December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

A Vote of Silence for Human Gus-Peter
by lwjohnson＠grill.sk.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I want to be the new modernator so anyone who wants me to be it can not send any messages, ok? So any people who dont send messages are voting for me, ok? (If I am modernator I will give everyone free pizza and Schotch.) Ok. Now evceryone vote, ok? Human Gus-Peter

1 0

Re: GAK/KR spin
by Bill Campbell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Schear said: >Several months back there were discussions on the list regarding renaming >the government's key escrow/recovery proposals (KRAP comes to mind). I >think we need something that's catchy and simple (perhaps already familiar) >to understand for the semi-litterate citizen units. I propose we encourage >use of the terms "crippleware" or "crypto crippleware" when refering to the >products limited to their weak crypto and/or key escrow/recovery. Another point on all this that was made by Matt Blaze at the RSA conference (and that I have been making to all my friends) is that Crypto is basically a "solved" problem. The government's efforts to impose GAK is in effect transposing a "solved" problem into an "unsolved" problem - due to the inherent problems with any conceivable GAK "solution". I thought this was a very good case against GAK. =Bill=

1 0

Re: "alt.cypherpunks" people?
by Anil Das 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Back wrote: > > What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? > I have only one objection. I will never post to an Usenet group under my real email address for fear of ending up in spammer databases. -- Anil Das

2 1

[ANNOUNCEMENT] Zero-knowledge interactive proofs
by Huge Cajones Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The main difference between Tim C. Maypole and shit is that shit smells better. o o /< >\ Tim C. Maypole \\\_______/// // \\

1 0

Re: BA Crypto Machine Photos
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>BTW, does anyone know the meaning of 'order wire mode' in the context of a >crypto broadcast? This mode is found in the KWR-37 online crypto >receiver. Please send all photo requests or responses via private E-mail. If it means the same thing as in the telecom industry, its an out-of-band (often analof) channel between two locations connected by wide-band (e.g., T1) facilities. Its primary purpose is to provide service personnel, at each end point, the ability to converse with one another while performing work on that link. --Steve

1 0

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > I'm afraid you have been a charter member of my killfile. Any comments > you may have made, I missed. Since they weren't about crypto anyway, but > about list moderation (a dull topic, IMHO), I can accept that. I never commented about crypto? Why, I even wrote a crypto program, which few on this list have done, BTW. I hope Sandy allows this on the big list, since Michael has penned a message about me, but said that he won't allow my reply to him. Nobody has to tell me (or probably anyone else either) that they have killfiled me (or anyone else). All they have to do is ignore me (or anyone else), and there's no further problem, plus, as a bonus, it makes for less noise on the list. What say, Michael?

1 0

Silly Americans
by Rick Osborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

________________________ R i c k O s b o r n e ________________________ I was reading through the news when I stumbled across a thread that made a very good point. The original poster was talking about the UniSys GIF patent, and this was the reply: >Broaden your view. I can do anything I want with the GIF format without >asking _anyone_, and so can almost everyone in the world - except those >poor americans who chose to live under a "broken" patent law which >allows protecting _algorithms_. Totally silly. It brings up an interesting point, especially when applied to ITAR/EAR. On a philosophical note, why *do* we allow the government to regulate algorithms? (Implementations, I can understand, but *algorithms*?) _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ "A poem: a story in meter or rhyme." 'Ahh. `There once was a man from Nantucket ... `' "You've been talking to Garibaldi again, haven't you?"

2 1

Unofficial DES Challenge Clearinghouse
by Joel McNamara 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Until someone comes up with an automated method of keyspace allocation for the DES challenge (and maybe even after), I've decided to run the Unofficial DES Challenge Clearinghouse. This Web page will list keyspace that's already been searched (or is planned to be searched) with links to any brute force utilities. If you clear part of the keyspace, e-mail me the range, and I'll update the page. http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/des.html Yes, I agree that a trusted, verifiable method of keyspace allocation and reporting needs to be put in place, but in the meantime, this rather simple page will hopefully reduce some duplication of effort. Joel

1 0

Re: Govt & cyberspace
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh wrote: > Steve writes: > >Democracy is not without its significant shortcomings. If you doubt this > >read Tocquevelle. > Or Hayek. Democracy, after all, is majoritarian rule. Living under a > homogenous majority, with its whims and desires as law, would be more > oppressive than living under a benign dictatorship. I wish for once and for all someone would delineate this "democracy" thing from a true, distributed democracy, where every individual is required to participate equally, and no narrow interests can co-opt the vote the way they do in the kind of "democracy" Declan mentions. Wouldn't it be better when people mention a one-word political philosophy such as democracy, that they make the definition more precise by using two or three words instead?

1 0

Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> writes: > > What Vulis and the rest (whom I killfiled long ago) have done is polluted a > > common resource, making it unusable for the rest. It's the tragedy of the > > commons. When all can speak without limit in a public forum, the drunken > > boor can shout everyone else down. > > The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as > an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in > fact drunk, watch out! If I get really really drunk, which happens very seldom, then I'm too drunk to post. I don't mind an occasional beer, though. Oksas, have you ever tried beer? :-) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:14 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >Several people have also commented on this, that their filters are still >working overtime. As it should be, really, as no moderator can make the >list match any given person's preferences. > >(Personally, I'm not even convinced filters are essential. It takes no >longer than 5 seconds to glance at a message and know whether to scrap it >or not. Granted, it takes a bit of time to download, especially at slower >modem speeds. But whether Sandy's censorship is producing any significant >"savings" depends on how many messages he's sorting into each >pile...clearly if 20% or less of the total posts are being filtered out, >then the savings are ignorable. That might not be quite true, or at least not complete. Another effect is that the new structure of the list may deter some of the flamers from posting, when they don't think their notes will be seen on the moderated list. In any case, however, I agree that spam and trash are easy to filter out. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?!
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

