December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Eureka! Sun Jan 18 '98
by eureka＠eureka.abc-web.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Welcome to Sunday's issue of Eureka! INTERTAIN ONLINE One of the longest-established adult sites on the web, Int- ertain Online has grown and grown to feature more smut than you could probably view in a lifetime. It is simply packed with 10s of thousands of photographs, AVI and MOV movies, loads of live video feeds, stories and so much more. Plus you get to try it totally FREE for a whole week. Go and see! IOL ...... http://www.intertain-inc.com/?banner_id=BID037000 PLEASE VISIT THIS FINE EUREKA! PARTNER SITE A Planet Erotic - Hardcore XXX Entertainment http://www.planeterotic.com Over 800 FREE Channels Of Live Sex Shows, Live Teen Strip Shows And Video Porno Feeds. 60,000+ Hard & Softcore Pics (10,000 NEW Pics a WEEK!). 100's of Erotic Stories, SeXXX Chat, Casino, and much more! FREE TEEN SEX Quick and dirty, just the way you like it. They only have 11 free pictures but these are some good looking young ladies! Pussy spread brunettes, shaved pussy blondes. Click the link. ........... http://209.136.127.65/freepics/teensex.htm ADOL-ES-SCENTS Score! Talk about some young pussy! This website is loaded. There are blondes, brunettes and redheads. In all sorts of poses including bent over, spread eagle and flashing their tits. this images are not huge but they load pretty fast. Adoles ........ http://www.jimsplace.com/jat/teen2/index.htm TEENPARTY I guess it's a party, with 36 lovely young ladies baring it all for you to see. Tight and trim women showing it all. There are shower scenes and pictures from out in public places and some great bedroom scenes. Dig the pic28, in the mirror! ............ http://www.teenparty.inter.net/main.htm EASYTEENS This is a well built website. The images are easy to get at. Text links list blow jobs, group sex, young teens, asian, teens, hardcore sex, nice breasts, lesbians, shaved pussy and more! From those choices you go to thumbnailed images. Pretty cool! ..................... http://www.easyteens.com/ FREE STREAMING VIDEO Please note that most of these feeds require a Netscape bro- wser in order to successfully view them. Unfortunately Micr- osoft's browser does not have all the features of Netscape's yet. However, many of the feeds use the RealPlayer and will work in most browsers. If you do not have Netscape and want a free copy click here ... http://www.netscape.com/download/ Anal ........................... http://204.244.215.7/anal2/ CHAT WITH OTHER READERS This chat is growing fast, and already there are a number of regulars you will meet most days. It's good to see Eureka! readers interacting with each other and having a great time! Adult/Sex Chat .................. http://137.39.63.229/chat/ General/Fun Chat ........ http://137.39.63.229/chat/funchat/ THE BEST PHONE SEX NEW!!!! LD Call only! - Live Hot Girls!!!!....1-664-410-3912 LIVE: 1-on-1, 2-on-1, Group, Dateline.........1-800-644-8779 FREE: Live 1-on-1 (international call only)....011-678-77416 AMATEUR SITE OF THE DAY ELLEN: With over 40 FREE pictures, this young lady is on course to become a huge Internet hit! Her biography states that her passion is giving blow jobs. Which leaves us one question. Where do we sign up? Visit this chic and see how crazy she is first hand. ............................ http://amateurindex.com/eureka/ EROTIC STORY SITE OF THE DAY T-Bone's Sex Club: T-Bone gives you a new selection of erotic stories illustrated with nasty hardcore pics! Last week was Slut Wife week... what will it be this week? Visit T-Bone and find out! ............... http://www.rawsexx.com/ DAILY CARTOON ........... http://www.erosinorbit.com/eureka/ ADULT STAR PIC OF THE DAY Every day we bring you an exclusive choice pic of a famous adult porn star. And we must tell you - these pix are abso- luletly brilliant! .... http://www.xxxadultstars.com/eureka/ GAYEUREKA! The gay newsletter is now available. You can get it here! Gay Eureka! ........... http://eureka.abc-web.com/gayeureka/ EUREKA! TRANSLATIONS As well as English you can now choose any of these languages DEUTSCH ....... http://eureka.abc-web.com/eureka/deutsch.htm ESPAÑOL ....... http://eureka.abc-web.com/eureka/espanol.htm FRANÇAIS ..... http://eureka.abc-web.com/eureka/francais.htm ITALIANO ..... http://eureka.abc-web.com/eureka/italiano.htm PORTUGUESE . http://eureka.abc-web.com/eureka/portuguese.htm TODAY'S FREE PIX Pic 1 ........................... http://137.39.63.229/?180 Pic 2 ........................... http://137.39.63.229/?181 Pic 3 ........................... http://137.39.63.229/?182 Pic 4 ........................... http://137.39.63.229/?183 Pic 5 ........................... http://137.39.63.229/?184 Pic 6 ........................... http://137.39.63.229/?185 Pic 7 ........................... http://137.39.63.229/?186 Pic 8 ........................... http://137.39.63.229/?187 Pic 9 ........................... http://137.39.63.229/?188 Pic 10 ........................... http://137.39.63.229/?189 ============================================================ TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS NEWSLETTER, USE THE REPLY FUNCTION IN YOUR EMAIL PROGRAM, AND SEND THIS EMAIL RIGHT BACK TO US. ============================================================

1 0

Re: Nanotechnology
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> 1 coulomb/second = 6.24 x 10^18 atoms/sec. Assuming an atomic spacing > of roughly 10^-10 meters, at that rate it'd take you about 18.5 days to > construct one side of the cube with a thickness of 1mm, or almost four > months to build another cube. I'd guesstimate another 4 months to build > the electronics for it. And then you'd need some way to assemble the > pieces. ok, but how do you build a 10-cm cube inside of a 10-cm cube? :)

2 1

Re: Nanotechnology (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 21:22:59 +0100 (MET) > Subject: Re: Nanotechnology > From: nobody(a)REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) > > 1 coulomb/second = 6.24 x 10^18 atoms/sec. There are a couple of things incorrect with this. A Coulomb is 1N of e-/s, not atoms. N atoms is called a Mole. N, or Avagadro's Number, is 6.023E23 not 6.24E18 ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: how to release code if the programmer is a target for (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 12:12:08 -0800 > From: Jonathan Wienke <JonWienk(a)ix.netcom.com> > Subject: Re: how to release code if the programmer is a target for (fwd) > However, if Alice has had my key for 6 months, and has verified the > signatures on 100 of my Cypherpunks posts, and my signature on GunzenBombs > Pyro-Technologies latest checks out, she can be pretty confident that I > actually signed it. On the other hand, if she didn't already have it, and > got a fake key and document from Mallet, Alice would not be able to use the > fake key to verify the signatures on my prior Cypherpunks posts. This > ought to be a red-flagged clue that something is rotten in Denmark... That's all fine and dandy, however, we *are* talking about an eternity server architecture that delivers documents to an end user in a secure manner on demand with no mechanism, by design, to determine the original source. In this case there would by definition be *no* history to verify against. It is in fact this lack of history from the users perspective that causes the authenticity problem in the first place. Further, a point that seems to have been forgotten, we are talking about signed and not encrypted documents. Of course there are some similar problems if we do include the encryption of the data itself into the protocol. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________| ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

