the Internet. I guess the Internet isn't just for pornography and conventional bomb-making advice anymore. Dave Rose

4 3

Re: Hacking Mobil Telephone System ?
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 11 Sep 1996 18:56:10 -0400 (EDT), Mark O. Aldrich wrote: >After having traveled in Europe, I was certainly familiar with the >difference in the notation. You also think, however, that I would have >paid more attention to what the hell I was reading before I shot off my >mouth (via my keyboard), but I didn't. I think this is called a "brain >fart" (note to our European brothers and sisters - over there, I think you >call it a "mental fugue" or "Parliamentary election," I'm nor sure which). I've always wondered if the makers of mailer software couldn't include a delay option, so that, say, a message might be held for 10 minutes and then sent. Imagine how many of the "Sorry about x; I meant y" posts we'd never see. # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # cadams(a)acucobol.com | V.M. (619)515-4894 "I have never been able to figure out why anyone would want to play games on a computer in any case when the whole system is a game. Word processing, spreadsheets, telecoms -- it's all a game. And they pay you to play it." -- Duncan Frissell

1 0

Re: (Fnord) Edupage, 10 September 1996
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- >************************************************************ >Edupage, 10 September 1996. Edupage, a summary of news about information >technology, is provided three times a week as a service by Educom, >a Washington, D.C.-based consortium of leading colleges and universities >seeking to transform education through the use of information technology. >************************************************************ > >TOP STORIES > Wired World Will "Diminish National Sovereignty" >[..] >WIRED WORLD WILL "DIMINISH NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY" >A leading Clinton Administration official on information security and >cryptography matters says that traditional notions of sovereignty, national >security and warfare will be undermined by the year 2020, when the whole >world is "wired" and e-cash is the norm. 24 years from now? He thinks it'll take that long?!? 24 years _ago_ the 4004 microprocessor barely existed. And if anything, change is accelerating very rapidly. >The result will be less powerful >governments in relation to criminal organizations such as the Mafia and >international drug cartels, Organizations which exist only because of the existence of government... >says Michael Nelson, who adds that organized >crime members are already some of the most sophisticated users of computer >systems and strong encryption technology. In addition, computer crackers >will pose a more significant threat. In response, Nelson advocates >resolving the issue of whether unauthorized access of a computer is an "act >of trespass" or an "act of war," and prosecuting the intrusions accordingly. >(BNA Daily Report for Executives 6 Sep 96 A14) I'd sure like to be able to corner this guy and point out that there are people who believe that _regulating_ the Internet should either be considered an "act of trespass" or an "act of war." And does he want to be punished, or merely stopped? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Bay Area Cypherpunks Meeting Saturday 9/14, 12-6PDT, Stanford
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The monthly Bay Area Cypherpunks Meeting will be held Saturday, September 14th, at the picnic tables outside Tressider Hall at Stanford University. Lunch and general hanging out begin at 12:00, Program begins at 1:00. The coffee shop at Tressider will be open, though the main cafeteria won't be. Some items on the agenda include John Gilmore's SWAN project, Encrypting 5% of the net by Christmas Highlights of Crypto '96 meeting in Santa Barbara Bagels and bagel paraphrenalia The remailer crisis - anon.penet.fi, creative new spammer attacks Censorship Firewalls for SG, CN, DE, etc. - designing workarounds The Bernstein Lawsuit - court date is Friday Sept. 20 Bring show&tell items. You can find a map of the Stanford campus on the web at http://www.stanford.edu/home/visitors/campus-map.html To confuse Stanford alumni, the map has been realigned with the North end up, so visitors can use it. From Campus Drive East, turn North on Mayfield Ave, turn right on Lagunita Dr, and park in the lot. Walk north to Tressider, and the tables are on the west=left side. Look for the crowd of drug smugglers, money launderers, and Suspicious Persons. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # You can get PGP software outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto

1 0

10 minute delay considered inconsequential
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:15 AM 9/12/96, Adamsc wrote: >I've always wondered if the makers of mailer software couldn't include a delay >option, so that, say, a message might be held for 10 minutes and then sent. >Imagine how many of the "Sorry about x; I meant y" posts we'd never see. I expect there would be little effect. I suspect most of us write articles, send them out, and only notice the mistakes, typos, whatever when they are pointed out. (Very few people reread their posts prior to seeing them on the list an hour or two later, is my strong hunch. A delay of 10 minutes would not inspire many to read and reread their posts...most likely they'd just move on to other articles, other posts, and the 10 minute delay would be utterly inconsequential.) --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