aaron(a)herringn.com wrote: > John Gilmore wrote: > >I'm glad we're talking about some of the real issues here. > >Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this > >month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are > >conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; > >42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Forty people > >cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted > >to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email > >message. Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold. Re: the below. Easily the best and most intelligent suggestion so far. Why couldn't Sandy and John with all their experience think of this? > If I might make a suggestion: > Some people want moderation. That's fine, I've never been very big on > letting other people choose what I read, but some people want it. > For those who want it, let someone moderate the list for as long as > they care to do it. Approved messages get a "X-sandy-approved" > header. The responsibility for setting up a filter to toss everything > that doesn't have the header is the responsibility of the end user. > Toad will need to filter incoming posts to make sure they don't come > "pre-approved", but that's the only hole I can think of. > Everyone gets all of the Cypherpunks list. Those who want moderation > filter the unapproved posts, those who want all of it get all of it. > Hopefully, this will make (almost) everyone happy.

2 1

Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh wrote: > Adam writes: > >The problem with censorship or moderation is that it waters down the > >absolutism of free speech. Free speech in electronic media, with > >cypherpunks type I, and type II remailers, is the closest thing to > >truly free speech yet. > I agree and disagree. Moderation often *increases* the value of speech. The > Wall Street Journal, or Time Magazine, or the JAMA have strict policies > regarding what information they print; these policies increase the > publication's value. Moderation is not necessarily censorship. Would you > criticize the National Coalition Against Censorship for not including in > their newsletter (to which I subscribe) off-topic rants by Jesse Helms? JAMA is an example of moderated (good) speech? Not from where I sit. Look at the "interview" they published in the spring of 1992 with the Kennedy autopsy doctors. Then read about how they twisted the whole thing (and really didn't interview the doctors) a la 60 minutes. > What Vulis and the rest (whom I killfiled long ago) have done is polluted a > common resource, making it unusable for the rest. It's the tragedy of the > commons. When all can speak without limit in a public forum, the drunken > boor can shout everyone else down. The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in fact drunk, watch out!

1 0

Re: Are cypher punks capable?
by Against Moderation 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Secret Squirrel <nobody(a)squirrel.owl.de> writes: > Against Moderation wrote: > > In general, unsubscribing and resubscribing to a mailing list is not > > completely trivial. > > Do you think that a cypher punk is not able to solve these problems? Read the rest of my message. I never said it wasn't pussible, it's just a question of how much effort I want to put in (which at this point, being roughly proportionaly to the quality of articles on cypherpunks, is close to zero). Whatever the difficulty or ease of fixing my mail filter, however, the fact that I haven't done it yet should not be counted as a vote in favor of moderation. This is what I am objecting to in John's article. John, if you are seriously interested in input from list members, then I have a proposal that I think is only fair. Why don't you create a new mailing list called cypherpunks-edited, which receives exactly the same filtered content as the current "cypherpunks(a)toad.com" list. Then encourage people to move from cypherpunks to either the -edited or -unedited lists to express their desires for the future of the list. In a another month, compare the subsription lists of the 3 lists. If there are considerably more subscribers to cypherpunks-edited than cypherpunks-unedited, then you can reasonably claim that a lot of list members want to see the list filtered. However, if, as I suspect, the number of people subscribing to the -edited and -unedited lists is statistically insignificant next to the people on the main cypherpunks list, then subscription counts are not a valid metric for judging the desires of list members. Of course, in the mean time I would like to see cypherpunks revert to an unmoderated list, but I'm not going to push my luck. I'd already be happe just to see the creation of a cypherpunks-edited list.

1 0

Announcing ZDNet Exclusives!
by announce＠lists.zdnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--------------------------------------------------------- ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/3/97 --------------------------------------------------------- Greetings from ZDNet! We're pleased to announce a FREE gift to our loyal community of Web users: the launch of ZDNet Exclusives, the Web's first FREE collection of innovative software utilities, developed for our members by ZDNet and its renowned Software Library team! ZDNet Exclusives require no registration fees; they are absolutely FREE to all the members of the ZDNet community. Over 50 programs are available for download right now at: http://www.hotfiles.com/exclusiv.html The new ZDNet Exclusives collection features many invaluable utilities to make computing easier as well as some entertaining programs to make it more fun; including: *CookieMaster* Enables users to identify, view and opt to delete the Web cookies placed on their hard drives by the Web sites they've visited. *Gates Does Windows 95* An all-time favorite screen saver that depicts Bill Gates washing windows. *Shoebox PIM* An easy way to organize and store all of that personal information you'd be likely to save in a shoebox. * Plus, many more!* Log on to ZDNet and start downloading your FREE ZDNet Exclusives today! Let us know what you think. We have more ZDNet Exclusives under development and would appreciate your feedback. ---Preston Gralla Executive Editor The ZDNet Software Library ________________________________________________ ZDNet Announcements are periodic notices of new features, special events and free offers available to members of ZDNet. --To subscribe to ZDNet Announcements, please send mail to: announce-on(a)lists.zdnet.com You can leave the subject and body blank. --To unsubscribe to ZDNet Announcements, please send mail to: announce-off(a)lists.zdnet.com You can leave the subject and body blank. ________________________________________________ Powered by Mercury Mail: http://www.merc.com