REPLY to Mitchells RESPONSE.
by bill payne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Saturday 1/17/98 3:37 PM John Young Attached is our REPLY to Mitchells RESPONSE. Morales will have it filed on Tuesday. Monday is MLK day. Morales will send a FILED stamped copy to you. Later bill UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO William H. Payne ) Arthur R. Morales ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v ) CIV NO 97 0266 ) SC/DJS ) Lieutenant General Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF ) Director, National Security Agency ) National Security Agency ) ) Defendant ) REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON EVIDENCE FROM ADMISSIONS 1 COMES NOW plaintiffs Payne [Payne] and Morales [Morales] [Plaintiffs], pro se litigants to exercise their rights guaranteed under the Constitution, Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Civil Rules to respond to Defendant's MOTION filed on 98 JAN-5 within the 14 days allowed by local rule 7.3(b)(4). 2 US Attorney Mitchell [Mitchell] writes, Counsel for Defendant was not served with copies of any of said Requests for Admissions until sometime after the individuals had been served.2 Mitchell WAS SERVED PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION TO NSA DIRECTOR KENNETH MINIHAN I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing request for admissions was mailed to Jan Elizabeth Mitchell, Assistant US Attorney, 525 Silver SW, ABQ, NM 87102 this Monday November 3, 1997. Michell was not served with any other admissions since Mitchell is not representing others. Plaintiffs' served Defendant Minihan properly. And Minihan failed to respond to Minihan's admissions within the time allotted by law. 3 US Attorney Mitchell writes, As grounds for the Motion and Memorandum, Defendant argued that Plaintiffs had blatantly disregarded this Court's Order pertaining to the conduct of discovery and the deadline for discovery in this Freedom of Information Act action. Judges Svet and Campos willfully violated Plaintiffs' right to Discovery. And thereby earned criminal complaint affidavits filed with judge Scalia of the Supreme Court. 4 US Attorney Mitchell writes, In Defendant's Motion and Memorandum, Counsel for Defendant also objected to Plaintiffs' sua sponte decision to modify the Court's June 11 Order to reflect the delay of the Court's October 7 Order and the establishment, without leave of this Court, of new deadlines for discovery, motions practice, and the filing of the PreTrial Order. (Motion and Memorandum 9, at 4.) Judge Svet and Campos attempt to deny Plaintiffs' right to Discovery, again, earned Svet and Campos criminal complaint affidavits. Plaintiffs exercise their right under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Constitution to conduct Discovery WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT! 5 US Attorney Mitchell writes, By their own request, Plaintiffs sought to stay a ruling on the Defendant's Motion and Memorandum. Absent any ruling on either the Motion and Memorandum or Plaintiffs' Response, Defendant Minihan, employees of NSA, and employees of Sandia National Laboratory, were not obligated to respond to the Requests for Admissions as provided by Fed.R.Civ.P. 36.3 For Plaintiffs to now assert in their "Motion for Summary Judgment On Based On Evidence From Admissions" that because the individuals have not responded to the Requests for Admissions they are deemed admitted, flies in the face of their own prayer to this Court to stay a ruling on the Defendant's Motion to strike the Requests for Admissions until the Supreme Court takes action. Plaintiffs' have REPEATEDLY asked judge Svet and Campos to disqualify themselves from any rulings on this case because Campos and Svet do NOT obey the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Replace judges Svet and Campos because these judges have demonstrated, IN WRITING, they do not follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs' pleas are directed a replacement judge[s]. Not Svet and Campos. Therefore, Svet and Campos' failure to remove themselves does not stop the legal process. Mitchell cites NO law to support her claim that time constraints imposed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 36.3 are inapplicable as a result of Svet's and Campos' failure to remove themselves. 6 US Attorney Mitchell writes, Defendant requests that this Court either rule upon Defendant's Motion and Memorandum granting the request to strike the Requests for Admissions, or grant Plaintiffs' request to stay this action pending the issuance of the order sought by Plaintiffs in another forum. Should this Court deny Defendant's Motion and Memorandum, Defendant respectfully requests that the individuals to whom Requests for Admissions are appropriate in this action be given the thirty days to respond to said admissions as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. REPLACEMENT JUDGES of the Court should realize the outcome of the lawsuit has attained international interest as a result of the 1 bungled NSA spy sting on Iran 2 US government agencies NSA, NIST, and the FBI's attempt to control cryptography. Mitchell's DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON EVIDENCE FROM ADMISSIONS was posted on Internet at jya.com, click cryptome nsasuit8.htm USA/NSA Responds to Payne/Morales Motion January 16, 1998 Importance of this posting is summed-up in the Toronto Sun, Jan. 11, 1998 US, Iran Need Each Other by Eric Margolis Iran launched a surprise charm offensive last week, throwing Washington into serious confusion. In a lengthy interview on CNN, Iran's new president, Mohammad Khatami, skillfully analyzed the bitter relations between the two nations and cautiously extended an olive branch to Washington, calling for an end to their 19-year cold war. Khatami's diplomatic ju-jitsu flummoxed the Clinton administration, which was busy trying to rally international support against Tehran - and to overthrow Iran's elected government. Both capitals are split over the question of relations. In Washington, the military establishment and conservative Republicans have inflated Iran into a bogeyman to justify military budgets and keep U.S. forces in the Mideast. ... America incited Iraq to invade Iran in 1980. They did this to crush the Islamic revolution, then provided massive war aid to Saddam Hussein. Half a million Iranians died. The US got caught involved in genocide. Using high tech. This is one subject of this lawsuit. Albuquerque Journal Tuesday 1/13/98 carried the editorial. Khatami Move Is Profile in Courage Richard Reeves Syndicated Columnist LOS ANGELES - If an American leader had done what Iranian President Mohammed Khatami did last Wednesday, it would have been hailed as a profile in courage. ... Miscalculation! We armed and pampered Saddam Hussein in the hope that Iraq would destroy Iran. Now that's policy and behavior to think about. Here is something to think about: If Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy had pursued any kind of sensible policy toward Cuba and Fidel Castro - opposed to the policy of trying to assassinate him - there never would have been a Cuban missile crisis. I think Iranians have financed and encouraged terrorism against the interests of the United States and Israel. I would not be surprised at all if something like proof emerges soon, perhaps anonymously, from the CIA and other government agencies, where many officials have built their careers on sanctioning and isolating Iran, to try to straighten the backbones of the president and people of the United States. If they succeed, America fails. What would be more effective in closing down Iranian terrorism? More hostility, sanctions and charges? Or beginning the process toward more normal relations with a country positioned and born to be great? ... Clearly genocide fits into Now that's policy and behavior to think about. The wired world is watching what this Court, hopefully minus judges Svet and Campos, will do. What is there to be? A series of possibly unfortunate events? Or does this Court order release the lawfully requested documents to help settle this American tragedy? WHEREFORE. 7 Have replacement judges of this Court DENY Mitchell's Plaintiffs requested a stay. Absent a ruling from this Court denying their request, they cannot proceed to assert that the Requests for Admissions are deemed admitted. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' "Motion For Summary Judgment On Based On Evidence From Admissions" must be denied. for reason that Mitchell's request to subvert both the Discovery processes and its time limits have no basis in law. And appears to plead to judges who do not obey the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 9 IMMEDIATELY ORDER Defendant to release the requested documents in the interest of national safety so that this matter can be settled. Aggrieved victims of US genocide are reading these pleadings. Respectfully submitted, _________________________ William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 _________________________ Arthur R. Morales 1024 Los Arboles NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 Pro se litigants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing memorandum was mailed to Lieutenant General Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF, Director, National Security Agency, National Security Agency, 9800 Savage Road, Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000 and hand delivered to John J. Kelly, US Attorney, 525 Silver SW, ABQ, NM 87102 this Tuesday January 20, 1997. 5

1 0

Re: how to release code if the programmer is a target for (fwd)
by Ryan Lackey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<daemon(a)ATHENA.MIT.EDU> (Jim Choate) writes: > > That's all fine and dandy, however, we *are* talking about an eternity server > architecture that delivers documents to an end user in a secure manner on > demand with no mechanism, by design, to determine the original source. In > this case there would by definition be *no* history to verify against. > > It is in fact this lack of history from the users perspective that causes > the authenticity problem in the first place. Further, a point that seems > to have been forgotten, we are talking about signed and not encrypted > documents. Of course there are some similar problems if we do include the > encryption of the data itself into the protocol. Eternity delivers data. It's up to the user to verify that the data is what they want, be it PGP signed by the pope, a working cryptosystem, or whatever. In this sense, it's no different than random email or whatever as an untrusted transport medium. The original question was how to verify the eternity server source code. I assume the following: * a potentially corrupted author (give rdl $100 000 and he'll probably make a minor modification which has no apparent mal effects, give him $100 000 000 and he'll be a hired gun). The author is optionally anonymous. * A community of publically-known cypherpunks and code-verifiers, not all of which are corrupted, but some of which may be. * A random user who has the public keys of at least (thresh) number of the cypherpunks, optionally the key of the author of the document/product before the system becomes questionable, perhaps by looking in the NY Times for 1 Jan 1999 which has a full page ad taken out by Cypherpunks Anonymous with the PGP public keys for the 100 leading cypherpunks. * The piece of code to be verified is bloody long, that is, longer than any one cypherpunk can afford to verify alone (shooting practice, installing the minefields and poison gas sprinkler system, etc. take lots of time) * The user can tell by visual inspection that a small compilation system does what they want it to do, and can understand basic logic enough to tell what signatures imply. Then: 1) The author releases the code into the network in an optionally anonymous way. There is no reason to trust the code -- even if it is signed with rdl's eternity dds signing key, no one has any reason to believe that it isn't an NSA front, since rdl is assumed to be corrupt, signing anything put in front of him (as long as sufficient money is put there too) 2) The user wants to run the code, because it's Just That Cool. 3) No one can verify the entire code. So, Cypherpunks begin signing small sections of the code with their own previously-established key. Their keys are established as their reputation is established on the list, or perhaps by personally meeting these people, in the traditional PGP web of trust scheme. There is no central Cypherpunks Registry, just a decentralized mesh. 4) The user executes the compilation script. This script looks at the pgp signatures, sees which ones it can verify from keys it already has accepted as valid by (3), and, if there are verified good keys from at least the minimum number of people in every critical section of the code, it is added to the compile-me-source-tree. If there are enough people for every critical section (the user defines all aspects of this), the source tree is set up for compilation, and compilation can proceed. The user knows that every piece of the code in the system has been verified to their standards -- even if the author of the code is an evil NSA sleeper agent, it has gotten by independent review by at least a user-defined-number of people per section. I fail to see how the specifics of Eternity are relevant -- it's just basically a PGP web of trust issue. The transport is irrelevant -- it's untrusted code until it's been verified by people the user trusts. Implementing a keyserver in Eternity has the same issues -- you still need to deal with the PGP web of trust issues. Signing my secret alias key with my own key as the only signature and uploading it to eternity would fail to provide privacy, just as it would if I posted it anonymously to the mailing list. One working system is the buildup of "reputation capital" by an identity using the key. Again, this is entirely irrelevant to the Eternity server -- verifying document authenticity is better handled at the client side. Eternity should be set up so as long as your ecash is good, your document is stored -- if I want to store my document under the name "disney's greatest hits" when it really contains necrophilic kiddie-porn and microsoft warez, that's my business. The client software for interacting with Eternity, however, might do well to have a good document authentication interface. And perhaps third-party authentication services could pop up, willing to sign documents that just meet gross criteria for valid indexing. You could then download the key for that service somehow, then use the service happily. The abstract issue has been beaten to death on cypherpunks many times. I just assert that Eternity is no different from "the Net", "the Web", "remailer networks", "Blacknet", etc. in issues of document verification and anonymous reputation capital. -- Ryan Lackey rdl(a)mit.edu http://mit.edu/rdl/

