December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

CREDIT CARD PRIVACY
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Jim Hart wrote: Most customers want more privacy, but when you think about it, there is not a whole hell of a lot they can do about it right now. If they want to get the status and flexibility of a credit card, they need to give up their privacy.... At this point Duncan Frissel will regail us with some wonderful scheme, understandable only to lawyers, that can be used to get credit cards under aliases, perfectly legal if you use a doubly nested corporate structure going through Aruba and the Caymans,...I won't comment on why most consumers have neglected that option.... Well, I imagine that is because he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. In our upcoming Privacy Seminar, Duncan and I will discuss trivially simple ways to do just the thing Mr. Hart tells us can't be done. And, as Duncan says, "it'll be as legal as church on Sunday." Tune in to the Privacy Channel, Jim, you might actually learn something. The Privacy Seminar will start approximately 1 September. An announcement giving instructions on how to sign up will be made sometime this week. Stay tuned. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ m ka;sld fas;dlkf a;sdkflkj as;dlf jasd;lkfj

1 0

Re: Voluntary Governments?
by elton＠sybase.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is probably not really relevant to cypherpunks, but I think it needs to be addressed. Jason Solinsky said: >Government has nothing to do with throwing people into prison or using >guns. It is an entity that exercises authority. Or an entity that enforces >laws. Er. No. Government has _everything_ to do with throwing people into prisons, _and_ with using guns. Further, "exercises authority" is a code phrase that means "throws people into prisons and uses guns." If you want a working definition of government, it would have to be "a group of people who have assumed to themselves the exclusive power to regulate and use coercive force within a set of established borders." ...And, given the USA vs. Manuel Noriega, the nature of the "established borders" becomes subject to flexible interpretation. It's not the case that any use of force defines a government. It _is_ the case that only government pretends to be the sole arbiter of who may use force, and how much they may use. If you inspect the matter carefully, without the threat of force there could be no government. Otherwise, how would they collect taxes and tarriffs? Moreover, they must declare themselves to be the only authorized users of force, or their "enforcement" (look carefully at that word) power will be limited in its effectiveness by the strength of the resistive force. Government depends for its existence on being the biggest gang with guns anywhere in the area. -- Elton

8 9

Re: Creating privacy crises: Society hacking
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:54 PM 8/22/94 -0400, wcs(a)anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart) said, >Mailing that information to everybody in Oregon would be expensive. >On the other hand, mailing it to everyone in the Oregon legislature, >the governor, the DMV honchos, and maybe a few other high honchos >could be interesting, and might not cost that much..... Hey! Representative Democracy! What a concept.... Cheers, Bob ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone Shipwright Development Corporation who eats too little and sees Heaven and 44 Farquhar Street someone who drinks too much and sees Boston, MA 02331 USA snakes." -- Bertrand Russell (617) 323-7923

1 0

Re: In Search of Genuine DigiCash
by pcw＠access.digex.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >I don't think any of us on this list is yet ready to present a plan to >real bankers. Eric Hughes has told me he agrees. Real bankers may be well ahead of everyone on this list. I'm told that Citibank has some very intriguing work pending at the patent office. It's for digital cash. -Peter Wayner

1 0

Transcript
by fhalper＠pilot.njin.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is there or will there be a transcript of the recent debate that Zimmerman was part of? Thanks, Reuben Halper

1 0

Re: Voluntary Governments? (Not)
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<delete if this subject does not give you heart-thumping thrills> From: Elton Wildermuth It's not the case that any use of force defines a government. It _is_ the case that only government pretends to be the sole arbiter of who may use force, and how much they may use. ...................................................................... There must exist cause which would inspire the use of force by an individual, and there should exist just cause for the use of it by a government as well. Realistically there should be a recognition of when it might be logical to resort to violence against another human, whether as an individual or as a group. Only a government pretends to be the sole arbiter of who may use force; of course, everyone is supposed to have agreed on what justifies the use of it, but this is interpreted to mean that individuals themselves are not considered wise enough to make that decision at home alone. So they're back to a defense-less state against potentially overwhelming odds. Blanc

