December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk > To: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> > Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 19:12:05 +0000 > Subject: Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Priority: normal Can anyone tell me if my previous message with the above headers (end of message quoted in below) was sent to the censored list or to cypherpunks-flames? - I subscribe to the unmoderated version of the list so do not get to see what goes where.... > I do not have the resources to run such an unmoderated list but I > hope someone on this list does and is good enough to start such a > list, cypherpunks is a shell of what it once was. > > Also, please note this message will be junked onto cypherpunks-flames > even though it contains no flames or flame bait because it dares to > criticise the censorship of the list (once again Sandy, I give you an > opportunity to prove me wrong). Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

Privacy/info site
by camcc＠abraxis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I stumbled upon this site and have not had an opportunity to visit it in toto (certainly no pun intended, Mr. Toto). Seems to have a wealth of info and links for the military/security oriented. http://hrvati.cronet.com/mprofaca/mcsusa2.html Alec

1 0

Posting percentages
by Peterson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr. Dimitri Vulus KOTM wrote: Rabid Wombat <wombat(a)mcfeely.bsfs.org> writes: >> Regardless of which side you take on this matter, remember that the issue >> was forced by the actions of an extremely small segment of the list >> "population." >The list "population" (readers) is a couple of thousand people, almost >all of whom are lurkers. All posters are an extremely small segment of >the readership. It's true on most Internet forums. Just because us "lurkers" don't post, doesn't mean that we aren't taking sides, agreeing, disagreeing, or otherwise. Small portions of the population doesn't mean that the rest of us have no comment, just not the will to make the post.

1 0

Re: overview.htm (fwd)
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> writes: > There has been great concern raised among those in the medical >profession regarding the end-effects of their wholesale >prescribing of anitbiotics for colds, aches and pains, etc., >leading to the development of new strains of virus which are >immune to the older antibiotics. This leads to development of >stronger (misused) antibiotics, which then leads to stronger >strains of virus. > There have been a number of studies which point to the fact that >the human immune system is now caught in a battle between >increasingly potent virus and antibiotics and is losing its >capacity to fightits 'natural' enemies. Antibiotics are for fighting bacterial infections. Antibiotics have no effect on viruses at all. However you are accurate in that the abuse of antibiotics for things like colds (a virus, no effect) has led us to a very dangerous situation. (antibiotic resistant bacteria) I suggest the book "The Coming Plague" who's authors name escapes me at the moment, if you, or anyone else is interested. Brian Cypherpunk Extropian " You can lead a horse to water, but you can't faucet."

1 0

Moderated list is missing headers
by Lou Poppler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The arguments about imaginary quotes and libel are harder to untangle because the moderation process seems to consume the mail headers showing the messages' travels before reaching toad.com. I suggest that these headers are signal not noise, and should be propagated if at all possible. We have had problems in the past with forgeries, and should retain this basic tool for evaluating a message's source. <preemptive remarks> I know I could get these from the unmoderated list -- but I prefer the moderated version so far, and think they should be here also. I know PGP signatures are a better way of authenticating a message. </preemptive remarks> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by mail.msen.com (8.8.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA02344 for <lwp(a)mail.msen.com>; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 10:58:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id GAA24082; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 06:41:04 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199701271441.GAA24082(a)toad.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 04:33:05 -0800 From: Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> To: Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: Fantasy quotes & libel Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk [ message body irrelevant ]

2 1

Re: Censorship
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 26 Jan 97 at 22:28, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > "Ross Wright" <rwright(a)adnetsol.com> writes: > > > On or About 26 Jan 97 at 2:19, blanc wrote: > >> > > >Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > >>>Jim Choate wrote: > > > >>>>>Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > > >>>>>>>irrelevant(a)nowhere.com wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>Dale Thorn wrote: > > > > > > It can be said 100,000 times, but it still comes out the same: > > > Just as in "The only cure for bad speech is more speech", "the > > > only cure for 'list-focus-drift' is more on-focus postings". > > > > THE PRICE OF FREE SPEECH IS TOLERANCE OF IDEAS THAT WE MAY > > OBJECT TO. > > Comversely, some people are willing to give up their own freedom of > speech so as to silence others whose views they don't like. Who could be that stupid? Why would they even want to give up an inch of their freedoms? >They > hope that they'll be censored less than their "enemies". A weak hope at best. Once you start censoring it becomes a "Slippery Slope". > But a forum > can't be "a little bit censored" just like a woman can't be "a > little bit pregnant". You got that right! =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0

S/KEY (was: 2 Questions)
by peter.allan＠aeat.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steven M Orrin <privsoft(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Hey guys, > 2 quick questions: > Are there any known hacks or weaknesses in S/Key? S/Key has a rather limited scope, in aiming to prevent replay attacks. These are where somebody snoops on your network to obtain passwords, an uses them in later login attempts. This is undoubtedly a major weakness in most current networks. S/Key addresses this replay of data obtained in passive eavesdropping, but that is all it does. Several attacks against S/Key have been discussed [1], including: race attacks: eavesdropping most of the hash, and racing the user to provide the rest of it active attacks: impersonating the server to learn future hashes or simply hijacking an established session. Strengthening S/Key really means expanding the scope to get an authenticated and encrypted 2-way connection. [John Gilmore's S/WAN may end up achieving this. I'm not familiar with it (yet?).] Ideas for improving S/Key that involve secret data stored on the server tend to get frowned on, as the original aim was to avoid that. In any case you cannot get the full encrypted 2-way connection without getting a whole lot more complicated. Recent discussions [2] have centred on ways to rekey the list of hashes remotely when the count runs down. These changes, and S/Key itself, are better than nothing but where's the ham sandwich ? [3] Beside the protocol weakness there is potential for finding collisions in the hash function (MD4 originally). A choice of hash functions can be provided. See RFC-1938. 1) See also SecureID, which is more complicated and still subject to similar attacks. 2) Not here. 3) Old joke. A ham sandwich is better than nothing, and nothing is better than a life of complete happiness, so ...... -- Peter Allan peter.allan(a)aeat.co.uk

1 0

Best Computer School?
by SpyKing 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is a little off topic but maybe someone can help. I've got a teenage son (HS sophomore) who's interested in majoring in computer science in college with a particular interest in cryptography. He's leaning toward MIT. Any suggestions from list members as to colleges to investigate?