1 0

Re: Getting into MIT is impossible
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Erland van Lidth de Jeude is a MIT grad. He played the big badass in "Stir Crazy." Computer science major, BTW. At 07:37 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Clint Barnett wrote: >wasn't Dolph Lundgren an MIT grad? I seem to remember something about him >having a degree in Chemical Engineering or something along those lines. > >clint barnett >lord of the cosmos >emily carr institute > >On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Anonymous wrote: > >> >> >> According to Rick Osborne: >> >> "I disagree and can speak from experience. I was denied admission to MIT >> even thought I had a 3.82 GPA, 1440 SAT (one try), and had taken 9 AP tests >> with two 5's, four 4's, two 3's, and one 2. As for being well-rounded, I >> was on several academic teams, sang in Chorus, acted and stage managed in >> Drama, and played Tennis." >> >> People get into MIT--or don't get into MIT--for lots of reasons. Most >> intelligent people apply to several schools, knowing that admissions >> practices are subject to the vagaries of reality. >> >> In my case, my SATs were about 1500, with some 800s in achievement tests. >> And the usual bullshit high school clubs, political offices, etc. etc. I >> was accepted by MIT, but not by Caltech. I didn't lose any sleep over the >> way things turned out. >> >> And I decided not to go to MIT, either. >> >> "The only thing I didn't have that the next MIT applicant had was money. I >> made the mistake of letting them know that I was dirt poor and would need >> full aid/grants/etc, and to quote "The Great Escape" it was "Zzzt! To the >> Russian front!"" >> >> My guess is that "other factors" were involved. >> >> I noted with some interest, but little surprise, that the guy claiming MIT >> required a 4.0 GPA and a 1600 combined SAT score could barely spell, and >> had major problems making a coherent point. Methinks this is why MIT >> rejected him, not his lack of a "1600." >> >> ">For what it's worth, I wanted to go to MIT my sophomore year in high >> >school, too >> >> "Lucky you. It had been a dream of mine since I was an annoying >> overachiever of 6. Sux to be white trash, I guess." >> >> MIT offered me a substantial economic aid package, in the form of loans, >> grants, and various campus jobs. What does this tell you? >> >> "MIT may be a great school, but they tend to be snooty assholes for the most >> part. (DISCLAIMER: Not all MIT grads/attendees are necessarily "snooty >> assholes", I'm just saying that I've yet to meet one that wasn't.) >> >> I've known about a dozen or so MIT grads, and only one of them was a snooty >> asshole, and it was a _she_, one of the first MIT women grads (and she was >> _very_ impressed by this). >> >> Most MIT grads are perfectly reasonable. >> >> Xanthar >> >> >> >> >> -- >> > > > Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Geiger and long, unreadable lines
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes: > > Dimitri Vulis <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> writes on cpunks-flames: > > Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes on cpunks-flames: > > > > > > Mr William H. Geiger III "Author of E-Secure" writes on cpunks: > > > > <sigh> for the benifit of those misfortunate enough to be still working > > > > dumb terminals I have disabled my PGP script until I have time to add a > > > > word wrap routine to it. > > > > > > <sigh> it is you who were demonstrating your ineptitude by spewing > > > 120+ line length postings. Why is it so difficult for you to keep > > > under 80 chars? Would you like some technical assistance? Notice how > > > near every one else apart from yourself is managing to keep under 80 > > > chars? > > > > Notice how near every one else apart from yourself bends over for the NSA, > > and is willing to use a 40-bit key "escrowed" with the feds? Why is it so > > difficult for you to keep under 40 bits? Would you like some technical > > assistance? Why are you setting yourself apart from the Internet community > > that so happily embraces GAK? Why do you desire "privacy" for your traffic > > when everyone else does not? What have you got to hide? Are you looking to > > transmit child pornography, bomb-making instructions, and/or cannabis > > legalization propaganda? We better have a look at your hard disk soon. > > btw Dimitri, a crypto question: > > Diffie-Hellman key generation, there are two main ways of generating > the diffie-hellman prime modulus, method 1: > > p = 2q+1 > > where q is a prime also. > > And method 2: > > p = r.2q+1 > > where q is a prime and r is a randomly generated number. > > With method 1, the security parameter is the size of p in bits (or > size of q, as they are related). > > With method 2, there are two security parameters, size of q and size > of p in bits. > > Method 2 has the advantage that key generation is faster as it is > quicker to generate new random numbers r, than to repeatedly generate > trial prime q as you have to do in method 1. However is the security > weaker in method 2? What size of p and q do you have to use to get > the same security as for same size of p in bits as in method 1? What > should be the relationship between the size of p and q? > > (this isn't cpunks, this is cpunks-flames, so your non-crypto pledge > shouldn't hold, besides Sandy has a stated policy of killing the whole > thread, so I thought it amusing to continue your crypto relevance in > moving on to technical topics rather than political) My advice is to stay clear of any cryptosystem that relies on factoring being hard. I'll send you pointers to some very interesting new work based on the zeta function in private e-mail when I dig it up (please remind me if/when I forget this promise). I'm reluctant to say anything crypto-relevant on this defunct mailing list because last time I did, the moderator repeatedly cited it as evidence that his moderation works. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