1 0

Re: how to release code if the programmer is a target for (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: how to release code if the programmer is a target for (fwd) > From: Ryan Lackey <rdl(a)mit.edu> > Date: 17 Jan 1998 19:07:10 -0500 > Eternity delivers data. It's up to the user to verify that the data is > what they want > The original question was how to verify the eternity server source code. How are these fundamently different? Assume for a moment that as a user of an eternity server the source is the data I want. > I assume the following: > * a potentially corrupted author (give rdl $100 000 and he'll probably > make a minor modification which has no apparent mal effects, give him > $100 000 000 and he'll be a hired gun). The author is optionally > anonymous. The point I am making is that whether the author is corrupt or not is irrelevant. > * A community of publically-known cypherpunks and code-verifiers, > not all of which are corrupted, but some of which may be. Ok. > * A random user who has the public keys of at least (thresh) number of the > cypherpunks, optionally the key of the author of the document/product before > the system becomes questionable, perhaps by looking in the NY Times > for 1 Jan 1999 which has a full page ad taken out by Cypherpunks Anonymous > with the PGP public keys for the 100 leading cypherpunks. Pretty expensive and rather unrealistic I suspect. Where does this random user come from? What is '(thresh)'? What good would an anonymous key signature provide? You can't verify it within the web of trust model, that would imply the author wasn't anonymous which takes us back to the 'friends' attack. How do we know that some number of these cypherpunks aren't turned? Are you proposing that the user test all 100 of the signatures? Which realisticaly is the only way to verify any given one of them. Not very many people will go to that extreme simply for grins and giggles. > * The piece of code to be verified is bloody long, that is, longer than > any one cypherpunk can afford to verify alone (shooting practice, > installing the minefields and poison gas sprinkler system, etc. take > lots of time) The standard is programs over ~10k lines is not comprehensible by a single individual on a line by line basis. > * The user can tell by visual inspection that a small compilation > system does what they want it to do, and can understand basic logic > enough to tell what signatures imply. 'small compilation system' of what? What who wants it to do? The author? Mallet? The end user? > Then: > 1) The author releases the code into the network in an optionally > anonymous way. There is no reason to trust the code -- even if it > is signed with rdl's eternity dds signing key, no one has any reason > to believe that it isn't an NSA front, since rdl is assumed to be > corrupt, signing anything put in front of him (as long as sufficient > money is put there too) It isn't the key of the author or the eternity server that is under attack by Mallet. It is the security of the individual user who is under assault. > 2) The user wants to run the code, because it's Just That Cool. We're talking here about users who want to get data that is illegal or otherwise incriminating or dangerous to one group or another. In particular let's consider the situation of a Lebanese freedom fighter in Isreal or perhaps a 'Free Burma' revolutionary in China. > 3) No one can verify the entire code. So, Cypherpunks begin signing > small sections of the code with their own previously-established key. > Their keys are established as their reputation is established on > the list, or perhaps by personally meeting these people, in the > traditional PGP web of trust scheme. There is no central Cypherpunks > Registry, just a decentralized mesh. Which doesn't effect the ability of Mallet to resign that code at the users end in order to break the users local security. > 4) The user executes the compilation script. [material describing script verification deleted] Mallet can re-write said script, especialy with the sorts of latency that the Eternity Server forces on the end user, such that it is consistent with the bogus keys the end-user gets. It is simply much easier to write scripts in a day than say 10 minutes. > I fail to see how the specifics of Eternity are relevant -- it's > just basically a PGP web of trust issue. The transport is irrelevant -- > it's untrusted code until it's been verified by people the user > trusts. The end user may not have people available to trust is the point. The reason the transport mechanism is relevant is that it is much easier to spoof a verification script if the user is not going to be surprised with 24 hour turn around on requests, whereas a responce time measured in minutes lessens the window of opportunity to Mallet significantly. It may come as a surprise to you and others but not everyone in the world can pick up a phone and call a 100 people all over the world and not raise some suspicion. > Implementing a keyserver in Eternity has the same issues While it is perfectly permissible to design Eternity or any data haven with inherent key servers, I believe it is a bad idea from a design perspective because it makes the code even larger, decreases the potential for monetary motives for indipendant key servers to appear, and if the server is compromised then the key server is also. It is more expensive if Mallet can be forced to deal with two indipendenat operators then a single monolithic operator. [rest deleted] ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

uh,
by wabe 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--What is that weird lawsuit all about wheresome director of the NSA is getting sued forsomething? Does anyone know?-wabe --digsig EojdyErVslc/s6aQeIHwnOlMw3lUKJhdZc/ZeCNfe7H L4ctAUj8gI6C830BTXaeFrhHME7aCeT3ev4HKbeT 4HICjjQYriAdlICrERT+zrSEtB1bkK+b6iRoC6a0y

5 8

Eternity - an alternative aproach (take 2)
by Kay Ping 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Romeo, she is a female Homo Sapiens, not a full rotation of the Earth during the season when the incident solar radioation is at a higher angle" "Yes, I know that. It was just a metaphore." I got several comments about my posting, all of them about the possibility of detecting the location of radio transmitters or receivers. You just didn't get it, did you? I was using radio as a METAPHORE for the use of broadcast to provide anonymity to receivers and packets with false source addresses for the anonymity of transmitters. You can read the original posting at http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/current/0107.html ----------------- Kay Ping nop 'til you drop finger kping(a)nym.alias.net for key DF 6D 91 18 A6 59 41 96 - 89 01 69 B7 9D0 4 AE 53

1 0

Unofficial transcript of Bernstein hearing published
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

EFF has published an unofficial transcript of the hearing in front of three judges at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on December 8. The hearing discussed whether the export controls on cryptography are an unconstitutional prior restraint on publication. See http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/Legal/ There is no news on the judges' decision from that hearing. John Gilmore Electronic Frontier Foundation

2 1

Re: (eternity) Eternity as a secure filesystem/backup medium
by Ryan Lackey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Since documents placed on eternity by specification last forever (assuming, > of course, that > eternity will too) and assuming that computational power and cryptanalysis > will always > get better (say for arguments sake that moore's law continues to be held) - > doesn't that > mean that it will be feasible (in time) to break all eternity documents? :) Documents by specification last only as long as someone is willing to pay to keep them up. This is not necessarily forever. Once your DBC escrow "account" runs out, the data is worthless -- someone could then choose to store it on their own, and potentially charge others for this in a recursive model, but there is no reason why a piece of data must remain in Eternity forever if no one cares enough about it to pay to have it stored. > > Of course "in time" may very well be a very long (or astronomical) time, > but dependent on the crypto > used who knows what rate "feasible" breaking of a particular algorithm > might progress at, say > in d(key length)/d(year)? Can we assume that using Moore's law this is at > least 1 bit every > 18 months for symmetric crypto? Perhaps we might see this relationship > through the RSA challenges > over time. I am designing Eternity DDS with IDEA/3DES/Blowfish level private-key crypto and an equivalent level of DH/RSA public key crypto. These will be strong (provided back door attacks, fundamental breakthroughs in cryptography, etc. are not made...a bet I'm forced to make, even though I don't like it) well into the future. How far? I think unless Quantum Cryptanalysis becomes a reality, the underlying hard problems will not be solved through anything but a fundamental change in mathematics. As Prof. Micali said, "Gauss (Karl Friedrich Gauss, the reknowned mathematician/physicist/general smart guy) worked on these problems. The test of whether a problem is sufficiently hard to be a basis for a cryptosystem is if Gauss tried to solve it and failed." or something similar. > > [If Wiener's $1m DES machine in '93 took 7 hours, in today's technology $1m > in 1998 dollars should > be able to do this in less than 100 minutes, shouldn't it?] I don't think anyone would argue that 56bit is secure enough for anything but ephermeal channel authentication. I'd make the same argument for 64bit -- if you had a purpose-built machine with an intelligent key distribution system, a well nigh unlimited budget (read: US Military), and PE's which contained either ultrahigh performance GaAs logic or massively parallel on a single chip silicon logic, you could probably brute force a 64bit algorithm. Do the math, though, for 128bit. There are traditional analyses which include the amount of silicon on the earth, the number of atoms in the universe, etc. The general consensus is that traditional techniques are not feasible for brute forcing 128bit ciphers before the heat death of the universe. > > Since documents cannot be retracted or re-encrypted you really have to > assume that someday they > will be broken. This really turns the notion of what crypto to use for > encrypting eternity documents > into an upfront question of "how long do I want this information to be > secure?". 20 years? 50 years? > 100 years? > > matt Actually, Eternity is no different than emailing a file, given a SIGINT capability at the attacker which allows all internet traffic to be monitored. If the data is still relevant and worth breaking in 50 years, they could just intercept the encrypted email, store it in a government vault for 50 years, then attack it (even more amusingly, they could simply post it to Eternity themselves, encrypted with their own key :), a true turn about). If you do not postulate that level of signals collection capability on the part of the attacker, yeah, Eternity is a bit different than email. But I think that would be an unreasonable model of the attacker. - -- Ryan Lackey rdl(a)mit.edu http://mit.edu/rdl/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNMISuKwefxtEUY69AQFB1Qf9GWDn6bwhWyJcDY0Liypo21ntpH5yzORu RXwkPSI8pbmqhVZAVGXC1WbcqY0pYn7vPRFq5AKszFsjpTOOYiHwsugmVKjrxVww GRKSBqn308aAjMogNtPwEfohJrQxOED/Hy7ykV6gHV76pUFoMazQ4OdUL2iM1hLF cCMzwtpfJM5eWvyLeQcQq307998epJ9hF1e3Sn4v6ZKEPIlr0yqr5tvM7/XWxC2s 6t82EUPmOZIbn75QQqLBIFK5MlOLuvalFr0xR3u7fYltOczAMC23hx7Tjk65e9a4 6XSeEXyMp2j2GWqcE5lUZp4OnewZvSoFhEj0rDo5PEN9ce0mJEKMow== =7IBY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: (eternity) Eternity as a secure filesystem/backup medium
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[horrible line wraps btw. 100 chars to the line! I reformatted.] Matt Barrie writes: > Since documents cannot be retracted or re-encrypted you really have > to assume that someday they will be broken. This really turns the > notion of what crypto to use for encrypting eternity documents into > an upfront question of "how long do I want this information to be > secure?". 20 years? 50 years? 100 years? There are 3 distinct threats. 1. communications crypto used by the author in submitting the document is broken 2. the eternity architecture contains encrypted documents to frustrate attempts to locate documents, and to hide the contents of documents from individual servers 3. communications crypto used to request and deliver documents is broken thus revealing the readers identity For threat 1. the attacker needs archives of old communications which could potentially be eternity submissions. (I say potentially because they could be steganographically encoded). It is probably reasonable to assume that the NSA has a full historic archive of USENET. Also it is probably reasonable to assume they have a historic archive of all inter remailer traffic. For threat 2. it seems feasible to upgrade this security over time, in that documents could be super encrypted with newer ciphers when vulnerabilities are found in older ciphers. No protection for historic access requests, but at least we can adapt to protect new requests. For threat 3. again newer ciphers can be used as attacks are found. So it is useful to design upgrade paths for ciphers into the protocols where possible. Other approaches we could take are to use very conservative cipher key sizes and protocols combining multiple ciphers in ways which gives us the security of the best of the ciphers. For example: R = random, C = 5DES( R ) || blowfish-484( M xor R ) Where 5DES is say E-D-E-D-E with 5 independent DES keys. Constructs to combine in strong ways hash functions, macs, symmetric and asymmetric ciphers would be useful. Is there much research in this area? Adam