1 0

Adam Smiths Money World
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

'Punksters, For those who missed it, the PBS show "Adam Smiths Money World" was on privacy in the information age. It spent alot of time demonstrating what was available on you if you knew where to look. It also profiled a company called "Kroll and Associates" that does big business doing Blacknet type dossiers on people and corporations. They apparently were able to trace more than 6 billion dollars of So-damm-Insanes secret bank accounts. This company supposedly does U.S. 50 mil a year in business. They also talked about the possibility of "reputation" companies reresenting your privacy interests. The big point was that privacy is drastically decreasing, and that privacy protection was a big growth industry. The unrestrained capitalism approach to the whole thing was very refreshing. Brian Williams Extropian Cypherpatriot "Cryptocosmology: Sufficently advanced communication is indistinguishable from noise." --Steve Witham "Have you ever had your phones tapped by the government? YOU WILL and the company that'll bring it to you.... AT&T" --James Speth

1 0

RE; creating privacy crises
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Want to launch a privacy crisis? Try anonymously posting a few adoption records! I've always thought this was an interesting area, information about the real you being kept from you. I won't start a diagression flame fest by going on about "adoption horror stories" ( Hmmm, interesting book idea there!) Brian Williams Extropian Cypherpatriot "Cryptocosmology: Sufficently advanced communication is indistinguishable from noise." --Steve Witham "Have you ever had your phones tapped by the government? YOU WILL and the company that'll bring it to you.... AT&T" --James Speth

1 0

Cracking passwords and picking locks
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

cactus(a)bibliob.slip.netcom.com (L. Todd Masco): >>Data crime - 'cracking', 'phreaking' etc usually reflect a total lack of >>responsibility on the part of _administrators_. "Officer, I left my wallet >>on the kerb 10 minutes ago, and now it's gone!" > >This sounds like typical kiddie-cracker garbage. It's more like, "Officer, > I didn't know that master locks could be picked with the greatest of ease: > arrest that man who picked it and took my wallet." >[encryption is more complex than master locks etc] I suppose it's obvious that I was not talking about the present, but future information society, a world where digital signatures and encryption are as familiar as combination locks and safes are today. I think it would be reasonable to assume a fair degree of knowledge on security on the part of system administrators - if by that time it's not widely known that plaintext or simple protection (un-shadowed passwords etc) can, like master locks, be 'picked with ease,' then all our efforts towards greater awareness of privacy and security would have failed. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh "Clean the air! clean the sky! wash the wind! rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in take stone from stone and wash them..." Voice/Fax/Data +91 11 6853410 Voicemail +91 11 3760335 H 34C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA

1 0

Re: stealth
by DrayCoN 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tnx for the file. Haven't tried it tho. Btw, how do you use that anon mailer? -- I'm me, you're you. <dcn(a)ripco.com> Finger for PGP key

1 0

EPIC Statement on FBI Wiretap Bill
by Dave Banisar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