1 0

Passphrase Online...
by John Shaft 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>If I am connected to the Internet via a SLIP/PPP connection and I >>type my passphrase while being online (for example, in Private >>Idaho, after getting my mail), could that passphrase be compromised? >>If so, how would that be done? There are a number of things that can happen. Basically, if you don't directly control the device/application that is doing the encryption for you, you run the risk of someone intercepting whatever you xmit. For example, if you have a dial up type shell account with your local ISP, and you depend on some UNIX based encryption program to secure your mail (running on the ISP's machine), anyone with root access can tap the tty and watch you enter your passphrase. You're also susceptable (sp?) to someone taping your phone line and looking at you with a packet analyzer. I suppose if you were doing something locally, and someone wanted to be really sneaky, they could embed something like keycopy on your machine (with a virus or something) and get coppied every time you enter a keystroke. I don't suppose it would be all that difficult to get a machine to run a tsr that got kicked off every time you accessed something like, say , PGP....Comments? Shaft! Damn Straigt. shaft(a)africamail.com

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Kevin L Prigge 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk said: > > I think both of these groups are intellectually dishonest in the > > extreme when it comes to telling others how this list should be > > run. I doubt any of them would permit the sort of disruptive > > behavior that goes on here to go unchallenged in salons they > > sponsor in their own homes or on Net lists that they themselves > > maintain. > > If you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty try the following: > > Imagine if you will a list, the original purpose of which was > to act as a free and open forum for discussion of cryptography and > related issues. A list which proudly proclaims in its "welcome to > the list" message: > > We do not seek to prevent other people from > speaking about their experiences or their opinions. > > Now imagine that list falling into a state of content based > censorship and censorship based on an unspoken but ever present > class structure, then ask yourself which list you know that most > closely matches this description, it`s a pretty revealing exercise. The exercise reveals to me that only by ignoring the first paragraph of your example, the part that reads "Imagine if you will a list, the original purpose of which was to act as a free and open forum for discussion of cryptography and related issues." can you make a claim of content based censorship. The purpose of this list was and should be discussion of cryptography and related issues. The fact that some people choose this as a forum for personal attacks and blathering about issues that are not even vaguely related to the discussion of cryptography and related issues does not make it a proper forum for such communication. > > This is a voluntary list folks. We tried incivility and that did > > not work. Right now we are experimenting with reasoned discourse > > in an atmosphere of interpersonal respect and good will. > > For "Reasoned discourse in an atmosphere of interpersonal respect and > good will" read "content based censorship". For "voluntary list" read "voluntary list". > > > If most list members like the change, it will continue. If not, then we > > can go back to the swill or perhaps try something else. In the > > meantime, get over it. If you really like flames and spam, show > > John and me how it really should be done. Start another list. > > Of course squating and claim jumping appeal to the lazy a lot > > more than homesteading. > > It is a foregone conclusion that the upper class of list members will > have no dispute over the censorship and therefore the change will be > permenant, it is a form of online ethnic cleansing whereby the lists > clique of illuminati have taken it upon themselves to remove the > elements of the list they feel endanger their position of superiority > and respect, the point they have missed is that they have no > credibility whatsoever after this incident, as well as a number of > other such occurances and therefore are only isolating themselves > into their own little world. The Big Lie once again. yadda yadda yadda "Censorship!" yadda yadda yadda "No Credibility" yadda yadda yadda ad nauseum. > > "cypherpunks will make the networks safe for censorship" "Idiots will make the networks require censorship" -- Kevin L. Prigge | Some mornings, it's just not worth Systems Software Programmer | chewing through the leather straps. Internet Enterprise - OIT | - Emo Phillips University of Minnesota |