1 0

Re: (eternity) Eternity as a secure filesystem/backup medium (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: (eternity) Eternity as a secure filesystem/backup medium > Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 09:33:30 EST > From: Ryan Lackey <rdl(a)mit.edu> > Documents by specification last only as long as someone is willing to pay > to keep them up. This is not necessarily forever. Admiral Hopper used to give a talk about the worth of data and she had a very nice chart that would demonstrate the worth of data over time. Initialy it is worth a lot because it is hard to reproduce, obtain, or distribute. As time goes on it becomes less and less important. In her particular context it was related to the economic decision of when to move data offline in large database applications. > Once your DBC escrow > "account" runs out, the data is worthless That's a jump of logic. The data may infact be quite popular even though you don't offer it anymore (might even do this in order to increase its worth, say some sort of insider trader newsletter). It's probably not in the best interest of the data haven model to speculate on exactly why a particular source decides to quit sourcing. > remain in Eternity forever if no one cares enough about it to pay to > have it stored. Then again, if it was really important I might intentionaly want to attack the ability to provide long-term income. A better model might be to charge for the access and let the actual submission be no charge. A portion of the retrieval charge could then be piped back to the source. Consider the case of say nuclear or biological information for a weapon. That sort of data would be accessed only infrequently (unless you're giving something this expensive to obtain and verify away - a d-h operator error, no.) but should be quite expensive to retrieve. > If the data is still relevant and worth breaking in 50 years, they could > just intercept the encrypted email, store it in a government vault for > 50 years, More realisticaly they would have somebody just add it to a batch job and let the spare cycles of the machines crank away at it. Or perhaps set up a key challenge and get people all over the world to work on it in their spare cycles. Who knows, perhaps the source of the data woudl be intriqued enough to provide spare cycles unknowingly. > If you do not postulate that level of signals collection capability on the It's not just their sig-int capability but their complete processing resource capability that must be considered as well as their psychological motivation. Granted, all of these are extremely difficult to measure let alone verify. Perhaps a little paranoia might be a good thing. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