2 1

Harvard Symposium
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:10:17 -0800 From: jmuller(a)brobeck.com (John D. Muller) Subject: Harvard Symposium To: rah(a)shipwright.com Bob: I don't recall seeing this on e$pam and thought it might be of interest. What with the Boston connection, it's clearly a dcsb-worthy item, and I'll send it to them separately. ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: [NET-LAWYERS] HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY Author: "K. Dueker" <kdueker(a)LAW.HARVARD.EDU> at internet Date: 2/4/97 1:00 AM [CROSS-POSTED; PLEASE FORGIVE DUPLICATION] PRESS RELEASE Symposium: Crime & Technology Law Enforcement Technology % Cybercrime % Electronic Commerce (Cambridge, Massachusetts) - The Harvard Journal of Law & Technology is pleased to announce its Spring Symposium: "Crime & Technology." The Symposium will be held Saturday, March 15, 1997, in the Ames Courtroom at the Harvard Law School in Cambridge, MA. The Symposium will consist of two moderated panel discussions, as well as several presentations. The morning session is expected to focus on "Search, Seizure, and Surveillance Technology," while the afternoon session will focus on "The Risks of Electronic Banking & Commerce." Admission to the Symposium is free to all Harvard affiliates (with valid Harvard ID), $15 for all other students, $30 for public sector professionals, and $100 for private sector professionals. The Spring Issue of the Journal will include articles covering the broad topic of "Crime and Technology." For additional information about the Symposium or the Journal, contact Symposium Editor Belinda Juran, by e-mail at juran(a)law.harvard.edu, or by phone at the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology offices at 617-495-3606 or 617-493-7949. ABOUT THE JOURNAL: The Harvard Journal of Law & Technology is a leading scholarly publication for articles addressing the many diverse interstices of science and technology with law and society. We have published articles by law professors, practitioners, business leaders, and politicians on varied topics including biotechnology, computers, international trade, technology transfer, intellectual property, medical technologies, and telecommunications. These and other subjects are some of the most exciting and rapidly developing areas of the law, and we believe that the dialogue provided by the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology will help to shape the future of this important field. We welcome submissions of articles, case comments, or book reviews addressing the relationship of law and technology. SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION: For additional information, please contact the Journal at the address below. The Journal publishes three issues each year. To subscribe to the Journal's upcoming issues in Volume 10, please send the Journal a check for U.S. $45.00 (foreign orders $50.00) to the address below. To obtain the issue discussed above or back issues, please send the Journal a check for $35.00 with a note indicating the desired issue (i.e., "Vol. 9 No. 2"). Media Contact: Kenneth S. Dueker, Communications Editor Release Date: February 04, 1997. ************************************************************************* Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Publications Center Harvard Law School Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone: (617) 495-3606 E-Mail: jolt(a)law.harvard.edu WWW: http://www.law.harvard.edu/home/jolt/ ************************************************************************* --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/

1 0

re: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc * Reputation Capital
by Name Withheld by Request 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I found this post from Mr Gilmore deeply disturbing, and I thought I'd take this chance to, as someone recently said, "Fly with the Eagles." John Gilmore said: >Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this >month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are >conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; >42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Forty people >cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted >to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email >message. Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold. Careful. The statistics you are throwing around here are misleading. So if 1350, say, subscribers were subscribed to an unmoderated cypherpunks list, what would that tell you? As has been pointed out, beaten to death, and generally repeated: there are already filtered c'punks lists. By filtering the main list, you are just making your own life difficult and corrupting the reputation capital of "cypherpunks", and the results are far from conclusive. >all I want is something that works. The cypherpunks list was unusable >for this kind of discussion, only a month ago. It's usable now. > >I'm definitely bugged by the community's attitude toward my >"censorship". Rather than being glad that someone, anyone, was doing >something about the major problem on the list, 99% of the reaction was >to create even more ill-considered, emotional flamage. *I* didn't >make the signal/noise get worse at that point -- *you-all* did. Again, maybe that 99% is trying to tell you something? Maybe there is some provocation for this outpouring of "emotional flamage." Also, here you claim that the s/n ratio is worse than before, but above you said that the "moderation" has made the list usable. These two statements seem contradictory. >Perhaps at that point I should have shut down the list, as Lucky is >now suggesting. "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful >option. Sandy cared enough about the community to make some concrete Not a useful option? Why not? If there aren't any ideas left in this community, I'm with Lucky. Pull the plug. >gratifying. You-all remind me of a passage from Booker T. >Washington's book _Up From Slavery_, describing what happened on the >night that news of the Emancipation Proclamation reached the South: <quote snipped> >Most of the people on the list haven't bothered to face that freedom. >Your de-facto "leaders" have faced it for you. It is a more serious "You clearly don't take your freedom seriously. Now try a month without it." >Start a mailing list on another site! Move this list to somewhere! >Create and nurture an alt group! Make an independent moderated list My problem with this is that you are currently holding the reputation capital tied up in the name "cypherpunks" hostage. If hosting this discussion forum has grown so tiring, then you are free to pull the plug in a heartbeat. I've heard a few even go so far as to ask "what's in a name" when others get so upset about the list called "cypherpunks" being moderated. Well, I'll tell you. Reputation capital. Thats why so many lurkers have waded through the muck for so long. I've seen the crown jewels that have surfaced here in the past, and spread the word. "Cypherpunks" was where the action was. It was fast and loose and inhabited by a prolific core of sharp minds. Old memes die hard, as is evidenced every time we see a warning about the "Goodtimes Virus." >The experiment will be over in a few weeks. Who's going to take over >deciding how to run the list, and running it? As I said, if you don't want the list anymore, pull the plug. It will pop up again elsewhere and you need never worry about it again. This post from Mr Gilmore certainly is revealing. Perhaps inevitably, he has assumed the traditional paternal role of authority when its motives and/or power to regulate is questioned. Golem

1 0

Re: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?!
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

E. Allen Smith wrote: > From: IN%"gnu(a)toad.com" "John Gilmore" 4-FEB-1997 12:20:22.10 > >Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this > >month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are > >conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; > >42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Forty people > >cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted > >to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email > >message. Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold. > You're making an invalid assumption... namely that people who > stayed on the moderated list are neccessarily wanting it to be the > main list. This isn't the case with me, for instance. I'd also point > out that some of us - including me - were taking the time to take a > look at what happened with the moderated list. On the one hand, it > did result in a decrease in the trash messages... on the other hand, > it also drove away 1+ good posters (TCMay for one). What's really ironic here is that given three people who have knowledge of crypto/politics and something to say, the lesser two drove the best one away. Boo, hiss.