RE: robert and hipcirme web sight
by !.!..............................# 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>It's obvious that this guy's true passion is fractals and raytracing. >He threw in some bomb-making stuff, but he scanned it out of a book and >probably never tried it. Compared to the rest of the site, it looks like >an afterthought. Someone who was really interested in chemistry would >have taken the time to retype the info and add their own comments. He >had a reason to have some "anarchist" info on there but he's not really >interested in it. So basically this guy is a mathematician/artist trying >to pretend he's an anarchist. If his true passion is fractals and raytracing, then why would he expend energy things other than fractals and raytracing. He may be an anarchict but wish to invest his time in fractals and raytracing rather than in explaining anarchy. >Same goes for the remailers. He claims he likes remailers and anonymity, >but he's lying. Anyone who really liked remailers/anonymity/privacy would >have pages and pages about how to use remailers, and why privacy is a good >thing. He has a reason he needs to be anonymous, but it's not because >he supports privacy. He publishes a PGP key, because he wants to pretend >he's an anarchist, and Louis Freeh told him that all evil terrorist >organizations use PGP. But he doesn't like PGP, he doesn't advocate PGP, >and he doesn't tell you where to get PGP. If his true passion were re-mailers and anonymity then he would spend pages and pages writing about them rather than just admitting to supporting them. .00010000.

1 0

Re: Erasing Disks
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was asked of an outline of Peter Gutmann's paper, "Secure Deletion of Data from Magnetic and Solid-State Memory" in The Sixth USENIX Security Symposium Proceedings in private mail. Since I think the question is of general interest I am posting the answer and Bccing the original questioner. The paper starts with the comment that most secure data destruction guides are classified. There is the suspicion that the unclassified ones do not cover the newer recording materials and techniques, and will not protect you against government attackers. The analysis techniques for disks examined were Magnetic Force Microscopy (MFM) and its close cousin, Magnetic Force Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (STM). "It is possible to build a reasonably capable SPM for about US$1400, using a PC as a controller." (See http://www.skypoint.com/~members/jrice/STMWebPage.html) This cost is conceivably within the range of a high school student. Peter discusses the way that data can be recovered from under new data (due to the difference in the magnetic domains depending on whether the bits were the same or different), and beside new data due to positioning errors of the head. When trying to develop a secure erasure technique, you need to know the encoding technique used on the disk. (e.g. FM, MFM, RLL, PRML etc.) He recommends a 35 pass erasure scheme as follows: 1-4 Random 5 0x55 6 0xAA 7 0x924924 8 0x492492 9 0x249249 10 0x00 11 0x11 12 0x22 13 0x33 14 0x44 15 0x55 16 0x66 17 0x77 18 0x88 19 0x99 20 0xAA 21 0xBB 22 0xCC 23 0xDD 24 0xEE 25 0xFF 26 0x924924 27 0x492492 28 0x249249 29 0x6DB6DB 30 0xB6DB6D 31 0xDB6DB6 32-35 Random He recommends using cryptographically random numbers and randomly permuting the deterministic passes to further confuse attackers. He warns about disabling any disk caches which may be present, and discusses the problems of erasing data on now-bad sectors. He points out that data which has been left for a long time is harder to erase than recently written data. He mentions that the most powerful commercially available deguassers aren't powerful enough to erase modern disks or DAT tapes. (N.B. Deguassing a disk will also erase the factory-written control tracks, making the disk useless.) He notes that ECC may make destruction of data more difficult. He recommends burning floppy disks. He also discusses recovering data from DRAM and SRAM devices. He mentions that data which has been stored in DRAM for 10 minutes will be detectable after power is removed. He recommends that sensitive data (such as crypto keys) have their bits flipped every second or so. This technique has the beneficial side effect that the page remains recently used and is less likely to be paged out.\ I quote from his conclusion, "Data overwritten once or twice may be recovered by subtracting what is expected to be read from a storage location from what is actually read. Data which is overwritten an arbitrarily large number of times can still be recovered provided that the new data isn't written to the same location as the original data (for magnetic media), or that the recovery attempt is carried out fairly soon after the new data was written (for RAM). For this reason it is effectively impossible to sanitize storage locations by simple overwriting them, no matter how many overwrite passes are made or what data patterns are written. However by using the relatively simple methods presented in this paper the task of an attacker can be made significantly more difficult, if no prohibitively expensive." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | "Lone Star" - My personal | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | choice for best movie of | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | 1996 | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