diplomacy
by bill payne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I sure hope the following was diplomatic enough. NSA exhibited NO SENSE OF HUMOR when I pointed out 'deficiencies' in its crypto algorithm work. But, too, the agrieve Islamic fundamentalists may not have too good senses of humor. But with that experience, my sensitivities are hightened. Later, guys. Back to POSTCARD COMMUNICATIONS! Sunday 1/18/98 6:24 AM Jim Allen Thanks for the call on Friday night. You said that there might be a problem in the way the interrupts were turned on. I told you I would give this some thought. Here is the routine to turn on the interrupts ;* Call DasIntOn(IoPointer&, ErrorFlag&, SystemState&, IoData&(0, 0), ;* IoParm&(0, 0), LgradThres) from Visual Basic. DasIntOn PROTO FAR, VBIoPointer:dword, VBErrorFlag:dword, VBSystemState:dword, VBIoData:dword, VBIoParm:dword, VBLGradThres:dword DasIntOn PROC FAR EXPORT, VBIoPointer:dword, VBErrorFlag:dword, VBSystemState:dword, VBIoData:dword, VBIoParm:dword, VBLGradThres:dword Prolog ;* Stage 1 Get addresses of IOPointer, ErrorFlag, SystemState, ;* IoData, IoParm, LGradThres which point back into VB static array. mov eax, VBIoPointer ; get VB IoPointer address mov IoPointer, eax ; move it to asm mov eax, VBErrorFlag ; get VB ErrorFlag address mov ErrorFlag, eax ; mov it to asm mov eax, VBSystemState ; get VB SystemState address mov SystemState, eax ; move it to asm mov eax, VBIoData ; get VB IoData address mov IoData, eax ; move it to asm mov eax, VBIoParm ; get VB IoParm address mov IoParm, eax ; move it to asm mov eax, VBLGradThres ; get VB LGradThres address mov LGradThres, eax ; move it to asm ;* Stage 2 zero the interrupt counter and system state mov IntCount, 0 mov LocalSysState, 0 ;* Stage 3 install dummy interrupt vector call SetDummyIntVector ; Set dummy IrqLevel interrupt ;* Stage 4 make sure interrupt is masked on the das board call DisableDasInt ;* Stage 5 Set up Irq level in bits 4-6 of register 9 call SetDasIrqLevel ;* Stage 6 set up counter 0 with number of rows AND enable ;* hardware trigger. This is done in Counter0SetUp. call Counter0SetUp ;* Stage 7 Enable interrupt on 8259a call EnableIrqMask ;* Stage 8 Set Irq 5 highest prority in 8259a - didn't seem to ;* make any difference in performance ; call Irg5HighestPriority ;* Stage 9 Burst length set-up call EnableDasBurstMode ;* Stage 10 - clear fifo call InitDasFifo ; read and discard 256 fifo words ;* Stage 11 Set application interrupt vector call SetDasIntVector ; Set IrqLevel interrupt vector ;* Stage 12 Set LocalIop to DataRows - 1. MOV ax, DataRows - 1 ; set LocalIop = DataRows mov LocalIop, ax ; les bx, IoPointer ; get address IoPointer% mov es:[bx], ax ; also set VB IoPointer% = 0 ;* Stage 13 Set hardware trigger call SetHardwareTrigger ;* Stage 14 Clear flip-flop on Pin 25 call ClearDasPin25 ;* Stage 15 Enable interrupt on das board call EnableDasInt Epilog ret 24 DasIntOn ENDP This got a bit complicated. The ComputerBoard clone of the Keithly-Metrabyte a/d converter powers-up in an UNKNOWN state. Or at least partially UNKNOWN. One of the random states includes triggering spurious interrupt. So a dummy handler had to be inserted to possibly field bad data. The attempt was made to interface directly to hardware without a microcontoller buffer was partially successful. Sampling at the 1 Khz rate revealed that Windows occasionally did its own thing as a result of a task switch and, therfore, interrupts were missed. To detect when this happened we modified the ComputerBoards das 1400 board so that a hardware count of interrupts received could be compared to the software count. Since the a/d values were buffered a FIFO, the FAST Pentium could catch up. But this caused the interrupt handler to increase in size from about 1 K lines, including white space and comments, to 2 K lines. Naturally we wish to be in the problem solving, as opposed to problem creating, or assignation of blame. I think we have to consider all possible problem sources. I am looking at the AC POWER INTERFACE LS SOV Schematic dated 11-8-96. I see that the power to the analog and digital cards was run via a serial port db 25 cable and connector. Pin assignment are Pin Function 1 -15 G 2 +15 GS 3 +5 G 4 +15 G 5 5 GS 6 tied to pin 7 7 +15S 8 15 S 9 5 10 tied to pin 10 11 +15 12 tied to pin 11 13 15 S 14 tied to pin 1 15 +5 GS 16 tied to pin 3 17 nc 18 tied to pin 5 19 +24 ground 20 tied to pin 19 21 +5 S 22 tied to pin 9 23 tied to pin 22 24 +24 volts 25 tied to pin 24 The +24 volts runs to solenoids. The remaining power runs to both digital and analog Ics. While some are left wondering why engineers had not thought of running analog, digital and solenoid power down an inexpensive 24 pin PC serial port cable before, perhaps, we might all guess, other engineers lack sufficient innovative audacity. One engineer opined last summer, when I was working in the shop on the digital FX, that the PC Data System boards may have to be redesigned. Lets hope that such a major revision is not required. Naturally, me being a TOTAL CONSERVATIVE [as evidenced by Morales and my genocide court filing], I plan to physically separate the analog and digital IC s on the digital FX. And I am thinking about on-board power regulation to keep the 80c32, analog, and digital chips super-happy. In the field, of course. I will leave in several hours. In my grey rabbit. Air travel safety worries me more now. Especially after publication of last book. Just in case, I will bring my passport. The thought of two machines located 180 miles NW of Edmonton not working well is, of course, chilling. I sure glad the 8051 version of PC Data System is working fairly well. And is MAKING money for Metriguard. See you on Tuesday, Allah willing. Later bill Title: Payne/Morales v. NSA -- Defendant's Response to Motion for Summary Judgment 16 January 1998 Source: William H. Payne See related files: http://jya.com/whpfiles.htm U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney District of New Mexico __________________________________________________________ Post Office Box 607 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 505/766-3341 505/766-2868 FAX 505/766-8517 January 5, 1998 W.H. Payne P.O. Box 14838 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87191 Re: Payne & Morales v. Minihan USDC NM CIV 97-0266 SC/DJS Dear Mr. Payne: Enclosed is a court-endorsed copy of Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Evidence from Admissions. Sincerely, JOHN J. KELLY United States Attorney [Signature] JAN ELIZABETH MITCHELL Assistant U. S. Attorney JEM/yh Enclosure cc/enc: Arthur R. Morales [Stamp] FILED United States District Court District of New Mexico 98 JAN -5 PM 3:46 Robert M. Marsh District Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO WILLIAM H. PAYNE ) ARTHUR R. MORALES ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) CIVIL NO. 97-026 SC/DJS ) LT GEN KENNETH A. MINIHAN ) USAF Director, National Security ) Agency, ) ) Defendant. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON EVIDENCE FROM ADMISSIONS Defendant Minihan responds to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Based On Evidence From Admissions1 as follows: 1. Commencing in October, 1997, Plaintiffs served numerous sets of Requests for Admissions on various employees of the National Security Agency and on current and past employees of the Sandia National Laboratory. 2. Counsel for Defendant was not served with copies of any of said Requests for Admissions until sometime after the individuals had been served.2 ____________________ 1 It should be noted that the instant Motion for Summary Judgment constitutes Plaintiffs' second motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed an initial Motion for Summary Judgment on June 4, 1997 to which Defendant responded on June 19, 1997, and Plaintiffs filed a Reply on July 1, 1997. Said initial Motion for Summary Judgment has not been ruled upon. In addition, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Arthur R. Morales on September 23, 1997, and a Motion seeking dismissal of Plaintiff William Payne's Freedom of Information Act action on October 3, 1997. All briefing by all parties has been completed on those Motions. 2 On October 13, 1997, Plaintiffs mailed a First Set of Admissions to Kenneth Minihan. However, not until November 3, 1997, did Plaintiffs mail a copy of said First Set of Request for 3. Upon becoming aware that Plaintiffs had served Requests for Admissions on a number of individuals, on October 23, 1997, Counsel for Defendant filed a Motion and Memorandum To Strike Any And All Of Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests For Admissions To Various Employees Of The National Security Agency And To Various Employees Of Sandia National Laboratory, (hereinafter "Motion and Memorandum.") 4. As grounds for the Motion and Memorandum, Defendant argued that Plaintiffs had blatantly disregarded this Court's Order pertaining to the conduct of discovery and the deadline for discovery in this Freedom of Information Act action. 5. In Defendant's Motion and Memorandum, Counsel for Defendant also objected to Plaintiffs' sua sponte decision to modify the Court's June 11 Order to reflect the delay of the Court's October 7 Order and the establishment, without leave of this Court, of new deadlines for discovery, motions practice, and the filing of the PreTrial Order. (Motion and Memorandum ¶ 9, at 4.) 6. In the Motion and Memorandum, Defendant requested that this Court strike any and all "First Set of Request for Admission" propounded by Plaintiffs. (Motion and Memorandum, at 5.) 7. Plaintiffs responded to the Motion and Memorandum on November 5, 1997, specifically seeking that this Court "take no action in this case until Supreme court takes action on writs on ____________________ Admissions to Counsel for Defendant. Counsel for Defendant was not provided with copies of any other Requests for Admissions sent to employees of NSA or employees of the Sandia National Laboratory. 2 mandamus, prohibition, and criminal complaint affidavits filed against judges Svet and Campos and US Attorney Mitchell." (Plaintiffs' Response to Motion And Memorandum To Strike Any And All Of Plaintiffs' First Set Of Request For Admissions To Various Employees Of The National Security Agency And To Various Employees Of Sandia National Laboratories, ¶ 11, at 10.) 8. To date, no order has been issued by this Court on the matters raised in the Motion and Memorandum, nor has any other court issued any orders concerning Plaintiffs' cause of action and various complaints. 9. By their own request, Plaintiffs sought to stay a ruling on the Defendant's Motion and Memorandum. Absent any ruling on either the Motion and Memorandum or Plaintiffs' Response, Defendant Minihan, employees of NSA, and employees of Sandia National Laboratory, were not obligated to respond to the Requests for Admissions as provided by Fed.R.Civ.P. 36.3 For Plaintiffs to now assert in their "Motion for Summary Judgment On Based On Evidence From Admissions" that because the individuals have not responded to the Requests for Admissions they are deemed admitted, flies in the face of their own prayer to this Court to stay a ruling on the Defendant's Motion to strike the Requests for Admissions until the Supreme Court takes action. ____________________ 3 Despite the fact that Defendant's employees and other individuals are not required to respond to the Requests for Admissions based upon the outstanding pleadings which have yet to be ruled on by this Court, Plaintiffs characterize that all admissions are admitted and then publish those admissions on the Internet. 3 10. Defendant requests that this Court either rule upon Defendant's Motion and Memorandum granting the request to strike the Requests for Admissions, or grant Plaintiffs' request to stay this action pending the issuance of the order sought by Plaintiffs in another forum. Should this Court deny Defendant's Motion and Memorandum, Defendant respectfully requests that the individuals to whom Requests for Admissions are appropriate in this action be given the thirty days to respond to said admissions as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 11. Plaintiffs requested a stay. Absent a ruling from this Court denying their request, they cannot proceed to assert that the Requests for Admissions are deemed admitted. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' "Motion For Summary Judgment On Based On Evidence From Admissions" must be denied. Respectfully submitted, JOHN J. KELLY United States Attorney [Signature] JAN ELIZABETH MITCHELL Assistant U.S. Attorney P.O. Box 607 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 (505) 766-3341 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed to PRO SE PLAINTIFFS, this 5th day of January, 1998. [Signature] JAN ELIZABETH MITCHELL Assistant U. S. Attorney 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO William H. Payne ) Arthur R. Morales ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v ) CIV NO 97 0266 ) SC/DJS ) Lieutenant General Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF ) Director, National Security Agency ) National Security Agency ) ) Defendant ) REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON EVIDENCE FROM ADMISSIONS 1 COMES NOW plaintiffs Payne [Payne] and Morales [Morales] [Plaintiffs], pro se litigants to exercise their rights guaranteed under the Constitution, Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Civil Rules to respond to Defendant's MOTION filed on 98 JAN-5 within the 14 days allowed by local rule 7.3(b)(4). 2 US Attorney Mitchell [Mitchell] writes, Counsel for Defendant was not served with copies of any of said Requests for Admissions until sometime after the individuals had been served.2 Mitchell WAS SERVED PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION TO NSA DIRECTOR KENNETH MINIHAN I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing request for admissions was mailed to Jan Elizabeth Mitchell, Assistant US Attorney, 525 Silver SW, ABQ, NM 87102 this Monday November 3, 1997. Michell was not served with any other admissions since Mitchell is not representing others. Plaintiffs' served Defendant Minihan properly. And Minihan failed to respond to Minihan's admissions within the time allotted by law. 3 US Attorney Mitchell writes, As grounds for the Motion and Memorandum, Defendant argued that Plaintiffs had blatantly disregarded this Court's Order pertaining to the conduct of discovery and the deadline for discovery in this Freedom of Information Act action. Judges Svet and Campos willfully violated Plaintiffs' right to Discovery. And thereby earned criminal complaint affidavits filed with judge Scalia of the Supreme Court. 4 US Attorney Mitchell writes, In Defendant's Motion and Memorandum, Counsel for Defendant also objected to Plaintiffs' sua sponte decision to modify the Court's June 11 Order to reflect the delay of the Court's October 7 Order and the establishment, without leave of this Court, of new deadlines for discovery, motions practice, and the filing of the PreTrial Order. (Motion and Memorandum 9, at 4.) Judge Svet and Campos attempt to deny Plaintiffs' right to Discovery, again, earned Svet and Campos criminal complaint affidavits. Plaintiffs exercise their right under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Constitution to conduct Discovery WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT! 5 US Attorney Mitchell writes, By their own request, Plaintiffs sought to stay a ruling on the Defendant's Motion and Memorandum. Absent any ruling on either the Motion and Memorandum or Plaintiffs' Response, Defendant Minihan, employees of NSA, and employees of Sandia National Laboratory, were not obligated to respond to the Requests for Admissions as provided by Fed.R.Civ.P. 36.3 For Plaintiffs to now assert in their "Motion for Summary Judgment On Based On Evidence From Admissions" that because the individuals have not responded to the Requests for Admissions they are deemed admitted, flies in the face of their own prayer to this Court to stay a ruling on the Defendant's Motion to strike the Requests for Admissions until the Supreme Court takes action. Plaintiffs' have REPEATEDLY asked judge Svet and Campos to disqualify themselves from any rulings on this case because Campos and Svet do NOT obey the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Replace judges Svet and Campos because these judges have demonstrated, IN WRITING, they do not follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs' pleas are directed a replacement judge[s]. Not Svet and Campos. Therefore, Svet and Campos' failure to remove themselves does not stop the legal process. Mitchell cites NO law to support her claim that time constraints imposed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 36.3 are inapplicable as a result of Svet's and Campos' failure to remove themselves. 6 US Attorney Mitchell writes, Defendant requests that this Court either rule upon Defendant's Motion and Memorandum granting the request to strike the Requests for Admissions, or grant Plaintiffs' request to stay this action pending the issuance of the order sought by Plaintiffs in another forum. Should this Court deny Defendant's Motion and Memorandum, Defendant respectfully requests that the individuals to whom Requests for Admissions are appropriate in this action be given the thirty days to respond to said admissions as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. REPLACEMENT JUDGES of the Court should realize the outcome of the lawsuit has attained international interest as a result of the 1 bungled NSA spy sting on Iran 2 US government agencies NSA, NIST, and the FBI's attempt to control cryptography. Mitchell's DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON EVIDENCE FROM ADMISSIONS was posted on Internet at jya.com, click cryptome nsasuit8.htm USA/NSA Responds to Payne/Morales Motion January 16, 1998 Importance of this posting is summed-up in the Toronto Sun, Jan. 11, 1998 US, Iran Need Each Other by Eric Margolis Iran launched a surprise charm offensive last week, throwing Washington into serious confusion. In a lengthy interview on CNN, Iran's new president, Mohammad Khatami, skillfully analyzed the bitter relations between the two nations and cautiously extended an olive branch to Washington, calling for an end to their 19-year cold war. Khatami's diplomatic ju-jitsu flummoxed the Clinton administration, which was busy trying to rally international support against Tehran - and to overthrow Iran's elected government. Both capitals are split over the question of relations. In Washington, the military establishment and conservative Republicans have inflated Iran into a bogeyman to justify military budgets and keep U.S. forces in the Mideast. ... America incited Iraq to invade Iran in 1980. They did this to crush the Islamic revolution, then provided massive war aid to Saddam Hussein. Half a million Iranians died. The US got caught involved in genocide. Using high tech. This is one subject of this lawsuit. Albuquerque Journal Tuesday 1/13/98 carried the editorial. Khatami Move Is Profile in Courage Richard Reeves Syndicated Columnist LOS ANGELES - If an American leader had done what Iranian President Mohammed Khatami did last Wednesday, it would have been hailed as a profile in courage. ... Miscalculation! We armed and pampered Saddam Hussein in the hope that Iraq would destroy Iran. Now that's policy and behavior to think about. Here is something to think about: If Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy had pursued any kind of sensible policy toward Cuba and Fidel Castro - opposed to the policy of trying to assassinate him - there never would have been a Cuban missile crisis. I think Iranians have financed and encouraged terrorism against the interests of the United States and Israel. I would not be surprised at all if something like proof emerges soon, perhaps anonymously, from the CIA and other government agencies, where many officials have built their careers on sanctioning and isolating Iran, to try to straighten the backbones of the president and people of the United States. If they succeed, America fails. What would be more effective in closing down Iranian terrorism? More hostility, sanctions and charges? Or beginning the process toward more normal relations with a country positioned and born to be great? ... Clearly genocide fits into Now that's policy and behavior to think about. The wired world is watching what this Court, hopefully minus judges Svet and Campos, will do. What is there to be? A series of possibly unfortunate events? Or does this Court order release the lawfully requested documents to help settle this American tragedy? WHEREFORE. 7 Have replacement judges of this Court DENY Mitchell's Plaintiffs requested a stay. Absent a ruling from this Court denying their request, they cannot proceed to assert that the Requests for Admissions are deemed admitted. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' "Motion For Summary Judgment On Based On Evidence From Admissions" must be denied. for reason that Mitchell's request to subvert both the Discovery processes and its time limits have no basis in law. And appears to plead to judges who do not obey the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 9 IMMEDIATELY ORDER Defendant to release the requested documents in the interest of national safety so that this matter can be settled. Aggrieved victims of US genocide are reading these pleadings. Respectfully submitted, _________________________ William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 _________________________ Arthur R. Morales 1024 Los Arboles NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 Pro se litigants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing memorandum was mailed to Lieutenant General Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF, Director, National Security Agency, National Security Agency, 9800 Savage Road, Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000 and hand delivered to John J. Kelly, US Attorney, 525 Silver SW, ABQ, NM 87102 this Tuesday January 20, 1997. 5 Title: Model 7200 HCLT High Capacity Lumber Tester The Metriguard Model 7200 High Capacity Lumber Tester was introduced in 1993. This machine is now certified by grading agencies in the United States, Canada and UK. Also in use in Japan and Austria. Speed capacity is unknown. We have run tests in excess of 2,000 ft/min, and have not seen any limitations or indications that it would not run faster. We expect this machine to keep up with planer developments and run in the neighborhood of 3,000 ft/min sometime within the next ten years. The machine is available with a number of options, including the recently introduced PC Data System, which adds new capability in marking options, shift reports, and internal error checking. Yet to come in Metriguard's program of continuous improvement are automatic wood temperature compensation, automatic zero tracking, scanner inputs. Please contact Metriguard Sales office for further information about how this machine can improve your lumber grading and mill profits. Return to home page