1 0

hoho
by Igor Chudov ＠ home 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

haha

1 0

A Vote of Silence for Human Gus-Peter
by Larry Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I want to be the new modernator so anyone who wants me to be it can not send any messages, ok? So any people who dont send messages are voting for me, ok? (If I am modernator I will give everyone free pizza and Schotch.) Ok. Now evceryone vote, ok? Human Gus-Peter

2 1

Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> writes: > > The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as > > an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in > > fact drunk, watch out! > If I get really really drunk, which happens very seldom, then I'm > too drunk to post. I don't mind an occasional beer, though. > Oksas, have you ever tried beer? :-) I had my first beer(s) in three years at one of those industrial parties last night. It made the craps table action seem a bit merrier, and the girls were friendlier too.

1 0

Re: More on Cellular Encryption Docs
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:31 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 04:10 PM 2/1/97 -0500, John Young wrote: >>Here's more on the controlled documents for cellular encryption >>from TIA/EIA we described in a 26 January post to cpunks: >... >> TR45.0.A >> Common Cryptographic Algorithms, Revision B >> June 21, 1995, 72 pp. (With ITAR notice on every page) > >Of course, ITAR as recently modified says it's ok to send this >stuff overseas to foreigners, as long as it's on paper. >There may be separate restrictions on sending it, or on copying, >but they're based on copyright or contractual non-disclosure. Given that high-density inkjet printers can do 600x600 dpi resolution, it should be possible to achieve the equivalent of 100x100 bpi of easily-recoverable data on ordinary paper. That's about 800 kilobits, or 100 kilobytes. What does ITAR say about this? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]
by Peter Hendrickson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:22 PM 2/4/1997, Declan McCullagh wrote: > What Vulis and the rest (whom I killfiled long ago) have done is polluted a > common resource, making it unusable for the rest. It's the tragedy of the > commons. When all can speak without limit in a public forum, the drunken > boor can shout everyone else down. I think this analogy is inappropriate for modern communications forums. Mailing lists have the wonderful property that the drunken boor cannot shout everyone else down. This is what is so great about the Net. It is trivial to filter the drunken boor. This cannot be done in a crowded auditorium. Another neat property is the fact that people can't interrupt each other and everybody can "talk" at once. Peter Hendrickson pdh(a)best.com

1 0

Re: GAK/KR spin
by Bill Campbell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Schear said: >Several months back there were discussions on the list regarding renaming >the government's key escrow/recovery proposals (KRAP comes to mind). I >think we need something that's catchy and simple (perhaps already familiar) >to understand for the semi-litterate citizen units. I propose we encourage >use of the terms "crippleware" or "crypto crippleware" when refering to the >products limited to their weak crypto and/or key escrow/recovery. Another point on all this that was made by Matt Blaze at the RSA conference (and that I have been making to all my friends) is that Crypto is basically a "solved" problem. The government's efforts to impose GAK is in effect transposing a "solved" problem into an "unsolved" problem - due to the inherent problems with any conceivable GAK "solution". I thought this was a very good case against GAK. =Bill=

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:15 PM 1/28/97 -0800, Steve Schear wrote: >>The poor can not hope to match the tyrants bid as they only have 10% of the >>wealth, the household knows that thier participation in an attempt on the >>tyrant will get them killed. Even if the attempt was successful. >>The people from the outside who would benefit from the bounty benefit more >>by taking the tyrants offer and then trying again, i.e. tiger teams. > >I think a hole in your thinking is to assume that the assasins have no >motive other than financial gain. I would submit that there are those that >have the skills, training and a political agenda coherent with the >wagerers, lacking only the financial incentive to make the risks >acceptable. These wetworkers won't consider accepting the bribe of the >rich/powerful In practice, we can't hold out much hope that donations to an AP system from "rich and powerful" people can be identified as such. After all, with the appropriate software I could just as easily make 100, $10 donations as a single $1000 donation. Assuming anonymity held, nobody but the donor knows from where the money came. However, fortunately I don't think it would make any difference in the overall effects. While AP would eliminate the taxation which is commonly thought of as the main way a "rich person" loses assets, in practice it would also shut down the well-hidden systems that allow some people to get rich (or, merely live off somebody else) "unfairly." Government agents come to mind, of course. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?!
by Marshall Clow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:05 PM -0800 2/4/97, aaron(a)herringn.com wrote: > >If I might make a suggestion: > >Some people want moderation. That's fine, I've never been very big on >letting other people choose what I read, but some people want it. > >For those who want it, let someone moderate the list for as long as >they care to do it. Approved messages get a "X-sandy-approved" >header. The responsibility for setting up a filter to toss everything >that doesn't have the header is the responsibility of the end user. >Toad will need to filter incoming posts to make sure they don't come >"pre-approved", but that's the only hole I can think of. > >Everyone gets all of the Cypherpunks list. Those who want moderation >filter the unapproved posts, those who want all of it get all of it. > >Hopefully, this will make (almost) everyone happy. > I like this idea. However, I would suggest an additional refinement: Implement a cypherpunks-moderated list which is all the 'approved' messages. This way, people who wish to have the benefits of a filtered list are happy, people who wish to have posts rated for them (but be able to check on the "rater") are happy, and people who wish to see every message are happy. (I know that John has concerns about toad's mail capacity, and this may be too big a load) ObCrypto policy: Was anyone else besides me amazed by the guy from Deloitte-Touche at the Internet Privacy Coalition luncheon last week? I mean, he all but advocated violent overthrow of the government. D-T is the most "establishment" of the big-6 accounting firms, last time that I looked. It's a weird world when we have a representative of a company that makes a living advising people on how to obey government regulations advocating civil disobedience. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems <mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu> Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear.