*DISTRIBUTE WIDELY* EPIC Statement on Digital Telephony Wiretap Bill The digital telephony bill recently introduced in Congress is the culmination of a process that began more than two years ago, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation first sought legislation to ensure its ability to conduct electronic surveillance through mandated design changes in the nation's information infrastructure. We have monitored that process closely and have scrutinized the FBI's claims that remedial legislation is necessary. We have sponsored conferences at which the need for legislation was debated with the participation of the law enforcement community, the telecommunications industry and privacy advocates. We have sought the disclosure of all relevant information through a series of requests under the Freedom of Information Act. Having thus examined the issue, EPIC remains unconvinced of the necessity or advisability of the pending bill. As a threshold matter, we do not believe that a compelling case has been made that new communications technologies hamper the ability of law enforcement agencies to execute court orders for electronic surveillance. For more than two years, we have sought the public disclosure of any FBI records that might document such a problem. To date, no such documentation has been released. Without public scrutiny of factual information on the nature and extent of the alleged technological impediments to surveillance, the FBI's claims remain anecdotal and speculative. Indeed, the telecommunications industry has consistently maintained that it is unaware of any instances in which a communications carrier has been unable to comply with law enforcement's requirements. Under these circumstances, the nation should not embark upon a costly and potentially dangerous re-design of its telecommunications network solely to protect the viability of fewer than 1000 annual surveillances against wholly speculative impediments. We also believe that the proposed legislation would establish a dangerous precedent for the future. While the FBI claims that the legislation would not enhance its surveillance powers beyond those contained in existing law, the pending bill represents a fundamental change in the law's approach to electronic surveillance and police powers generally. The legislation would, for the first time, mandate that our means of communications must be designed to facilitate government interception. While we as a society have always recognized law enforcement's need to obtain investigative information upon presentation of a judicial warrant, we have never accepted the notion that the success of such a search must be guaranteed. By mandating the success of police searches through the re-design of the telephone network, the proposed legislation breaks troubling new ground. The principle underlying the bill could easily be applied to all emerging information technologies and be incorporated into the design of the National Information Infrastructure. It could also lead to the prohibition of encryption techniques other than government-designed "key escrow" or "Clipper" type systems. In short, EPIC believes that the proposed digital telephony bill raises substantial civil liberties and privacy concerns. The present need for the legislation has not been established and its future implications are frightening. We therefore call upon all concerned individuals and organizations to express their views on the legislation to their Congressional representatives. We also urge you to contact Rep. Jack Brooks, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to share your opinions: Rep. Jack Brooks Chair, House Judiciary Committee 2138 Rayburn House Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-3951 (voice) (202) 225-1958 (fax) The bill number is H.R. 4922 in the House and S. 2375 in the Senate. It can be referred to as the "FBI Wiretap Bill" in correspondence. Electronic Privacy Information Center 666 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E. Suite 301 Washington, DC 20003 (202) 544-9240 (voice) (202) 547-5482 (fax) <info(a)epic.org> EPIC is a project of the Fund for Constitutional Government and Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. =======================================================================

1 0

New StegoInfo Page on WWW
by machado＠newton.apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fellow C'punx, Those of you with WWW access might wish to check out my new StegoInfo Page at: http://www.nitv.net/~mech/Romana/stego.html Enjoy. Romana Machado romana(a)apple.com WWW: page under construction To each, according to his greed; from each, according to his gullibility.

1 0

Re: Mail to all drivers in Oregon?
by Pierre Uszynski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Greg Broiles writes: > > Probably more than any of us want to pony up. [...] > > you're still talking about a $216,000 mailing. Pick a smallish city (but one that's "on the map" for whatever reason, university, companies, whatever), and target everyone in the city. At the same time similarly target a number of journalists in the national media. Send to all of these all the data you can find about themselves. This way you minimize the expense, and you get the national media to amplify this and make sure everybody in the country knows about the event. Jeffrey Rothfeder did it with one such journalist (Dan Rather) if I remember around 1989 (story in Business week, Sept 1989). And reuses all this stuff for the book "Privacy for sale", 1992). But he did it on a small scale, just for a story, and a story that he could put his name on. As opposed to what we are talking about here. Pierre. pierre(a)shell.portal.com

1 0

Unauthorized Advertising Attempt
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Explanation: The Citizen-Unit known as Timothy C. May is a well-known subversive given to the wide dissemination of disinformation and not expected to comply with Authorities, regulations, or advertising fee schedules. There is no mistaking him: in our exhaustive search through all the phone books on the National Database, there was only one. ~ Data

1 0

Re: Creating privacy crises: Society hacking
by Jeff Gostin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

nelson(a)crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) writes: > I have compiled the following information on your 17-year-old > daughter from open governmental sources, e.g. voting records, birth > records, DMV records, etc. Perhaps the government shouldn't be > keeping these records? More importantly, and in addition: Your dear Kimberly has a 2.3 gpa at Lower Central HS. She is in Aerobic Gum Twiddling until 10:30, at which time she proceeds to Some Math Class 3 until 12:00. At 12:00. . . Definately much scarier. :-) --Jeff -- ====== ====== +----------------jgostin(a)eternal.pha.pa.us----------------+ == == | The new, improved, environmentally safe, bigger, better,| == == -= | faster, hypo-allergenic, AND politically correct .sig. | ==== ====== | Now with a new fresh lemon scent! | PGP Key Available +---------------------------------------------------------+