2 1

*** OFF-SHORE INVESTMENTS ***
by ForInformationVisitUs＠OurWebSite.Now 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

********************************************************************* - Remove from list information is after this important message - ********************************************************************* ******* *** OFF-SHORE INVESTMENTS *** Get A Higher Rate of Return on Your Investments Projects Audited by *** Coopers & Lybrand and Price Waterhouse *** Ever wished you could earn a rate of return on your investments that have traditionally been enjoyed only by the very wealthy? Welcome to Cyber Ventures Ltd. - Your gateway to outstanding and private off-shore investment opportunities. Cyber Ventures Ltd. is an on-line venture capital and financing company incorporated under the laws of the Isle of Man. Its primary function is to raise equity capital for profitable venture capital projects. Each project promoted by Cyber Ventures Ltd. complies to established investment criteria and is fully audited to increase the security of your investments. Cyber Ventures Ltd. takes an equity stake in each project right along with you the investor and is a part of the management team of all target investments. Cyber Ventures Ltd. is designed for the relatively small investor so investments are as little as $30 and a maximum of $30,000 for any single transaction. Investors profit through: - Project profit share - Capital appreciation - Interest on capital - Referral commission on sales For more information regarding Cyber Ventures Ltd., its Policies, Project Selection Criteria, Investment Criteria, Current Projects, the Investment Structure, Auditors, and how you can participate in this outstanding and private investment vehicle, you may contact us at: Cyber Ventures Web Site: http://www.cvltd.com E-mail: Info(a)cvltd.com Fax-On-Demand: +1(703) 834-8990 Doc #110 (Please call from a fax) Direct FAX : +27(21) 948-3188 Toll Free USA FAX : +1(888) 218-7034 Message Center: +1(888) 218-7034 Cyber Venture Orders: +27(21) 948-3183 ****************************************************************** ****************************************************************** TO BE REMOVED FROM OUR MAILING LIST, TYPE: Bergston(a)ix.netcom.com in the (TO:) area and (REMOVE) in the subject area of a new E-mail and send. ****************************************************************** ******************************************************************

1 0

Signed document - a thought...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, I was pondering the security issues regarding signed documents and key security. It occured to me that in all the discussion it is assumed that the document is transmitted after the key is transmitted. It seems to be that a higher level of security could be obtained by submitting the signed document first and then submit the signing key. This way when the document goes out Mallet has no idea what key to replace and any fudging of the document will destroy the sign. Then when the key goes out if it is replaced the document won't pass testing either since the server already has a unmod'ed copy. In short, instead of having each author have a signing key, have each document have a signature key and always submit the signed document prior to the signing key. After all it's the document and not the author (who we assume is already using an anonymous submission mechanism) we wish to verify from the end users perspective. The mechanims provides a means for the data haven server to verify the authenticity of the document and this allows them to pass that trust on to the end user in the same sort of way. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Re: Eternity - an alternative approach
by Ryan Lackey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(Kay Ping) writes: > It occured to me that the equivalent on the net would be to receive > packets with invalid source addresses. They are just there, coming dowm > the phone line to your modem. It takes significant resources and snooping > on a massive scale to locate where they are coming from.. All this is > assuming you can find some way to send a request with your address to the > server. I've looked at this idea for a while. It's great right now once you get away from the first couple of subnets, though. However, I've recently become aware of "IDIP", or "Intruder Detection and Isolation Protocol" through potentially questionable sources (my source is mostly NDA-wary). He assumes it will be implemented by having each router cache IP address, received interface tuples. Then, after the fact, one could go back and track someone router by router. The technical solution to this is to flood a router with forged packets while using it to transfer your own data, overflowing the cache. This presents the problem of being tracked by leaving a cloud of flooded routers in your wake. But it's possible. I get the impression the system is far from deployment, but that it is being worked on is a sign that potentially someone sees the rise in forged source address attacks and wants to curtail it. -- Ryan Lackey rdl(a)mit.edu http://mit.edu/rdl/

1 0

Signed document - a thought... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> > Subject: Signed document - a thought... > Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 10:31:36 -0600 (CST) > document have a signature key and always submit the signed document prior > to the signing key. After all it's the document and not the author (who we > assume is already using an anonymous submission mechanism) we wish to verify > from the end users perspective. One other assumption that I left out after I sent it was that the data haven and the key server are not the same machine. Sorry, I hope it makes a tad more sense with that proviso included. Sorry for sending an incomplete suggestion. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: (eternity) Eternity as a secure filesystem/backup medium (fwd)
by Ryan Lackey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(Jim Choate) writes: > Ryan Lackey writes: > > Once your DBC escrow > > "account" runs out, the data is worthless > > That's a jump of logic. The data may infact be quite popular even though you > don't offer it anymore (might even do this in order to increase its worth, > say some sort of insider trader newsletter). It's probably not in the best > interest of the data haven model to speculate on exactly why a particular > source decides to quit sourcing. True. But in an Eternity model without copyright, someone could be one of the first customers to download the data, then upload it again under a different name. The only thing the original uploader would have as an advantage would be indexing information, potentially -- it's easier for me to download ms word by going to the eternity equivalent of http://www.microsoft.com/ than to go to http://www3.pop3-167.adhoc.warez.location.ai/edf3/filez1.zip. There's no real way to put the genie back into the bottle unless you can send people with guns to beat people up who store your data as a third party. Data disappears from Eternity once no one cares enough about it to pay to have it stored. That could mean someone doesn't pay in advance for the data, or no one is willing to invest disk space in the hope that it will in the future be downloaded. Providing eternity service costs money. Anything which lets users circumvent this opens up the potential for denial of service through consumption of resources attacks. Even if billing is fundamental, you still have the potential for the NSA to spend $100m to buy all the eternity space available at any point. This is why you also need market mechanisms -- if the NSA is willing to pay a premium for eternity service just to keep it out of the hands of the populace, then running eternity servers is a great investment, so capacity will increase until the NSA can no longer afford to buy all of it. A difficult part of designing a working Eternity service is to keep people from "stealing service", in terms of consumption of resources, during set up, indexing, etc. Basically, you need to make sure that to the greatest extent possible, anything which is a potentially scarce resource is sold, not given away. > > > remain in Eternity forever if no one cares enough about it to pay to > > have it stored. > > Then again, if it was really important I might intentionaly want to attack > the ability to provide long-term income. A better model might be to charge > for the access and let the actual submission be no charge. A portion of the > retrieval charge could then be piped back to the source. Consider the case > of say nuclear or biological information for a weapon. That sort of data > would be accessed only infrequently (unless you're giving something this > expensive to obtain and verify away - a d-h operator error, no.) but should > be quite expensive to retrieve. You then are vulnerable to someone spamming the system, unless you give the server operator some way of knowing if this encrypted data is likely to be valuable. I think both payment models should coexist. But there's no reason that the server operators are the only people able to speculate -- it could be just another random user. You can have arbitrarily complex payment models, since the enforcement agents can exist (must exist?) as eternity objects in their own right. > > > If the data is still relevant and worth breaking in 50 years, they could > > just intercept the encrypted email, store it in a government vault for > > 50 years, > > More realisticaly they would have somebody just add it to a batch job and > let the spare cycles of the machines crank away at it. Or perhaps set up a > key challenge and get people all over the world to work on it in their spare > cycles. Who knows, perhaps the source of the data woudl be intriqued enough > to provide spare cycles unknowingly. No, the most feasible attacks for a resourced attacker are custom ASICs optimized for key testing, as were recently described. Distributed workstation cracking is a parlor trick if you have a billion dollar budget for key cracking. The NSA has general purpose HPC resources for purposes like signal processing, AI, etc., not for brute forcing people's keys routinely (although perhaps for a weak and nonstandard cipher, it would make sense to use general purpose machines). Even a corporation would be better off using FPGAs or ASICs for key cracking once you get past 56 bits. > > > If you do not postulate that level of signals collection capability on the > > It's not just their sig-int capability but their complete processing > resource capability that must be considered as well as their psychological > motivation. Granted, all of these are extremely difficult to measure let > alone verify. Perhaps a little paranoia might be a good thing. I assume the attacker is evil and rational. I also assume that the entire legal system has been subverted, and that extralegal operations of any size too small to make the new york times front page are possible. And, any entity which deals with the government (just about any) can be subverted. Thinking that the major internet gateways between providers are bugged by the NSA isn't really too unreasonable if you accept those assumptions. > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > | | > | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | > | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | > | | > | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | > | | > | _____ The Armadillo Group | > | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | > | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | > | .', |||| `/( e\ | > | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | > | ravage(a)ssz.com | > | 512-451-7087 | > |____________________________________________________________________| -- Ryan Lackey rdl(a)mit.edu http://mit.edu/rdl/

3 2

Re: Eternity - an alternative approach
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ryan Lackey wrote: >However, I've recently become aware of "IDIP", or "Intruder Detection >and Isolation Protocol" through potentially questionable sources (my >source is mostly NDA-wary). Ryan, Any chance you could get more info on this and pass it along? Or maybe your source could spec it through a remailer if you can persuade that the cutout is truly inviolable. Thanks, John