1 0

John Gilmore / What a _Lamer_!
by Larry Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Gilmore wrote: > Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this > month. I havent chosen nothing like that. I read all the stuff from all the messages from before modernation and since then and nobody got to choose nothing. You told them what they were going to gwet and thats what they got. Anybody that made it plain that they werent happy got thrown in the trashcan and labled as being a flamer. > I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are > conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; > 42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. 1311 addresses that you stole for your censored list. Nobvody subscribved to cypherpunks-censored. You put them there cause its you decided it was your list an dyou could put people where you wanted even if they didnt like it. My uncle calls it the cyperpunks-Auschwitz list. Thats what subdir he keeps it in in his Dorks dir. > The cypherpunks list was unusable > for this kind of discussion, only a month ago. It's usable now. I could use it before and Im just a kid but Im not a lamer. Maybe you should call the list you stole cypherpunks-lamers. > I'm definitely bugged by the community's attitude toward my > "censorship". I know you are or else you wouldna thrown cypherpunks honest and truthful feelings in the flames-crapper. > Rather than being glad that someone, anyone, was doing > something about the major problem on the list, 99% of the reaction was > to create even more ill-considered, emotional flamage. I read a lot of flamessages which people put a lot of their thouhgts into bu t they were emotional cause people get like that when someone doo-doos on them. > *I* didn't > make the signal/noise get worse at that point -- *you-all* did. You dont make any signal/noise at all since you dont even send messages to the list. (except when you want tell bs about how people "chose" Sandy to be their dictator when they didnt) > "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful > option. Not necessary either if your a dictator. > As Dale suggests, I > wasn't about to waste my time reading the whole list in real time and > passing judgement on the postings. Sandy was, for a month. Howcum reading the list is a wast eof your time but making decisions for ecveryone on the cypherpunks isnt? > To some it seemed that, now that they were in actual possession of > it, freedom was a more serious thing than they had expected to > find it. > > Most of the people on the list haven't bothered to face that freedom. 1311 ofg them? Howcum you just stole all of the list people for your censored list? I think that was real stupid unless you just didnt care if people would know that your were stealing the list for yourself. It was really rotten to call pewople flamers just cause they complained. > Be responsible for setting your society's privacy policy -- without > knowing whether you are right. Thats what those GAK guys are for and all those secret govbernment guys that want there not to be a cypherpunks anymore. > Shall I post you an Emancipation Proclamation -- as if you needed one? No you already done too much. > The experiment will be over in a few weeks. Who's going to take over > deciding how to run the list, and running it? I will. Im just a kid but I cant do any worse than already. > the immortal words of Lazarus Long, "PIPE DOWN!". Im a kid so I get told to shut up all the time but I dont. > PS: Can we talk about crypto too? What do you mean _we_ white man? (thats a joke) You havent talked about nothing on the list except how your not a bad guy for pushing people areound into the lists where you want them whether they like it or not. You stole my uncles subsribing to the cypherpunks list and made him a censored person. He had to break out to go to the uncensored list. I think your a lamer. Human Gus-Peter

1 0

Re: "alt.cypherpunks" people?
by Jeremey Barrett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > John Gilmore urges action, or piping down... well lets start with > discussion of whether one possible action is appropriate, and useful > (piping down is not an option:-): > > What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? As an additional forum, it's not a bad idea, with the exception that it may draw some people away from the mailing list, and reduce the already- slim signal on the list. USENET is less accessible than email, and given the goals of cypherpunks, the more accessible the medium the better. I have crap news access 99% of the time, and I imagine a significant portion of the list is in a similar situation. Also, the tools for news reading are not well-suited for filtering, either manual or automatic. > 3. USENET distribution is likely less efficient of overall bandwidth > > 4. News propogation times are often poor (Exeter univ. receives news > about a week late) This is a real killer in my view. I have > another news server I can access at the moment, but not everyone > may have access to a reasonable news server. > > 5. News access is more complex for some people. Some alt newsgroups > are not carried by some servers. Perhaps news-to-mail and > mail-to-news gateway would solve these problems. These 3 are fatal IMO. The distribution of cypherpunks would become much more haphazard and might fail altogether in places. Some people will be reading long threads days after they are dead. > Coderpunks is a reasonable list, I'm not sure that it is moderated as > such, but if you breach etiquette (discussion of politics, even when > perpetrated by respected cryptographers, or by people discussing the > implications of breaking DES, rather than the strict coding questions) > they get Futplex-grams, which I find slightly annoying. > > Cryptography(a)c2.net is again reasonable, and gained back some of the > original people who quit cypherpunks over the years due to noise. > Cryptography is moderated. (Or is moderated when Perry thinks it > would benefit from moderation, so that may change). Agreed. These lists _are_ the alternative to the "open" cypherpunks list. If a moderated cypherpunks is to be started, great, but it should be another list, not _the_ cypherpunks list. Moderation, even with the best intentions, is subjective, and therefore has no place on a list such as cypherpunks. If this is really an experiment, at the end of the month the list should become unmoderated, and a moderated list created. Then we can see how many people switch in that direction. I imagine it would be a similar number to those that switched to the unedited list. > What's left is attempting to stop government restrictions and backdoors, > and deploying the many complex peices of software for which there exists > uses and demands. There is still much to be done. The cypherpunks list has plenty of reason for being. As is, it 1) is still used as a forum for good discussion, despite the noise, and 2) is an invaluable resource for information retrieval and dispersal. The list should not be killed or moved IMO, and moderation should occur on other lists, not the main one. - -- =-----------------------------------------------------------------------= Jeremey Barrett VeriWeb Internet Corp. Senior Software Engineer http://www.veriweb.com/ PGP Key fingerprint = 3B 42 1E D4 4B 17 0D 80 DC 59 6F 59 04 C3 83 64 =-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAwUBMvgVuy/fy+vkqMxNAQGFcgQAiZ0mKRTRkOYCYKlyAQrbUA0iHo1j1IiI DqJzLEXWX1AwYbRg4S4CRowey9+uMMbSo6nfONc5y7Wz7O3MvmLbGdmOCKaLNR56 7/TXY4Rj7yk8odKN3s4aYZ61vTMqMFdqzo42q5dNTQyL5haM1ugwgjg1bS5u3ski venMQtFa8t4= =aIej -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