2 1

Re: Digital cash market
by frissell＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:16 PM 8/21/94 -0500, Jim Hart wrote: >At this point Duncan Frissel will regail us with some wonderful >scheme, understandable only to lawyers, that can be used to >get credit cards under aliases, perfectly legal if you >use a doubly nested corporate structure going through Aruba >and the Caymans, and the IRS and FBI don't decide to get >to get you on some technicality Duncan failed to mention. I can't recall any time I've laid out a complicated structure to avoid the privacy invaders. Most of my techniques are simple and depend merely on a willingness to not do the conventional things that other people tell you are necessary if you are to prosper. In fact, hasn't Tim May actually accused me of offering solutions that are too simple and that are not based on careful and exotic Harry Margolis sort of International Tax Planning? The many people who have gotten anonymous Visa and Mastercard credit cards for example have used the simple scheme of applying for a secured credit card in a nome de guerre. Others have opened bank accounts in convenient names that come with Visa debit cards. It is actually easier than it has ever been to obtain credit cards in names other than your own. Signet Bank is promoting it's secured credit card with TV ads. >The surprisingly large number of folks who actually do go to Frissell style >lengths is proof that there are plenty of peope who care about privacy. Gee, I wish you could convince my wife that I "go to great lengths." She always accuses me of taking the easy way out. <G> DCF "How is it that the bulk of the 'Great Unwashed' manage to stand out in the pouring rain and never get wet? Persons of all ages whine these days about how tough and boring things are even though there are more exciting and profitable things going on in the world today than ever before in human history."

3 3

Scanner Banners
by j.hastings6＠genie.geis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - From ham operator N8TQJ @ W8BI.#DAY.OH.USA.NA: I gained access to a memo from Tandy Inc. headquarters in Fort Worth Texas that stated that because of an "engineering defect" the Realistic Pro 23 and the Pro 46 handheld scanners were to be immediately pulled from the shelves and NOT allowed for sale. This "defect" causes these 2 radios to fail the "compliance" specs of this "law". All district supervisors for Radio Shack are to monitor sales records of all stores within their jurisdiction on a DAILY basis, and ANY sales of the Pro 23 & 46 by ANY employee will result in "...immediate termination of employment". This is because these 2 radios do "...not conform" to the FCC ban of any scanner that can be "...easily modified" to receive 800 MHz cellular phone frequencies. This "ban" went into effect April 24, 1994, yet allows the sale of scanners already in this country, none may be imported, designed or built after this date. The memo went on to say that there will be no further warehousing and store restock of the Pro 51 handheld and the Pro 2026 moblie (similar to the BEARCAT 560 & 760) scanners and that all supplies of these 2 scanners will be sold out and not replenished. However, there are stores within the Dayton- Cincinnati-Columbus triangle that have the 2026 and the 51 and are allowed to sell them. This situation defies all logic and makes no sense at all whatsoever, Let's look at some facts: 1) ALL these scanners are cell-phone modifiable, and "easily". 2) The 23(banned from sale)and the 51(not banned)are both contemporous in design and date of model introduction. Both of these radios modify by a keyboard keystroke manipulation(1994 model introduction). 3) The 46(banned from sale)and the 2026(not banned)are both contem- porous in design and date of model introduction, and are electrically similar in design. These radios are "hardware" modified, a wire cut in the 2026 and 2 chip jumpers removed and one relocated in the 46. Why this jumbled shuffling? I think that this is another boot-licking snafu by Tandy, as the incident where Tandy pulled ALL scanners from the shelves in The People's Republic Of New Jersey when this State proposed a ban of ALL scanners. I would love to know what the Feds are up to, as cellular phones will be digitally encrypted shortly. Is this cell phone "ban" a legal prec- ident to ban further frequencies from citizen's monitoring access? Are we on the road to Soviet-like Goverbment controls: * Firearms confiscation * Internal passports * Limits on communications outside of local areas Noah's flood began with one raindrop. 73 To All - From The UnHappy Club Corny N8TQJ@W8BI - ---------------- The message above taken from the ham packet network. Thought it might be of interest here. Kent - j.hastings6(a)genie.geis.com Ham packet AX.25: WA6ZFY @ WB6YMH.#SOCA.CA.USA.NA -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLljVFTQYUX1dU7vxAQG4sAQA3HCTZ/SxZmbFOVRy1mIjeUorFeFWLuAN C26A4JM87O7iMvQa3sa0ZiUZd7syVBZy4+mINiert+7Uu/RRLjb4wIThyD0HAQZp 83B45XDHu2QI13dvtxwd4xC/Vqbgknraduma385gWjUSMexFW9nPtd+gcKGyO82P /4tehiEeX1s= =atNQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: EPIC Statement on FBI Wiretap Bill
by Lile Elam 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Good show, my man! At least some group is taking a stand other than the short-changed stand that the EFF has taken. How do I join EPIC? Glad I never joined the EFF.... :) -lile