1 0

Fastest & Easiest way to make money
by 97565462＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is a one time mailing and your address has already been deleted from our database. Please take time to read this before you erase it! I would like to let you in on a good idea... I NEVER THOUGHT I'D BE THE ONE TELLING YOU THIS.... I ACTUALLY READ & ACTED ON A PIECE OF E-MAIL, AND NOW I'M GOING TO EUROPE FOR THE VACATION! My name is Jason ; I'm a 34-year-old father, husband, and full time office manager. As a rule, I delete all unsolicited "junk" e-mail and use my account primarily for business. I received what I assumed was this same e-mail countless times and deleted it each time. About two months ago I received it again and, because of the catchy subject line, I finally read it. Afterwards, I thought, "OK, I give in, I'm going to try this. I can certainly afford to invest $20 and, on the other hand, there is nothing wrong with creating a little excess cash." I promptly mailed four $5 bills and, after receiving the reports paid a friend of mine a small fee to send out some e-mail advertisements for me. After reading the reports, I also learned how easy it is to bulk e-mail for free! I was not prepared for the results. Everyday for the last six weeks, my P.O. box has been overflowing with $5 bills; many days the excess fills up an extra mail bin and I've had to upgrade to the corporate-size box! I am stunned by all the cash that keeps rolling in! I promise you, if you follow the directions in this e-mail and be prepared to eventually set aside about an hour each day to follow up (and count your money!), you will make at least as much money as we did. You don't need to be a wiz at the computer, but I'll bet you already are. If you can open an envelope,remove the money, and send an e-mail message, then you're on your way to the bank. Take the time to read this so you'll understand how easy it is. Believe me, it works! GO FOR IT NOW! Sincerely, Jason The following is a copy of the e-mail I read: This is a LEGAL, LOW-COST, MONEY-MAKING PHENOMENON. PRINT this letter, read the directions, THEN GET STARTED TODAY! You are about to embark on the most profitable and unique program you may ever see. Many times over, it has demonstrated and proven its ability to generate large amounts of cash. This program is showing fantastic appeal with a huge and ever-growing on-line population desirous of additional income. This is a legitimate, LEGAL, money-making opportunity. It does not require you to come in contact with people, do any hard work, and best of all, you never have to leave the house, except to get the mail and go to the bank! This truly is that lucky break you've been waiting for! Simply follow the easy instructions in this letter, and your financial dreams will come true! When followed correctly, this electronic, multi-level marketing program works perfectly... 100% OF THE TIME! Thousands of people have used this program to: - Raise capital to start their own business - Pay off debts - Buy homes, cars, etc., - Even retire! This is your chance, so read on and get started today! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ OVERVIEW OF THIS EXTRAORDINARY ELECTRONIC MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING PROGRAM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Basically, this is what we do: We send thousands of people a product for $5.00 that costs next to nothing to produce and e-mail. As with all multi-level businesses, we build our business by recruiting new partners and selling our products. Every state in the U.S.allows you to recruit new multi- level business online (via your computer). The products in this program are a series of four business and financial reports costing $5.00 each. Each order you receive via "snail mail" will include: * $5.00 cash * The name and number of the report they are ordering * The e-mail address where you will e-mail them the report they ordered. To fill each order, you simply e-mail the product to the buyer. THAT'S IT! The $5.00 is yours! This is the EASIEST electronic multi-level marketing business anywhere! FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE LETTER AND BE PREPARED TO REAP THE STAGGERING BENEFITS! ******* I N S T R U C T I O N S ******* This is what you MUST do: 1. Order all 4 reports shown on the list below (you can't sell them if you don't order them). * For each report, send $5.00 CASH, the NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS, and YOUR NAME & RETURN ADDRESS (in case of a problem) to the person whose name appears on the list next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE IN CASE OF ANY MAIL PROBLEMS! * When you place your order, make sure you order each of the four reports. You will need all four reports so that you can save them on your computer and resell them. * Within a few days you will receive, via e-mail, each of the four reports. Save them on your computer so they will be accessible for you to send to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. 2. IMPORTANT-- DO NOT alter the names of the people who are listed next to each report, or their sequence on the list, in any way other than is instructed below in steps "a" through "f" or you will lose out on the majority of your profits. Once you understand the way this works, you'll also see how it doesn't work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if you alter it, it will not work. ( I talked to a friend last month who has also done this program. He said he had tried "playing" with it to change the results. Bad idea.... he never got as much money as he did with the un-altered version. Remember, it's a proven method! a. Look below for the listing of available reports. b. After you've ordered the four reports, take this advertisement and remove the name and address under REPORT #4. This person has made it through the cycle and is no doubt counting their 50 grand! c. Move the name and address under REPORT #3 down to REPORT #4. d. Move the name and address under REPORT #2 down to REPORT #3. e. Move the name and address under REPORT #1 down to REPORT #2. f. Insert your name/address in the REPORT #1 position. Please make sure you copy every name and address ACCURATELY! 3. Take this entire letter, including the modified list of names, and save it to your computer. Make NO changes to the instruction portion of this letter. 4. Now you're ready to start an advertising campaign on the INTERNET! Advertising on the 'Net is very, very inexpensive, and there are HUNDREDS of FREE places to advertise. Another avenue which you could use for advertising is e-mail lists. You can buy these lists for under $20/2,000 addresses or you can pay someone a minimal charge to take care of it for you. BE SURE TO START YOUR AD CAMPAIGN IMMEDIATELY! 5. For every $5.00 you receive, all you must do is e-mail them the report they ordered. THAT'S IT! ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON ALL ORDERS! This will guarantee that the e-mail THEY send out, with YOUR name and address on it, will be prompt because they can't advertise until they receive the report! ------------------------------------------ AVAILABLE REPORTS ------------------------------------------ *** Order Each REPORT by NUMBER and NAME *** Notes: - ALWAYS SEND $5 CASH (U.S. CURRENCY) FOR EACH REPORT CHECKS NOT ACCEPTED - ALWAYS SEND YOUR ORDER VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL - Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in at least two sheets of paper - On one of those sheets of paper, include: (a) the number & name of the report you are ordering, (b) your e-mail address, and (c) your name & postal address. PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THESE REPORTS NOW: ______________________________________________________________ REPORT #1 "HOW TO MAKE $250,000 THROUGH MULTI-LEVEL SALES" ORDER REPORT #1 FROM: Jason Baek 15507 S. Normandie Ave. # 167. Gardena, Ca 90247-4028 ______________________________________________________________ REPORT #2 "MAJOR CORPORATIONS AND MULTI-LEVEL SALES" ORDER REPORT #2 FROM: Brain 150 Main St N # 74075 Brampton, Ont., Canada L6V 4J7 ______________________________________________________________ REPORT #3 "SOURCES FOR THE BEST MAILING LISTS" ORDER REPORT #3 FROM: AMF Investments 2319 South Kirkwood # 144 Houston, TX 77077 ______________________________________________________________ REPORT #4 "EVALUATING MULTI-LEVEL SALES PLANS" ORDER REPORT #4 FROM: Fusion Marketing Ltd. 8895 Towne Centre Drive Suite 105-303A La Jolla, Ca 92122-5542 ______________________________________________________________ HERE'S HOW THIS AMAZING PLAN WILL MAKE YOU $MONEY$ Let's say you decide to start small just to see how well it works. Assume your goal is to get 10 people to participate on your first level. (Placing a lot of FREE ads on the internet will EASILY get a larger response.) Also assume that everyone else in YOUR ORGANIZATION gets ONLY 10 downline members. Follow this example to achieve the STAGGERING results below. 1st level--your 10 members with $5............................................$50 2nd level--10 members from those 10 ($5 x 100).....................$500 3rd level--10 members from those 100 ($5 x 1,000)............$5,000 4th level--10 members from those 1,000 ($5 x 10,000)...$50,000 THIS TOTALS ----------->$55,550 Remember friends, this assumes that the people who participate only recruit 10 people each. Think for a moment what would happen if they got 20 people to participate! Most people get 100's of participants! THINK ABOUT IT! Your cost to participate in this is practically nothing (surely you can afford $20). You obviously already have an Internet connection and e-mail is FREE! REPORT#3 shows you the most productive methods for bulk e-mailing and purchasing e-mail lists. Some list & bulk e-mail vendors even work on trade! About 50,000 new people get online every month! ******* TIPS FOR SUCCESS ******* * TREAT THIS AS YOUR BUSINESS! Be prompt, professional, and follow the directions accurately. * Send for the four reports IMMEDIATELY so you will have them when the orders start coming in because: When you receive a $5 order, you MUST send out the requested product/report to comply with the U.S. Postal & Lottery Laws, Title 18,Sections 1302 and 1341 or Title 18, Section 3005 in the U.S. Code, also Code of Federal Regs. vol. 16, Sections 255 and 436, which state that "a product or service must be exchanged for money received." * ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON THE ORDERS YOU RECEIVE. * Be patient and persistent with this program. If you follow the instructions exactly, your results WILL be SUCCESSFUL! * ABOVE ALL, HAVE FAITH IN YOURSELF AND KNOW YOU WILL SUCCEED! ******* YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES ******* Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: If you don't receive 10 to 20 orders for REPORT #1 within two weeks, continue advertising until you do. Then, a couple of weeks later you should receive at least 100 orders for REPORT #2. If you don't, continue advertising until you do. Once you have received 100 or more orders for REPORT #2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you, and the cash will continue to roll in! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a DIFFERENT report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. If you want to generate more income, send another batch of e-mails and start the whole process again! There is no limit to the income you will generate from this business! ******* T E S T I M O N I A L S ******* This program does work, but you must follow it EXACTLY! Especially the rule of not trying to place your name in a different position, it won't work and you'll lose a lot of potential income. I'm living proof that it works. It really is a great opportunity to make relatively easy money, with little cost to you. If you do choose to participate, follow the program exactly, and you'll be on your way to financial security. Sean McLaughlin, Jackson, MS My name is Frank. My wife, Doris, and I live in Bel-Air, MD. I am a cost accountant with a major U.S. Corporation and I make pretty good money. When I received the program I grumbled to Doris about receiving "junk mail." I made fun of the whole thing, spouting my knowledge of the population and percentages involved. I "knew" it wouldn't work. Doris totally ignored my supposed intelligence and jumped in with both feet. I made merciless fun of her, and was ready to lay the old "I told you so" on her when the thing didn't work... well, the laugh was on me! Within two weeks she had received over 50 responses. Within 45 days she had received over $147,200 in $5 bills! I was shocked! I was sure that I had it all figured and that it wouldn't work. I AM a believer now. I have joined Doris in her "hobby." I did have seven more years until retirement, but I think of the "rat race" and it's not for me. We owe it all to MLM. Frank T., Bel-Air, MD I just want to pass along my best wishes and encouragement to you. Any doubts you have will vanish when your first orders come in. I even checked with the U.S. Post Office to verify that the plan was legal. It definitely is! IT WORKS!!! Paul Johnson, Raleigh, NC The main reason for this letter is to convince you that this system is honest, lawful, extremely profitable, and is a way to get a large amount of money in a short time. I was approached several times before I checked this out. I joined just to see what one could expect in return for the minimal effort and money required. To my astonishment, I received $36,470.00 in the first 14 weeks, with money still coming in. Sincerely yours, Phillip A. Brown, Esq. Not being the gambling type, it took me several weeks to make up my mind to participate in this plan. But conservative that I am, I decided that the initial investment was so little that there was just no way that I wouldn't get enough orders to at least get my money back. Boy, was I surprised when I found my medium-size post office box crammed with orders! For awhile, it got so overloaded that I had to start picking up my mail at the window. I'll make more money this year than any 10 years of my life before. The nice thing about this deal is that it doesn't matter where in the U.S. the people live. There simply isn't a better investment with a faster return. Mary Rockland, Lansing, MI I had received this program before. I deleted it, but later I wondered if I shouldn't have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact to get another copy, so I had to wait until I was e-mailed another program...11 months passed then it came...I didn't delete this one!...I made more than $41,000 on the first try!! D. Wilburn, Muncie, IN This is my third time to participate in this plan. We have quit our jobs, and will soon buy a home on the beach and live off the interest on our money. The only way on earth that this plan will work for you is if you do it. For your sake, and for your family's sake don't pass up this golden opportunity. Good luck and happy spending! Charles Fairchild, Spokane, WA ORDER YOUR REPORTS TODAY AND GET STARTED ON YOUR ROAD TO GETTING EXTRA CASH DAILY! NOW IS THE TIME FOR YOUR TURN DECISIVE ACTION YIELDS POWERFUL RESULTS