IN%"pdh@best.com",IN%"ichudov@algebra.com",IN%"gnu@toad.com",IN%"ay@got.net
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded with permission: From: IN%"loki(a)infonex.com" "Lance Cottrell" 4-FEB-1997 15:34:25.09 >I would be happy to donate the resources to run Cypherpunks off our system. >We could set up the list provided we were given a list of subscribers. I >assume it would be unmoderated. > -Lance >> Hi. I don't know how much you've been keeping up with >>the discussion on cypherpunks, but there is a current proposal >>to distribute the list onto several different servers. I would >>be willing to pay for 100 subscribers to run on the cyberpass.net >>server, provided that somebody else (e.g., Igor Chudov) set up >>the system initially and was available for assistance later. Any >>problems on your end? >> [...] >> Thanks, >> -Allen

2 1

re: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc * Reputation Capital
by Z.B. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Name Withheld by Request wrote: > [snip] > John Gilmore said: > >Perhaps at that point I should have shut down the list, as Lucky is > >now suggesting. "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful > >option. Sandy cared enough about the community to make some concrete > > Not a useful option? Why not? If there aren't any ideas left in this > community, I'm with Lucky. Pull the plug. > [snip] I've been meaning to ask this for a while...but why *don't* we just pull the plug, at least for just a few days? Unsubscribe everyone from all the lists, wait a bit, and then send a message to all of the subscribers with full info on each of the lists (cp, cp-unedited,cp-flames) and see what happens when they resubscribe. I bet that most of the people who don't post and don't care one way or the other wouldn't bother to resubscribe, so we'd have a higher ratio of people who mind if the list is moderated vs. those who'd be happy either way. Zach Babayco zachb(a)netcom.com <-------finger for PGP public key If you need to know how to set up a mail filter or defend against emailbombs, send me a message with the words "get helpfile" (without the " marks) in the SUBJECT: header, *NOT THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE!* I have several useful FAQs and documents available.

1 0

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Jeremiah A Blatz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Just to add my $.02 to the me too pile: It should be noted that the subscription from netbb+internet. cypherpunks(a)andrew.cmu.edu is a mail<->news gateway for Carnegie Mellon University people. It represents maybe 10-50 cypherpunks readers. I used to read cypherpunks from there, but I see some kind soul has subscribed CMU to the unedited list, so I will read that instead. My killfile is just enough censorship for me. On the choke points note, mailing lists are better than usenet because legendary AOLers with there 5 free hours of fame and their ilk usually don't figure out how to pester mailing lists. Being on a mailing list usually requires a commitment, that is enough of a barrier for many of the usenet underirables. Waiting for the end of moderation, Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMvgpEskz/YzIV3P5AQHzygL/Ur5YjSD8D8wNn5B74mdHASUqj1Gelwi+ GT3wIITGh1RMnFFEYQLWCyjW9NVJ6RIKJY6t5rLzRiy4gNe0jA8AMNI6E8NuaFV1 J8SDjY0oAo0ixBJHzv0MXui8f4ciS4tD =Lbs9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc * Reputation Capital
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Z.B. wrote: > On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Name Withheld by Request wrote: > > John Gilmore said: > > >Perhaps at that point I should have shut down the list, as Lucky is > > >now suggesting. "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful > > >option. Sandy cared enough about the community to make some concrete > > Not a useful option? Why not? If there aren't any ideas left in this > > community, I'm with Lucky. Pull the plug. On the below: Remember in "I, Mudd" where the Captain said to Rodney the Robot: "I'm lying - everything I say is a lie". And the robot collapses because it is not programmed to handle such blatant acts of sabotage of reality. Humans OTOH, and particular those who do odd jobs for the CIA (you know, the ones who make those little "excursions" to Nepal and Burma), have no problem with this, since their reality doesn't even intersect with that of typical mailing list readers. What is Tim May really mad about? What he says he's mad about? I don't think so. The scam ran past him and he fell off of the truck. Tsk tsk. > I've been meaning to ask this for a while...but why *don't* we just pull > the plug, at least for just a few days? > Unsubscribe everyone from all the lists, wait a bit, and then send a > message to all of the subscribers with full info on each of the lists > (cp, cp-unedited,cp-flames) and see what happens when they resubscribe. > I bet that most of the people who don't post and don't care one way or > the other wouldn't bother to resubscribe, so we'd have a higher ratio of > people who mind if the list is moderated vs. those who'd be happy either