1 0

Multiple Solutions
by blancw＠pylon.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Questions for Cryptids: Considering that: Everyone wants to have access, but no one wants 'their' info to be available indiscriminately. Everyone wants ease-of-use, but no one wants to have their system made vulnerable by it. Everyone wants wide markets, but no one wants to have easily duplicatable products. Everyone wants to corner the market for their product, but no one wants a monopoly of one - or a reduction in choices. .. Would you say that ideally all electronic information should be encrypted as a matter of course; is it the best circumstance to have absolutely everything encrypted, with systems or processes for access available only to select or paying members of the chosen cabal, no exceptions? Given that personal information is shared almost automatically between & among all sorts of businesses & gov. agencies, and that in order to prevent that, laws & regulations would be called on to put the label of illegality & the force of the law behind them: .. How could (would, should?) the procurement of services, where one is requested to give out personal financial or other information in order to receive them, be accomplished in an anarcho-capitalist system of operations whereby interactions/transactions might be 'illegal' yet supremely functional & directly beneficial, while not also being intrusive & offensive? How could all of this data be 'contained' so that it would not be irreverently distributed by irresponsible parties? .. What, in such a system, would be a method for redress of violations of contract - personal vendettas? I'm imagining these elements within a context wherein all things are electronically possible, though only some are desireable, but all are individually manageable & controllable. Blanc

1 0

Why to define "government" generously
by sw＠tiac.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm a libertarian, an anarchist even. I used to say that government-- properly defined--was what I was against. James A. Donald seems to think that way; he closed a recent letter like this (the signature is relevant): >...It is killing, violence, and extortion that make government >organizations different from non government organizations. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >We have the right to defend ourselves and our >property, because of the kind of animals that we James A. Donald >are. True law derives from this right, not from >the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. jamesd(a)netcom.com This is the "monopoly on force in a geographical area" definition of government. It's also pretty much government as we know it. It's a fundamentally bad idea and it's what James and I are against. But I don't think it's a good definition of "government." The reason is that what most people mean by "government" is a set of services, the main ones being what James calls "true law": police, courts, and defense--protection services for large numbers of people. Now it's true that most folks lump this in with all the features of government as we know it--they think that a monopoly on force is necessary to produce protection services--but it's bad to define "government" based on that confusion. The reason is that people like me (and James, judging from his signature) would still like protection services to be available to people. When "government" can plausibly be used to mean those good things, then it's bad to narrow the term to mean the worst aspects of government as we know it. What is the point? So that we, a minority, can have a convenient term to name what we're against? So that our position can be stated in as few words as possible, or sound as striking and radical as possible? So that we can sound like we know what we're talking about by knowing the *real* definitions of terms? So we can use the same terms consistently forever? I think it's bad to define your position in terms of what you're against because it's backward-looking. There are at least as many problems in the future as in the past. Arguing over or refining definitions is a sign you've wandered into a timesink. Make up some temporary terms for what each side is talking about and get on to content. --Steve - - - - - - - - - - why did the chicken cross the infobahn? finger for more info.