1 0

Re: (eternity) Eternity as a secure filesystem/backup medium (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: (eternity) Eternity as a secure filesystem/backup medium (fwd) > From: Ryan Lackey <rdl(a)mit.edu> > Date: 18 Jan 1998 12:45:02 -0500 > True. But in an Eternity model without copyright, someone could be one of > the first customers to download the data, then upload it again under a > different name. So in your model there isn't any form of check on the data for redundency? > The only thing the original uploader would have as > an advantage would be indexing information, potentially -- it's easier > for me to download ms word by going to the eternity equivalent of > http://www.microsoft.com/ than to go to > http://www3.pop3-167.adhoc.warez.location.ai/edf3/filez1.zip. Not if it's: http://ww.microsoft.com/software/commercial/wordprocessing/msword/x.y/ \ msword.zip This is a specious point. The fact is that from the users perspective the index would automagicaly provide the actual resting place for the server to find it, even if it were on a different server. The whole point is to make the software do the druggery. The length of the pathname or URL is irrelevant at that point. > There's no real way to put the genie back into the bottle unless you can > send people with guns to beat people up who store your data as a third party. The point being that if we take the average user of a data haven model they don't have the resources (money, technical skill, bandwidth, etc.) to set up a data haven of their own. Further, the storing of the data by other parties isn't the issue, it isn't the data havens data. This is one of the primary reasons that really important data should be expensive to get initialy. It goes back to what I was saying in a previous post about Grace Hoppers worth-v-time model. > Data disappears from Eternity once no one cares enough about it to pay to > have it stored. What this over-looks is the potential for that data to become relevant to some currently unknown situation in the future. While I agree that the data should not necessarily be in a fast medium storage after a certain time period it should not simply be thrown away. If nothing else at some point it will have historical (inexpensive, it's still money) relevance. > Providing eternity service costs money. Life costs money, that is one of the reasons that you don't want to throw stuff away that may bring in income down the road. > Anything which lets users circumvent > this opens up the potential for denial of service through consumption of > resources attacks. There simply isn't a way around that except to out bandwidth the attacker. > Even if billing is fundamental, you still have the > potential for the NSA to spend $100m to buy all the eternity space available > at any point. > This is why you also need market mechanisms > -- if the NSA > is willing to pay a premium for eternity service just to keep it out of > the hands of the populace, then running eternity servers is a great > investment, so capacity will increase until the NSA can no longer afford > to buy all of it. I like it when you write my own rebuttal for me...:) The bottem line is that the market mechanism *is* the willingness of some party to buy that space. Nothing more, nothing less. Further, Mallet ain't stupid or he'd have starved a long time ago. > A difficult part of designing a working Eternity service is to keep people > from "stealing service", in terms of consumption of resources, during > set up, indexing, etc. Basically, you need to make sure that to the > greatest extent possible, anything which is a potentially scarce resource > is sold, not given away. The point is that *nothing* is given away for free, though you might want to let people *give* you resources for free. Which is the point I was making. > You then are vulnerable to someone spamming the system, unless you give > the server operator some way of knowing if this encrypted data is likely > to be valuable. The point is that the system can *always* be spammed. You *don't* charge the source of data a million dollars to put it on your server. It's gotta be source cheap or else it isn't worth their time to bother with it. If you *really* want to promote such servers what you need is a model that allows submitters free access *and* a share in the subscribers fees. Then everyone wins. If the source has something they know is worth god awful sums of money they aren't going to submit it to the data haven anyway, they'll set their own haven up and reap the benefits directly. There is an economic issue here that is at parity with the technical issues. > You can have arbitrarily complex payment models, since the enforcement > agents can exist (must exist?) as eternity objects in their own right. Not really, at some point the complexity works against itself - you should study a little chaos theory. The final point is to make the system (ie the logical linking of black box operations that themselves may be quite technical or complex) dirt simple. > No, the most feasible attacks for a resourced attacker are custom ASICs > optimized for key testing, as were recently described. Distributed > workstation cracking is a parlor trick if you have a billion dollar budget > for key cracking. Tell that to the NSA and their Cray-acres. The point is that even if you have customer ASIC's or FPGA's or whatever these are still computers and you can't seriously be suggesting that the resources to create customer hardware for specific goals is any less complicated or more inexpensive than using general purpose hardware when looked at from a global scale. If that model were so generaly applicable then we should move all our processing jobs to ASIC's and reap the benefits. There is also the issue that even if you use customer chips to develop customer key cracking hardware (which I agree is being done as we speak) there is still the inescapable fact that you will need lots(!) of them. So the result is that whether they are custom or general purpose devices the sheer quantity becomes a hinderance. > The NSA has general purpose HPC resources for purposes like signal processing, > AI, etc., not for brute forcing people's keys routinely (although perhaps for > a weak and nonstandard cipher, it would make sense to use general purpose > machines). Even a corporation would be better off using FPGAs or ASICs for > key cracking once you get past 56 bits. That would depend on the economics of startup and what kind of footprint that would leave in the industry. This is one of the reasons that the NSA builds their own chips. > I assume the attacker is evil and rational. My, my. Moral stipulations are probably no more relevant than psychological classifications. The issue is one of emotion. Mallet wants it because it benefits Mallet and hinders Mallets enemies. This is an emotional reason and most definitely outside the bounds of simple rational/irrational action classification. When I was speaking of psychology earlier in my submissions I was not the least bit implying any comment on rationality, goodness, or other relative classifications. I was refering to greed, pride, honor, self-respect, etc. as motivations. The interactions of those in individuals and organizations doesn't depend on classifications. > I also assume that the > entire legal system has been subverted, and that extralegal operations of > any size too small to make the new york times front page are possible. And, > any entity which deals with the government (just about any) can be subverted. Any government can be subverted as well, happens on a regular basis. The legal system may not need to be subverted for the simple reason that more than one legal system may be involved. The front page example you are so fond of is a instance that would take, my guess, probably in the neighborhood of $10k to have a full page for a single day. To make the participants investment in that sum worth it, what is their pay off in your system? Just having their name in the paper probably isn't worth it. The wide public advertisment, and hence notoriety is probably not a big plus either. Especialy considering that it would guarantee the participant a nice bug-for-life experience. > Thinking that the major internet gateways between providers are bugged by > the NSA isn't really too unreasonable if you accept those assumptions. Whether the providers themselves are bugged are not is really irrelevant, its the backbone infrastructure providers who are providing the access points. You tap the satellite transfer point, for example, not the 300 organizations sending data down it. You tap the telephone switch in each neighborhood, not the individual lines on their subscriber end trunks. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

to Anonymous
by Young iVillian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Right on, man. E-Mail me... I'd like to have a conversation w/ you. Technological takeover... we bring it on ourselves. We have no one to blame.

1 0

Re: (eternity) Eternity as a secure filesystem/backup medium (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:02:34 -0800 > From: Kent Crispin <kent(a)songbird.com> > Subject: Re: (eternity) Eternity as a secure filesystem/backup medium (fwd) > There are alternative ways of paying for the service that do not in > any way depend on ecash, and after thinking about it a bit, they seem > more robust, as well. > > The basic idea is as follows: The fundamental eternity service is > free to readers, and is financed entirely by writers. The writers > supply the disk space, the network bandwidth, and possibly pay for > the software to support all this. It is clear that there are two diametricaly opposed models of payment mechanisms and who those costs should fall on; producers or consumers. I personaly have no faith in systems where the producers bear the burden of the costs since they have no clear mechanism to obtain the funds to finance the enterprise in the first place. Imagine for a moment that a couple of persons come into possession of a set of documents which would cause considerable political embarassment and legal difficulties for a head of the local government. Why should these two individuals pay to have their data dissiminated to anyone who wants it? It certainly isn't going to improve their social, political, or professional standing since the server will anonymize the data. They then have two options, release it themselves and hope for the best (and hence reap the benefit of any economic benefits that might acrue) or do nothing with it. How about information to build man portable atomic bombs? It doesn't make sense to take all those chances and the data haven operators to take the chances when they will get at most the monetary input from a *single* party. It is clear that these resources are clearly inferior to many parties paying to get the data. I guess the question boils down to why the individual operator in running the server in the first place. I assume a priori that the goal of both the submitter and the operator is to make a reliable income from the users of the service since there are clearly many more consumers of information than producers of it. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

4 3

Other c'punk lists?
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi are there any other cypherpunk lists? With all due respect this list has a *lot* of noise <g> Perhaps something with- out the anarchy. I enjoy the wild side of this list but I would also like something more targeted. Thanks in advance

3 3