An old _Discover_ article explaining RSA
by scrappo.reverb＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I had found this article in an issue of Discover I've had for a few years. It is a comic strip-type article by Larry Gonick article explaining, in Layman's terms, the very basics of RSA. This article was printed in the April 1992 issue of Discover magazine (some liberties taken regarding pictures, etc.). Box1:Prime Time featuring SEYMOUR Cloak-and-Dagger Mathematician! (sh!) Box2:PRIME NUMBERS-numbers that can't be broken into a product of smaller factors- have always been one of the most amusing and USELESS topics in mathematics. Box3:Then why are Banks, Businesses, Mathematicians, and Government SPY AGENCIES fighting over prime numbers? (STOP RIGHT THERE!) Box4:It has to do with CRYPTOGRAPHY-secret codes. (The patriotic thing to do would be NOT to read one more word!) Box5:In the computer age, cryptography is MATHEMATICAL: Inside the computer, every MESSAGE is a string of ONES and ZEROES: a number, in other words. (PLEASE!!!) Box6:ENCRYPTING a message means scrambling this number, using a reversible formula based on a secret number or numbers called the KEY. message-->key-->cyphertext DECRYPTING the cyphertext is done by applying the key in reverse. Box7:It would seem that both the sender and receiver need to know- and conceal-the key, but in the 1970's, WHITFIELD DIFFIE and MARTIN HELLMAN showed a way to MAKE KEYS PUBLIC! (Hippy-Diffie!) Box8:Knowing how to SCRAMBLE, said Diffie, is not the same as knowing how to UNSCRAMBLE. Consider the egg!!! Box9:Suppose a code had TWO KEYS, a scrambler and an UNSCRAMBLER... and suppose it was IMPOSSIBLE to compute one key from the other-in the sense that no computer could do it in less than the lifetime of the UNIVERSE??? (crank crank crank) Box10:You'd have an UNBREAKABLE CODE! (Wait... Almost got it...) Box11:It works like this: Everyone owns a unique pair of keys. One remains private. But the other, public key is listed in a directory. To send me a message, you look up my public key and use it to scramble the message. My private key is the only way to unlock the message. Result:total secrecy and privacy!! Box12:Diffie's idea soon became a reality, as three guys at M.I.T. created a public-key algorithm known as RSA, from their initials. (picture)Rivest (picture)Shamir (picture)Adleman Box13:RSA's unbreakability depends on the "impossibility" of FACTORING large numbers. (15? that's 3 x 5! Easy!) (3,447,981,101,346,271,113,552,476,003,201, 119,181,244,551,900,123,549,822,344,722,436,001? um..) Box14:It's not hard to find two large PRIME NUMBERS P and Q. But if I hand you their PRODUCT, PQ, your supercomputer will never find P and Q again. (SOB!) Box15:Under RSA, each user gets a 160 digit number, N, which is the product of two large primes, P and Q. Box16:The number N is made public, while P and Q remain secret. A simple formula completes the encryption, which can't be cracked without FACTORING! (ngh) Box17:The National Security Agency didn't like this! The spy bureau wants the ability to crack any code! (Your assignment Seymour: FACTOR FASTER!!) Box18:But spies aren't the only ones who need cryptography! Anyone who transmits ELECTRONIC DATA wants to secure the information's integrity. (Why? What? This is an OPEN SOCIETY!) Box19:Unbreakable public-key code would effectively Protect money transfers from tampering Shield sensitive business data from the competition Immunize software against viruses (Allow us to gossip securely by E-Mail!) Box20:So-After years of resisting Public-Key systems, the government in 1991 finally endorsed one as a new NATIONAL STANDARD. (I WAS WRONG! EMBRACE ME!) Box21:Unlike RSA, however, the government's DSA (Digital Signature Algorithm) depends on a single, government-issue PRIME NUMBER. (Take a P! Not any P!) Box22:Within months, mathematicians had shown how this could give the government, and the government alone, the ability to BREAK the code-and so the argument continues... (Trust, Where is the trust??)