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Sun, 26 Jan 1997 paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > You need have no sympathy. Those members of this list see it as it > is, a list that was supposed to be, in some small way, a "model" of > an anarchistic discussion forum for the subject of cryptography,... Nonsense. It was supposed to be a discussion of crypto and other technologies in support of privacy. The founders, Hughes, Gilmore, May and Daniel were focusing on that goal. The list structure was anarchistic (and still is to those who understand the concept of anarco-capitalism). Obviously Gilmore is not wedded to the idea of letting every fool use his bandwidth. In personal discussions as recently as yesterday, Hughes had no problem in supporting some mechanism to promote civility on the list. I don't think anything May has written would suggest he would have a problem with keeping things polite. His only argument seems to be over methodology. He thinks filtering is the answer; I don't. Reasonable minds may differ. Hugh Daniel has been instrumental in providing technical help with regard to moderation. Finally, the fact that the vast majority of list members have not seen fit to "vote with their feet" should suggest how most really feel about moderation. (By the way, if you don't like moderation, you would hate Eric Hughes' favored solution.) > ...That was the intended direction of the list, it > has rapidly disentigrated over recent months into a censored list > where the elite post to the main list and anyone else is nearly > always relegated to a seperate list for the crypto-untermenshcen. Again, nonsense. The moderation experiment (moderation, not censorship) has been in effect for all of ONE WEEK. Where does Paul get this hysterical "recent months" stuff? > If you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty try the following: > > Imagine if you will a list, the original purpose of which was > to act as a free and open forum for discussion of cryptography and > related issues... Paul's argument is the essence of literal conservativism, "but I don't things to change!" Without change, though, there can be no progress. Moderation is a one-month experiment. There is no intellectual dishonesty in saying, "let's try something else for a while." > Now imagine that list falling into a state of content based > censorship and censorship based on an unspoken but ever present > class structure,... "Unspoken but ever present class structure"? I wonder how Paul was able to divine this? Certainly it is unspoken, but that, of course, it because it does not exist anywhere but in Paul's fertile imagination. > It is a foregone conclusion that the upper class of list members will > have no dispute over the censorship and therefore the change will be > permenant,... Great! I thought that hadn't been determined yet. What a relief. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Privacy/info site
by Alec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I stumbled upon this site and have not had an opportunity to visit it <underline>in toto </underline>(certainly no pun intended, Mr. Toto). Seems to have a wealth of info and links for the military/security oriented. http://hrvati.cronet.com/mprofaca/mcsusa2.html Alec

1 0

Re: Xerox is watching you
by David Lesher / hated by RBOC's in 5 states 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Martin Minow sez: > > You'll find an article worth a visit to the dentist in the January > 1997 issue of Popular Science. It tells a story from the 1960's > cold war era. You might take this to alt.folklore.urban. Barring any factual support, it better fits there. After all Popular Science once had their famous battery carrier design, and an older friend related reading of their scheme to reduce the weight of battle tanks to get them up the Burma Road during WWII. It involved helium, and to reduce space, it was to be compressed into large cylinders bolted to the sides........ -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

Re: PGPmail for Windows, Version 4.5
by wlkngowl＠unix.asb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 26 Jan 1997 18:59:32 -0500, you wrote: [..] >It doesn't seem to work with the mail program in MS IE, or MS WordMail. >I understand why some people don't like Microsoft, but excluding >support for popular Microsoft programs seems contrary to their >stated goal of promoting the use of crypto. I believe (according to their page) it's in the works to add support for other programs. It might also be that the MS CryptoAPI may impose limitations on crypto plug-ins that require annoying hacks to use conveniently. But maybe not... I'm surprised the didn't mention Pegasus Mail, which is an amazing "hot" mailer, with a sort-of built-in crypto plug-in capability... it's also free. Rob ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key.

1 0

Best Computer School?
by SpyKing 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is a little off topic but maybe someone can help. I've got a teenage son (HS sophomore) who's interested in majoring in computer science in college with a particular interest in cryptography. He's leaning toward MIT. Any suggestions from list members as to colleges to investigate?

4 3

Passphrase Online...
by John Shaft 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>If I am connected to the Internet via a SLIP/PPP connection and I >>type my passphrase while being online (for example, in Private >>Idaho, after getting my mail), could that passphrase be compromised? >>If so, how would that be done? There are a number of things that can happen. Basically, if you don't directly control the device/application that is doing the encryption for you, you run the risk of someone intercepting whatever you xmit. For example, if you have a dial up type shell account with your local ISP, and you depend on some UNIX based encryption program to secure your mail (running on the ISP's machine), anyone with root access can tap the tty and watch you enter your passphrase. You're also susceptable (sp?) to someone taping your phone line and looking at you with a packet analyzer. I suppose if you were doing something locally, and someone wanted to be really sneaky, they could embed something like keycopy on your machine (with a virus or something) and get coppied every time you enter a keystroke. I don't suppose it would be all that difficult to get a machine to run a tsr that got kicked off every time you accessed something like, say , PGP....Comments? Shaft! Damn Straigt. shaft(a)africamail.com

2 1

S/KEY (was: 2 Questions)
by Peter M Allan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steven M Orrin <privsoft(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Hey guys, > 2 quick questions: > Are there any known hacks or weaknesses in S/Key? S/Key has a rather limited scope, in aiming to prevent replay attacks. These are where somebody snoops on your network to obtain passwords, an uses them in later login attempts. This is undoubtedly a major weakness in most current networks. S/Key addresses this replay of data obtained in passive eavesdropping, but that is all it does. Several attacks against S/Key have been discussed [1], including: race attacks: eavesdropping most of the hash, and racing the user to provide the rest of it active attacks: impersonating the server to learn future hashes or simply hijacking an established session. Strengthening S/Key really means expanding the scope to get an authenticated and encrypted 2-way connection. [John Gilmore's S/WAN may end up achieving this. I'm not familiar with it (yet?).] Ideas for improving S/Key that involve secret data stored on the server tend to get frowned on, as the original aim was to avoid that. In any case you cannot get the full encrypted 2-way connection without getting a whole lot more complicated. Recent discussions [2] have centred on ways to rekey the list of hashes remotely when the count runs down. These changes, and S/Key itself, are better than nothing but where's the ham sandwich ? [3] Beside the protocol weakness there is potential for finding collisions in the hash function (MD4 originally). A choice of hash functions can be provided. See RFC-1938. 1) See also SecureID, which is more complicated and still subject to similar attacks. 2) Not here. 3) Old joke. A ham sandwich is better than nothing, and nothing is better than a life of complete happiness, so ...... -- Peter Allan peter.allan(a)aeat.co.uk

1 0

Re: 4th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security
by Remo Pini 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone going there? It's right next doors - at least next to mine :) Remo Pini

1 0

Re: PGPmail for Windows, Version 4.5
by Rob 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 26 Jan 1997 18:59:32 -0500, you wrote: [..] >It doesn't seem to work with the mail program in MS IE, or MS WordMail. >I understand why some people don't like Microsoft, but excluding >support for popular Microsoft programs seems contrary to their >stated goal of promoting the use of crypto. I believe (according to their page) it's in the works to add support for other programs. It might also be that the MS CryptoAPI may impose limitations on crypto plug-ins that require annoying hacks to use conveniently. But maybe not... I'm surprised the didn't mention Pegasus Mail, which is an amazing "hot" mailer, with a sort-of built-in crypto plug-in capability... it's also free. Rob ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key.