1 0

Re: NSA Spy Machine and DES
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <9408221018.ZM4791(a)simple.sydney.sgi.com> Ian Farquhar writes: > On Aug 18, 8:13pm, Jim Dixon wrote: > >In message <9408190809.ZM4528(a)simple.sydney.sgi.com> Ian Farquhar writes: > >>Actually, I would be surprised if the "SIMD" processors were not a huge > >>array of reprogrammable FPGA's, quite possibly Xilinx's. The possibilities > >>of a large array of these chips, each with local memory, is quite > >>interesting. I have personally seen an array of 64 Xilinx chips in a DEC > PeRL > >>box doing RSA, at speeds similar or better to almost all available custom > >>hardware implementations of the cipher. > > >The delays in getting data on and off the chip are too large and the amount > >of space wasted in redundant functions is too great. > > That is a rather sweeping statement. Want to back this up with some facts > and figures from real FPGA implementations? Certainly the early bit-slice > designs you mention later on did suffer from these problems, but FPGA's > bear little relationship to those rather venerable devices. 1. I have been using various kinds of programmable logic devices in designs for years. In doing such designs, you avoid using one device to drive another, because the effect of this is usually to increase your delays by 80% or so. There are a number of reasons for this. (a) You almost invariably duplicate functions if logic is spread over more than one chip. (b) The impedance and capacitance of the device pins and PCB tracks are far greater than those on-chip. As a result, for example, the setup time on an input flip-flop on an Actel A14100A is 3ns, but the setup time on an internal flip-flop is 0.8ns, about 75% less. In general off chip delays are an order of magnitude higher than on chip delays. FPGAs use longer internal routes than would be necessary on an ASIC and as I understand it the fuse impedance is a significant problem Both of these factors increase capacitance and impedance, slowing down the circuits. 2. The redundancy should be completely obvious. An FPGA is programmable. It has circuits whose sole function is to program the device. These occupy space. They cover the entire device. Once the device is programmed they serve no purpose. An ASIC also has a fairly high level of redundancy, because logic is assembled out of elementary logic blocks. A custom circuit, such as a microprocessor, has very little redundancy. To understand the effect of this, go price a 64K bit static RAM. ($5?) Then calculate the cost of implementing the same function in FPGAs, especially with comparable speed. > >You might prototype > >it using FPGAs, but even this is unlikely. Why not just buy one of the > >existing SIMD processors and simulate your target system? > > Because the FPGA solution is obviously less flexible, but a hell of a lot > faster than software simulation of another architecture. In this application > speed will win every time. For prototyping, speed is not usually a major consideration. What you are trying to do is to get the system to work, you are debugging it. > > People used to build fast processors out of separate chips (bit slices). > > They don't do that any more because it's too slow and too expensive if you > > are building in volume. > > But this application is NOT building in volume. It was my understanding that the project involved on the order of 10^4 to 10^6 chips. If the size of the system is small and the number of chips is low, then the use of FPGAs would be justifiable (and I myself have justified this in another context). > And yes, people do still > built multichip CPU's: most traditional supercomputing and mainframe vendors > for a start. Indeed, I would be surprised if this application didn't design > it's own FPGA (for ease of interfacing with the comms network for a start), ? what do you mean by 'design [an] FPGA' ? Do you just mean "do the design using FPGAs" -- easy -- or literally, "design a new type of FPGA"? This would be very expensive and pointless. Commercial designers are almost always going to do something cheaper and better than something done under a government contract. > but I'd argue that a SIMD configuration of reconfigurable FPGA arrays (ie. > a fixed array of reconfigurable arrays) would be an awesome system for > many problems that the NSA would deal with. Why SIMD? Why not a reconfigurable architecture as well? -- +-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Jim Dixon<jdd(a)aiki.demon.co.uk> | Compuserve: 100114,1027 | |AIKI Parallel Systems Ltd + parallel processing hardware & software design| | voice +44 272 291 316 | fax +44 272 272 015 | +-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