1 0

jury nullification/selection
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry if I was too terse earlier. I hadn't intended to start a big FIJA dustup. I think that government sleaziness is not only useful in a true nullification argument ("he's guilty but you should acquit anyway") but where it reflects on the credibility of testimony and the prosecution's case in general. It's easy to imagine a prosecution which rests on the testimony of people who lie every day (criminally involved informants, jailhouse informants, and undercover cops) and/or real evidence which was gained through the use of subterfuge and trickery (like wiretap/body wire evidence). The idea is to make the government look sleazier and trickier than the defendant(s) and the defense witnesses. If the government's evidence ends up being tainted directly or indirectly by lying, trickery, etc., then the defense can argue "Hey. You can't trust anyone who got up on that stand and talked to you. And if you don't know who to trust and you think everyone's lying, the government's got no case. And if they've got no case, the judge will tell you that you must acquit." So I think that public distaste and discomfort with weirder and sleazier tactics on the part of cops can be (and is) discussed and used and "voted on". "Not guilty" doesn't necessarily mean "innocent", sometimes it means "The prosecution didn't have enough evidence I thought I could trust." And yes, I agree that even mentioning nullification during voir dire will probably get you kicked off of a jury; and I think that's partly because one party or the other will be scared of nullification, and partly because the term "jury nullification" makes people think of FIJA and associated loons. Nobody wants a loon on the jury. (I don't think everyone who argues for nullification is a loon, but some of them sure are - and there's no good way to figure out whether someone's a loon or not in the middle of jury selection.) And I also agree that the jury selection process tends to select away from a true cross-section of society; but the few easily available examples (big trials like OJ or the Menendez Bros. or Wm. Kennedy Smith or whoever) are poor examples because they're not typical. Trials where lots is at stake (death penalty or celebrity defendant or big $ civil trials) tend to have longer processes (which weed out everyone who isn't incredibly boring) but it's not at all uncommon to pick a jury in a morning or in a day or two. In federal court, the judge usually questions the jury instead of the attorneys (which is faster), and may or may not ask questions that the attorneys have suggested. Also, sometimes one side or the other will *want* especially analytical or technical or well-trained jurors. Attorneys want to pick a jury they can persuade, but they also want to pick a jury that can understand their theory of the case. So I guess my point is that while the jury system isn't perfect, it is in some ways a much more direct way to "vote" on how things work in the judicial and law enforcement systems. I think it's more immediately and directly democratic than the electoral system. All of the legal bullshit aside, it's possible to think about trials as a way for people who have some sort of problem (they've been injured or accused of a crime or whatever) to tell a group of uninvolved people about the problem and ask them what the right thing to do is. Yeah, that's really oversimplified, but I think that what juries do is important and that what they do has a political and a moral dimension even if attorneys aren't supposed to talk about it during argument. -- Greg Broiles | "We pretend to be their friends, gbroiles(a)netbox.com | but they fuck with our heads." http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | |

2 1

Re: Child porn as thoughtcrime
by amnesia＠chardos.connix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Chuck Thompson writes: > > Well Andrew, pornography is meant to lead to arousal, which can lead to > aggression, which may lead to abuse. It's a fairly common path according to > what I've read on deviancy. Going into a bank can lead to casing out the joint, which may lead to a heist. Should this make the posession of pictures of banks illegal? I don't think that anyone here is advocating kiddie porn. The problem that TCM pointed out is that in fighting kiddie porn, legislators have started banning _thoughts_ that _could_ lead to child abuse. This is one great leap forward into the police state. > Following is one association's opinion, but > don't stop there, read for yourself what some of the deviants themselves > have to say: You're seeing the trees and missing the forest. It could be any activity, say the abuse of animals, that winds up being used as a wedge to create the police state. If the government started tatooing red 'P's on the foreheads of convicted pedophiles, would anyone notice the irony? Bobo

1 0

New type2.list/pubring.mix
by John Perry 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just updated the type2.list/pubring.mix combination on jpunix.com to reflect the disappearance of the ncognito remailer. I've been getting nothing but bounces and the owner doesn't seem to be around to fix it. The updated lists can be obtained by WWW from www.jpunix.com and by anonymous FTP from ftp.jpunix.com. -- John Perry KG5RG perry(a)alpha.jpunix.com PGP-encrypted e-mail welcome! WWW - http://www.jpunix.com PGP 2.62 key for perry(a)jpunix.com is on the keyservers.

1 0