1 0

RE: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Sandy Sandfort (By the way, if you don't like moderation, you would hate Eric Hughes' favored solution.) ............................................... What was that? .. Blanc

4 3

Re: Shave the Whales
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Disruptive Vasectomy died of AIDS last night with his homosexual lover. \|/ @ @ -oOO-(_)-OOo- Dr.Disruptive Vasectomy

1 0

Re: 4th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security
by Remo Pini 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone going there? It's right next doors - at least next to mine :) Remo Pini

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Kevin L Prigge wrote: > paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk said: > > > I think both of these groups are intellectually dishonest in the > > > extreme when it comes to telling others how this list should be > > > run. I doubt any of them would permit the sort of disruptive > > > behavior that goes on here to go unchallenged in salons they > > > sponsor in their own homes or on Net lists that they themselves > > > maintain. > > > > If you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty try the following: > > > > Imagine if you will a list, the original purpose of which was > > to act as a free and open forum for discussion of cryptography and > > related issues. A list which proudly proclaims in its "welcome to > > the list" message: > > > > We do not seek to prevent other people from > > speaking about their experiences or their opinions. > > > > Now imagine that list falling into a state of content based > > censorship and censorship based on an unspoken but ever present > > class structure, then ask yourself which list you know that most > > closely matches this description, it`s a pretty revealing exercise. > > The exercise reveals to me that only by ignoring the first paragraph > of your example, the part that reads "Imagine if you will a list, > the original purpose of which was to act as a free and open forum > for discussion of cryptography and related issues." can you make > a claim of content based censorship. The purpose of this list was Then why discussion of machine guns should be allowed here? igor

1 0

Re: Shave the Whales
by Huge Cajones Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Disruptive Vasectomy died of AIDS last night with his homosexual lover. \|/ @ @ -oOO-(_)-OOo- Dr.Disruptive Vasectomy

1 0

Handbook of Applied Cryptography
by Mullen, Patrick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(My apologies if someone else has posted this information and I missed it.) _Handbook_of_Applied_Cryptography_, Menezes, Oorschot, Vanstone, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1997 With a foreword by R.L. Rivest Contents in Brief: Table of Contents v List of Tables xv List of Figures xix Foreword xxi Preface xxiii 1 Overview of Cryptography 1 2 Mathematical Background 49 3 Number-Theoretic Reverence Problems 87 4 Pulic-Key Parameters 133 5 Pseudorandom Bits and Sequences 169 6 Stream Ciphers 191 7 Block Ciphers 223 8 Public-Key Encryption 283 9 Hash Functions and Data Integrity 321 10 Identification and Entity Authentication 385 11 Digital Signatures 425 12 Key Establishment Protocols 489 13 Key Management Techniques 543 14 Efficient Implementation 591 15 Patents and Standards 635 A Bibliography of Papers from Selected Cryptographic Forums 663 References 703 Index 775 >From the back cover: << BEGIN QUOTE >> Cryptography, in particular public-key cryptography, has emerged in the las 20 years as an important discipline that is not only the subject of an enormous amount of research, but provides the foundation for information security in many applications. Standards are emerging to meet the demands for cryptographic protection in most areas of data communications. Public- key cryptographic techniques are now in widespread use in industry, especially in the financial services industry, in the public sector, and by individuals for their personal privacy, such as in electronic mail. This Handbook will serve as a valuable reference for the novice as well as for the expert who needs a wider scope of coverage within the aread of cryptography. It is a necessary and timely guide for professionals who practice the art of cryptography. The _Handbook_of_Applied_Cryptography_ provides a treatment that is multifunctional: * It serves as an introduction to the more practical aspects of both conventional and public-key cryptography * It is a valuable source of the latest techniques and algorithms for the serious practitioner * It provides an integrated treatment of the field, whil still presenting each major topic as a self-contained unit * It provides a mathematical treatment to accompany practical discussions * It contains enough abstractoin to be a valuable reference for theoreticians while containing enough detail to actually allow implementation of the algorithms discussed This is the definitive cryptography reference that novice as well as experienced developers, designers, researchers, engineers, computer scientists, and mathematicials alike will find indispensable. << END QUOTE >> ~ Patrick

1 0

RE: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Sandy Sandfort (By the way, if you don't like moderation, you would hate Eric Hughes' favored solution.) ............................................... What was that? .. Blanc

1 0

Re: libsln.htm -- Is Libel a Crime?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:14 AM 1/27/97 -0600, ichudov(a)algebra.com wrote: >I am not sure if you posted this information in response to my request >to cite a statute that would prove that libel is a crime. > >Me> Jim Choate wrote: >Me> > >Me> > >Me> > >Me> > Are you aware that attributing statements in print to a party when that >Me> > party did not write them is a crime? >Me> >Me> cite the statute > > >These postings do not prove that libel is a crime. It is because libel >is not a crime. Libel is a tort, and unlike with crime, the government >cannot initiate a legal action against someone for libel. Only injured >(libeled) individuals and not the government can sue in a libel case. On the contrary, in some jurisdictions libel is indeed a crime. However, that doesn't mean that prosecutions happen anymore, but the laws are (in some places) still on the books. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