1 0

Re: Electronic Cash
by roy＠sendai.cybrspc.mn.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- A pointer to an interesting article in comp.society.privacy. The Message-ID is <comp-privacy5.25.1(a)cs.uwm.edu>. In comp.society.privacy, mckeever(a)cogsci.uwo.ca writes: > Anonymity is not a problem with digital cash. [...] > CONCLUSION: While the techology exists to mimick the anonymity of > physical cash, it is extremely UNWISE to ignore the ease with which > machines can be regulated by government. Consequently, it is unwise to > assume that the benefits of anonymity will continue if digital cash > replaces physical cash, and even if they did, somehow, continue, > taxation would still be quite easily done by regulating the possession > and use of the machines that transfer credits from one entity to > another. [ quote ends ] - -- Roy M. Silvernail -- roy(a)sendai.cybrspc.mn.org "I'm a family man, model citizen." -- Warren Zevon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAwUBLlnqlBvikii9febJAQHbagQAjMIV50ik7jeXVO0CWIp4exdbVC3ZBVTu EFmOYU8gCOhj0EgbW47lnYynJHA9UKPx+BWFps8/XtDQr/mcfp5hvduUfRJ5cofG 5DMEaO7m3skjmUz8HWsWD+fgXuSQbsy36h6GqEOsrJxdmTeMRxdgf5hF9Zp+6acd 8EoMxhxCRn0= =M3YO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

pgp -c,no initialization vector, possible bug, pgp 26ui
by 0x7CF5048D＠nowhere 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In pgp 2.6 UI When pgp is called with the -c switch, the routine idea_encryptfile in crypto.c is called from main in pgp.c. > status = idea_encryptfile( workfile, tempf, attempt_compression); >int idea_encryptfile(char *infile, char *outfile, > boolean attempt_compression) >{ > FILE *f; /* input file */ > FILE *g; /* output file */ > byte ideakey[16]; > struct hashedpw *hpw; Note that idea key is a 16 bytes. Now idea_encryptfile calls squish_and_idea_file in crypto.c with this 16 byte key. > /* Now compress the plaintext and encrypt it with IDEA... */ > squish_and_idea_file( ideakey, f, g, attempt_compression ); Now squish_and_idea_file calls idea_file in the module crypto.c with the same 16 byte key. >static int squish_and_idea_file(byte *ideakey, FILE *f, FILE *g, > boolean attempt_compression) >{

1 0

MIT Fascism
by frissell＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>True enough. Most of our rules have been bundled together. Either you >accept all of them or you walk away. So Tim, if you don't like the FBI >monitoring all of your communications and requiring you to give them copies >of all your secret keys, why don't you just leave? [or are you planing to >do that?] > >JWS So MIT=FBI? I knew it was just another TLA. The fire fights on the Quad must be exciting. How many "citizens" *did* MIT security kill last year? DCF ************************************************************************* ATMs, Contracting Out, Digital Switching, Downsizing, EDI, Fax, Fedex, Home Workers, Internet, Just In Time, Leasing, Mail Receiving, Phone Cards, Quants, Securitization, Temping, Voice Mail.

2 1

RE: in search of real digital cash
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Wayner adds; >Real bankers may be well ahead of everyone on this list. I'm told >that Citibank has some very intriguing work pending at the patent >office. It's for digital cash. >-Peter Wayner Ameritech/Citibank is running a home banking system right now. You can buy a display phone that accepts a Citibank smartcard and gives you complete access to your accounts, it functions just like an ATM, except you can't currently deposit and withdraw. Digicash is rumoured to be forthcomming. Also as part of the startup, the white pages are available. The phones are made by Philips, I'm still trying to track down the exact nature of the smart cards encryption, although I was told it was "Standard bank encryption." I was in charge of installation for this project. I'll keep everyone informed. Brian Williams Extropian Cypherpatriot "Cryptocosmology: Sufficently advanced communication is indistinguishable from noise." --Steve Witham "Have you ever had your phones tapped by the government? YOU WILL and the company that'll bring it to you.... AT&T" --James Speth

1 0