No Subject
by Ciro Maria 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

remove

1 0

Re: Moderated list is missing headers
by Mark M. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, Lou Poppler wrote: > The arguments about imaginary quotes and libel are harder to untangle > because the moderation process seems to consume the mail headers showing > the messages' travels before reaching toad.com. I suggest that these > headers are signal not noise, and should be propagated if at all possible. > We have had problems in the past with forgeries, and should retain this > basic tool for evaluating a message's source. I agree, except I rely on this to sort the moderated and unmoderated lists into separate folders. I'm sure the bugs are still being worked out, but it would be much easier to filter if the sender header was set appropriately. Here's the procmail recipe in case anyone's interested: :0 * ^Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com { :0 * -1^1 ^Received: * 4^1 ^Received:.*from majordom(a)localhost.*by toad.com * ^Message-Id:.*toad.com in.cpunks :0 unedited } The number 4 should be changed depending on how many hops a message must make to reach its destination. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMu0gyyzIPc7jvyFpAQGCrAgAlIT6oSZ18sVGuMQWeszAWPE67BwMRx/1 2CLsrtpCaKfj5j+C5DsT2dpv4IhlOFOftrtCPL8KOEot5YRg3mUeUl7efwfnioeB UmM3h7Zx8W5RFZlTlhMim58G5o88jYVE3Rsov+f8nYM9hoXPDyjgoZmnG4BUn8Ca saL3ul2zO39bB4YwRmBKCeXRBzefmaowJbdC7Hl+S+uU61+Dbtbk/Fq2o5B9Gsvq wjg3QF4u+oyDCfcxdmLajL9tE6K7L2bgEkvi9kxt7AUP5e/l53epXK9cFplYF0B6 qgPd0shYmWiTSbhjQ4tw6jZkxuyxWqFX/nAHGp7Tciqp/rIkwX/tNQ== =riw1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: The Adult Chamber of Commerce is now open
by BUSINESS＠VNET.NET 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

IF YOU ARE A BUSINESS OWNER WITH A WEB SITE, you should know that The Adult Chamber of Commerce represents professional businesses on the Web. The Adult Chamber of Commerce is on the Web to help you! We got your E-mail address from your Business newsgroup posting. We did not put your E-mail address on a mailing list! THE BOTTOM LINE: Chamber members see increased traffic to their Web Sites. A massive portion of the Web has Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants, and all sorts of people (buyer) visiting ADULT sites. It's just the nature of the Web. Your business can capture some of this massive traffic and direct it to your Web site through Membership in The Adult Chamber of Commerce. All member companies, Adult & Non-Adult, get listed in the Chamber member links section with an icon that indicates you do business in accordance with the Better Business Practices of The Adult Chamber of Commerce. This listing literally guarantees significant additional traffic to your Web site. Membership inThe Adult Chamber of Commerce is something you should consider if you are interested in getting greater exposure on the Web. Each company is checked out before membership is approved. Since it costs a business as little as $240 annually for membership, it's not expensive for a company to tell others that they support the only professional organization for responsible ADULT businesses. A business applies for membership at the Adult Chamber Web site and visitors regularly check to see if the company [they'e planning to buy from] is a Member in Good Standing. The Adult Chamber of Commerce web site is the place to find the BEST & most responsible companies on the Web. ============================================== Visit and Bookmark http://www.adultchamber.com ============================================== IF YOU OWN A BUSINESS, applying for MEMBERSHIP to The Adult Chamber of Commerce is easy. The Web site has an online application. Memberships are pocessed daily and increasing traffic to your Web site is as easy as becoming a member! The chamber has other services besides increasing traffic to your Web site. We design, re-design and host Web sites professionally. Visit www.adultchamber.com for the whole story and you will see why membership is a good idea for any business. If you want a brochure, leave us your name and address. You can call us to discuss membership at 516/689-2457 or 561/395-0217. THE BOTTOM LINE is that Chamber member businessessee increased traffic to their Web sites and improve sales.

1 0

No Subject
by Ciro Maria 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

remove

1 0

Handbook of Applied Cryptography
by Mullen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(My apologies if someone else has posted this information and I missed it.) _Handbook_of_Applied_Cryptography_, Menezes, Oorschot, Vanstone, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1997 With a foreword by R.L. Rivest Contents in Brief: Table of Contents v List of Tables xv List of Figures xix Foreword xxi Preface xxiii 1 Overview of Cryptography 1 2 Mathematical Background 49 3 Number-Theoretic Reverence Problems 87 4 Pulic-Key Parameters 133 5 Pseudorandom Bits and Sequences 169 6 Stream Ciphers 191 7 Block Ciphers 223 8 Public-Key Encryption 283 9 Hash Functions and Data Integrity 321 10 Identification and Entity Authentication 385 11 Digital Signatures 425 12 Key Establishment Protocols 489 13 Key Management Techniques 543 14 Efficient Implementation 591 15 Patents and Standards 635 A Bibliography of Papers from Selected Cryptographic Forums 663 References 703 Index 775 >From the back cover: << BEGIN QUOTE >> Cryptography, in particular public-key cryptography, has emerged in the las 20 years as an important discipline that is not only the subject of an enormous amount of research, but provides the foundation for information security in many applications. Standards are emerging to meet the demands for cryptographic protection in most areas of data communications. Public- key cryptographic techniques are now in widespread use in industry, especially in the financial services industry, in the public sector, and by individuals for their personal privacy, such as in electronic mail. This Handbook will serve as a valuable reference for the novice as well as for the expert who needs a wider scope of coverage within the aread of cryptography. It is a necessary and timely guide for professionals who practice the art of cryptography. The _Handbook_of_Applied_Cryptography_ provides a treatment that is multifunctional: * It serves as an introduction to the more practical aspects of both conventional and public-key cryptography * It is a valuable source of the latest techniques and algorithms for the serious practitioner * It provides an integrated treatment of the field, whil still presenting each major topic as a self-contained unit * It provides a mathematical treatment to accompany practical discussions * It contains enough abstractoin to be a valuable reference for theoreticians while containing enough detail to actually allow implementation of the algorithms discussed This is the definitive cryptography reference that novice as well as experienced developers, designers, researchers, engineers, computer scientists, and mathematicials alike will find indispensable. << END QUOTE >> ~~ Patrick

1 0

[IMPORTANT] New keyserver available
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Deviant Vulis K>ocksucker< Of The Minute studied yoga back- stretching exercises for five years so he could blow himself (nobody else will). _.._ _.._ ,','"_:./\/\,'_ `.`. /_:--:_ ( oo ) _:--:_\ Dr.Deviant Vulis K>ocksucker< Of The Minute /' `'`vv'`' `\

1 0

Re: libsln.htm -- Is Libel a Crime?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:14 AM 1/27/97 -0600, ichudov(a)algebra.com wrote: >I am not sure if you posted this information in response to my request >to cite a statute that would prove that libel is a crime. > >Me> Jim Choate wrote: >Me> > >Me> > >Me> > >Me> > Are you aware that attributing statements in print to a party when that >Me> > party did not write them is a crime? >Me> >Me> cite the statute > > >These postings do not prove that libel is a crime. It is because libel >is not a crime. Libel is a tort, and unlike with crime, the government >cannot initiate a legal action against someone for libel. Only injured >(libeled) individuals and not the government can sue in a libel case. On the contrary, in some jurisdictions libel is indeed a crime. However, that doesn't mean that prosecutions happen anymore, but the laws are (in some places) still on the books. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: libsln.htm -- Is Libel a Crime?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:14 AM 1/27/97 -0600, ichudov(a)algebra.com wrote: >I am not sure if you posted this information in response to my request >to cite a statute that would prove that libel is a crime. > >Me> Jim Choate wrote: >Me> > >Me> > >Me> > >Me> > Are you aware that attributing statements in print to a party when that >Me> > party did not write them is a crime? >Me> >Me> cite the statute > > >These postings do not prove that libel is a crime. It is because libel >is not a crime. Libel is a tort, and unlike with crime, the government >cannot initiate a legal action against someone for libel. Only injured >(libeled) individuals and not the government can sue in a libel case. On the contrary, in some jurisdictions libel is indeed a crime. However, that doesn't mean that prosecutions happen anymore, but the laws are (in some places) still on the books. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

RE: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, Blanc Weber wrote: > From: Sandy Sandfort > > (By the way, if you don't like moderation, you would hate Eric Hughes' > favored solution.) > ............................................... > > > What was that? Eric, would like to require a deposit ($20 was the example he gave) from subscriber/posters. Non-subscribers would not be allowed to post. Subscribers who voluntarily left the list, would get their deposit back. Subscribers who flamed twice (every dog gets one bite) would be kicked off the list and their deposit would be forfeited (or perhaps turned over to the flame victim). S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: Passphrase Online...
by Erp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I suppose if you were doing something locally, and someone wanted to be > really sneaky, they could embed something like keycopy on your machine (with > a virus or something) and get coppied every time you enter a keystroke. I > don't suppose it would be all that difficult to get a machine to run a tsr > that got kicked off every time you accessed something like, say , > PGP....Comments? Ok, just something that would be a nasty little virii in its own way... If there was a virii produced that copied down a persons keystrokes every time, and then when they logged onto the InterNet aka aachieved a PPP/Slip connection, it automatically sent (without there knowing) a copy of all the keystorkes they have made so far, and then deletes them from an encrypted file, or from within a file it has been adding them too *shrug*... .. aka Automatically sends it to say an anonymous email account or some such. Ok *shrug* jsut an idea... later..... Erp *************************************************** Hey we have fun here at hell! Check us out if your lucky: http://www.fromhell.com/

1 0

The Bell Curve
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

.-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. --/---\---/---\---/---\---/---\---/---\---/---\---/---\---/- `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-'

2 1

Re: OTP security
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I was thinking about the thread we had a week or so ago about OTPs. Say > I'm going to burn a CD of what I think are cryptographically random bits, > but somehow I end up with part of my stream being predictable (say every > 16th bit). What does this do to the security of my CD? Depends on how that 16th bit is related to the other bits and whether these predictable bits give any information about the other bits on the disk. If we assume all the other bits are true random and that the 16th bits are predictable only in that they can be predicted left and right but do not depend upon the other bits not in positions 16, 32, 48, 16n etc... we can just discard them and use the rest obtaining perfect security. We can even use all the bits and all we lose is one bit every two bytes and therefore if we are calling the bytes ASCII and say adding mod 13 we only have "imperfect" security on every 2nd character where there are 2^7 eg. 128 possible characters. Suprisingly this yields perfect security as there are still a number of possible pads which lead to reasonable and plausible decryptions. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

Re: Senator Exon
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dopefiend Viscera K'ock`OfTheMinute is a pimply dweeb sitting at a computer chortling at his own imagined cleverness. \|/ @ @ -oOO-(_)-OOo- Dr.Dopefiend Viscera K'ock`OfTheMinute

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > (By the way, if you don't like moderation, you would hate Eric Hughes' > > favored solution.) > > What was that? > > Eric, would like to require a deposit ($20 was the example he > gave) from subscriber/posters. Non-subscribers would not be > allowed to post. Subscribers who voluntarily left the list, > would get their deposit back. Subscribers who flamed twice > (every dog gets one bite) would be kicked off the list and their > deposit would be forfeited (or perhaps turned over to the flame > victim). Obviously, you will not be able to effectively collect from non-posters, since anyone would be able to resell subscriptions. Also, anyone can create a usenet newsgroups like alt.cypherpunks, or cypherpunks.general, which would be free. Lots of competing cypherpunks mailing lists would spring up. You would make some money out of it (like maybe $700 or so), but would waste so much time that it would not be worth the trouble. - Igor.

1 0

Re: Best Computer School?
by Erp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, SpyKing wrote: > This is a little off topic but maybe someone can help. I've got a teenage > son (HS sophomore) who's interested in majoring in computer science in > college with a particular interest in cryptography. He's leaning toward MIT. > Any suggestions from list members as to colleges to investigate? Well in reference to MIT.. I hope he has a 4.0 in highschool, is an allsport, has a 1600 on his SAT's, and a prefect on his ACT.. Just to even think about going there.. Let alone to include how well he'll have to do on his interviews etc.. Also you may wish to have him look again at what he wants to be before he goes to some major college such as MIT, because tuition at MIT costs approx 100,000$/4 years. Personally that is a hell of a lot, but then again *shrug*... I recommend going to a local small college, get his associates, see if that is what he still wants to do, then go on from there. I know many people that started in Computer Science and died after the first year. Now colleges that are good for Computer Sc ience.. I have heard that RIT is good.. but I'm nto sure on that.. I know pretty well positive that MIT is excellent, but when you get down to the basics MIT is more of an engineering school than a science/philosophical school which Computer Sciences falls under.. Another good school from what I've heard is UCLA.. then again you can discredit anything I've said, because I'm still a HighSchool senior myself and have been looking into Computer Criminology for the last three years, and I'm positive it is what i want so *shrug*.. Ok later... Erp **********************************************************8 See about coming from hell at: http://www.fromhell.com/

2 2

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I distinctly recall how Paul used to call for censoring me. If he's > changed his mind and really doesn't think that anyone should be censored, > it's a welcome development - even if it was brought on by the sandfart > censoring Paul. That is strange indeed as I distinctly recall saying, in as many words, I was "Happy you had stopped posting", as at that time nearly everything you posted was dreck as far as I was concerned. I also recall calling John Gilmore a Fascist censor and several other such things over the incident when you were forcibly unsubscribed from the list. I never advocated censorship, I was merely relieved you had stopped posting so much dreck to the list. Anyway, I don`t want a flame war over it so we`ll just agree to differ over this. > > > I used to respect Gilmore until this series of incidents (unsubscribing > > > me, turning list moderated). Now I only have disdain for him. > > > > I agree entirely, Gilmore was a respected man (despite the EFF being > > a corporate whore) who threw any respect and admiration others had > > for him away. > > I wonder what he thinks he got in exchange... A nice clean list where he and his bunch of "chums" can post whatever slanderous flames they want but the victims are not allowed to respond. > > > Quite a few people have expressed interest in re-creating an unmoderated > > > cypherpunks list at another site if Gilmore decided to stick to his > > > "moderation experiment". > > > > I notice and appreciate the quotes around "moderation experiment", > > this is, without doubt, a permenant measure to silence members of the > > list who dare to offer criticism of anyone an element of {x: x a > > friend or co-censor of John Gilmore} > > Yes - clearly the personality of the submitter is the most important > factor in moderator's rejections, not even the content. Indeed, content based censorship is of an order way above (if any censorship is better than any other) censorship based on subjective criterion such as personality. At least with content based censorship the censored version of the list would be readable because all the flaming and spam would have been cut, as it is all it offers is a good statistical picture of who is in favour with the list fuhrer and his pawns. > > I do not have the resources to run such an unmoderated list but I > > hope someone on this list does and is good enough to start such a > > list, cypherpunks is a shell of what it once was. > > I notice that the sandfart has been challenging his enemies to create > an alternative mailing list. I wonder what their contingency plan is. > Without a doubt, such a competing list would be mailbombed and flooded > with garbage by Gilmore and his entourage. What else? Presumably a number of mailing list chains would be set up to bounce the "flamers", that is people not members of the cypherpunks "in crowd" submissions to the new lists. > > Also, please note this message will be junked onto cypherpunks-flames > > even though it contains no flames or flame bait because it dares to > > criticise the censorship of the list (once again Sandy, I give you an > > opportunity to prove me wrong). > > The sandfart has proven me right already. As I said, I think we're > paying too much attention to him and his censorship, and he's just > a front for Gilmore anyway. Hmm, anyway, once again if anyone on this list has the resources to set up a new uncensored list I ask them to do so as soon as possible, this list is hardly worth the time it takes to read it now. Anyone who had anything worthwhile to say is so disgusted with the censorship they are either tied up in a thread like this criticising it or have chosen not to post at all. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

Re: Lucifer
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri Vinyl K{rap} Of The Moment styles his facial hair to look more like pubic hair. v-v-v-@@-v-v-v (..) Dimitri Vinyl K{rap} Of The Moment

1 0

[[[ Worldwide Computer Based Business ! ]]]
by bigboy＠gte.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If you have a PC and want to achieve real Financial Independence then you MUST take a look at our Powerful Computer Based Business. No matter who you are or where you live, Our Business is Universal. We distribute software and information all over the world through E-Mail and the Internet. Our program called PC-SUPER-MLM is the most simple and powerful MONEY MAKING software in the world!. of course, you don't have to believe me until you see the actual program. Reply to this message and i will send you a FRE copy of the PC-SUPER-MLM software via E-Mail as an attachement. Have a great day !.

1 0

No Subject
by Thy Tang 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsubcrise

1 0

Censorship on Cypherpunks
by winsock＠rigel.cyberpass.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dirtbag L}eninist{ Vermin K}ock{ Of The Month does NOT eat pussy. He only eats asshole if it's got a big dick up in front. Whoever calls him bisexual is a fucking liar. He likes to suck cocks in front of an audience. ,/ \, ((__,-"""-,__)) `--)~ ~(--` .-'( )`-, Dr.Dirtbag L}eninist{ Vermin K}ock{ Of The Month `~~`d\ /b`~~` | | (6___6) `---`

1 0

Re: Handbook of Applied Cryptography
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here's the publisher's URL for Handbook of Applied Cryptography, which amplifies Patrick's summary, and gives ordering info. http://www.crcpress.com/PRODS/8523.HTM Just reading the mouthwatering summaries and the extensive, detailed list of topics is a good primer on crypto.

1 0

Re: Reuters article: "Unstoppable Internet will defy controls"
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>More broadly, modern governments rely on their ability to control >information and money to maintain control over their citizens. >But does the Net mean we no longer need government in its present form? The German law professor Alexander Rossnagel has published an article titled "Globale Datennetze: Ohnmacht des Staates - Selbstschutz der Buerger" (global networks: state's impotence, citizens' self-protection) in Zeitschrift fuer Rechtspolitik 1997, p. 26 ff. He describes that decentral networks are difficult to control, and anonymizers, encryption and steganography can be used to defy surveillance. "[The state] can neither enforce matters of public interest, nor offer protection to its citizens", including protection of privacy and legally protected secrets. The state cannot effectively face law violations: "If it somewhere suppresses information, it will be 'mirrored' by many other servers world-wide. If it blocks communication lines, the message will find a way around. Sattelite transmission also renders the question of location almost irrelevant. Theresa Orlowski was denied a license for her porn channel here. Now she is broadcasting from Britain. In cyberspace, functions of social relevance, such as protection of minors, can no longer be fulfilled by the state. They are transferred to the parents exclusively." "The state can only interevene where the immaterial world of the network touches the physical world: It can arrest criminals, seize devices and data storage, when these physically are in its control. It can enforce adherance to its laws where it physically can exersize its power. But in the incorporeal world of the network, to a large extend it is powerless. All these examples indicate a new fact: The networks constitute a new incorporeal social space. Increasingly more social contacts, economic and legal exchanges are being transferred to it. In it, conditions are different from in the social relationships of the physical world. In this new world, the state has no means of coercion, no monopoly of power, and no sovereignty." "Law to be enforced requires power. The democratic constitutional state depends on sovereignty and obediency to laws. Only with these it can universally enforce democratic decisions and protect the citizens' basic rights from violations by third parties. To guarantee this is the fundamental reason for the modern state to exist. Its protective mission continues to apply. However, it has expanded with the civilisatoric development. With Hobbes, the focus was on the procetion of life and limb, with Locke the protection of freedom and property were added, and in this century, facing new threats, the protection of privacy. [... The states'] sovereignty is based on the authority to exclusively exercise physical power in [their territory]. This sovereignty has limits in the immaterial space of global networks. But when the citizen no longer receives the state's protection in the special sphere of the networks and the state can no more enforce matters of public interest there, then its basic legitimation in so far is in danger. According to Thomas Hobbes, 'the citizen's obligation to the sovereign can ... only last as long as he is capable of protecting the citizens'." But that would also endanger democracy and the constitional state. Stating that the normative strategy at large is obsolete, the author proposes new solotions: "When the democratic constitutional state can no longer reliably protect its citizens in the new social space of the networks, in compensation it must enable them to protect themselves." Information and communications technology offers various means of protection: * encryption and steganography * digital signatures * untraceable pseudonyms * certified electronic mail * ecash * software agents * connectivity management programs [whatever that is...] * cellular phones without location data * PICS * secure portable user-controlled devices that support these measures "Some of these measures - for example the encryption program PGP - can be used without any advance concession. The state only has to abstain from impeding regulations. Others - such as digital signatures - depend on an infrastructure that allows the individual to use these protective measures. The citizen of information society still depends on infrastructural prerequsites. But there is a fundamental difference in whether the individual can decide about using self-controlled protective measures himself, or the state or an other large organization offers protection that he cannot influence." "In order to protect and preserve the /old/ goals of freedom and self-determination in the /new/ social space of the networks, law must permit and support /new/ technologies." The article ends with the author's vision of a 'civil information society' as a free democratic society where basic rights are guaranteed by technology. "In this information society, the state has a limited, but fundamental role. [...] it creates a framework for the citizens to protect themselves. Thus they are enabled to freely inform themselves, solve conflicts in free self-organization, and negotiate and practice mutual security without depending on a big brother."

1 0

[STEGO] PGP 3
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dildo L[oser] Vegetable K[ankersore]OfTheMinute has been fired for anally raping officemates. \ o/\_ Dr.Dildo L[oser] Vegetable K[ankersore]OfTheMinute <\__,\ '\, |

1 0