1 0

Re: New X-Ray Imager
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:18 AM 2/4/97 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >Steve Schear wrote: >> New X-ray gun trades privacy for safety >> Reported by Andy C >> Seen in The Nando Times on 13 August 1996 >> "I'm incredibly concerned," said John Henry Hingson, a past president of the >> National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, meeting here this past >> week. "The entire nation could become a victim of illegal searches and >> seizures and the law is powerless to protect them from these police abuses." >> But in these nervous times following the the crash of TWA Fight 800 and >> bombings at the Olympics, Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center, many >> Americans are now willing to trade some of their privacy and civil liberties >> for greater security. >> A poll last week by the Los Angeles Times found that a majority of people -- >> 58 percent -- said they would curtail some civil liberties if it would help >> thwart terrorism. Thirteen percent said it would depend on what rights were >> at stake. The poll didn't ask people to single out any rights. > >The L.A. Times quotes this "poll" all the time, and in fact probably >just made it up. Why do I know that? Because they ran a "letter" >from a "teacher" in the valley somewhere about a year ago which said >exactly this same thing. The "teacher" ran a poll of her students >and they agreed to give up the rights without even knowing which >rights they were giving up. Wouldn't it be nice if, in a new poll, they asked the following question: "Do you believe that the people who ask you, in other polls, whether or not 'you'd be willing to give up a little freedom to thwart terrorism' have any proof it's possible to, in the long run, 'thwart terrorism' by sacrificing freedom?" Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:05 PM 2/4/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: >on or about 970204:0312 Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> said: >+ Is the desire for an anarchic community at odds with a desire for >+ good use of resources? Actually, it is quite possible that an "anarchic community" is _more_ efficient in the use of resources than some sort of organized community. It is explained, for example, that the reason there are so many different kinds of life on earth is that there are so many ecological niches to fill. > In a "popular" anarchy, Jim Bell's assassination politics make > perfectly good sense; but, a "popular" anarchy is not an _anarchy_. I guess I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make, between a "popular anarchy" and an "anarchy." Maybe you were trying to distinguish between "dictatorship of the few (or one)" and "dictatorship of the many (perhaps a majority)" but it didn't come out very understandably. Put simply, "anarchy is not the lack of order. It is the lack of _orders_." > anarchy is only possible in an ideal world where _everyone_ > assumes not only responsibility for themselves, but for the common > good. no malice, no greed, no need for assassination politics.... No, that's traditional thinking and that's wrong. See AP part 8. Freud believed (as "everyone" else believed, even myself, before AP) that anarchy was inherently unstable. But it ISN'T, if the tools of AP are used to stabilize it. And no, no altruism is necessary for AP to work as well; no individuals are being asked to sacrifice themselves for the common good. Rather, they are given the opportunity to work to achieve a reward offered, cumulatively, by a number of citizens. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Cypherpunks FOIA request
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 1/18/97, I sent freedom of information act requests to the FBI (main and San Francisco offices), CIA, NSA, and Secret Service, asking them for copies of information in their files relating to or referring to the cypherpunks list, the cypherpunks meetings, and copies of any messages sent from or to "cypherpunks(a)toad.com". To date, I have received three responses: one from the SF office of the FBI, indicating that they have no records responsive to my request; one from the NSA, indicating that they are processing my request, and one from the Secret Service, asking for a copy of my signature. (I've got no clue why they want that; unless I screwed up, I believe my initial request was signed.) Copies of my requests and the responses are available online at <http://www.io.com/~gbroiles/cp-foia/>. I'm not sure what I think about the response from the SF FBI branch - it seems unlikely that they'd never have paid any attention to the list, given the media coverage in Wired and other places. On the other hand, maybe the FBI doesn't read Wired. :) While they're not supposed to be monitoring noncriminal domestic activity, I figured they'd at least have something about the Mykotronix stuff. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvhHPf37pMWUJFlhAQGBSAf/XIdNAMrxn3flb6O7Q1TZYL1xd/RHAAZv YsuuXs/n6Dih/SnJVqc35tF5/33N0gK0xWhyPCBWdIitVCgHpt+214WEOg3IWBqO KGcnbXg/YMs4xN50zLgpV+Xoim4rjfwCROqNNWvrBqwo6RicAyJbLRoRGE+KdDkx WSslCzxsVYzRHzzkF48rhbYAXqU2vUesG0t8Alg17R/2w4TvjAzlQ3PpclUukB8U VglMVB+dicn+5B2zITt1WG21xMmSHQea5rpwKpDxZdjBvBKXLhgH8L1Hdl6nu3zI sqDEENxeV+bI5UdSzemQDy+TDQoy7BSN7Tby8JgwXE9x3AitY2A05g== =S1Zy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

1 0

Letter Re: Kahn Supporting GAK
by Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl' 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- My letter to Long Island Newsday regarding David Kahn's pro-GAK editorial was published today. You can read it at http://www.newsday.com/mainnews/rnmi052u.htm What's odd (?) is how they editied it. I directed my comments toward Mr. Kahn's views, which they changed to "Newsday" (odd, since I've never seen them print an editorial one way or another on GAK; does this mean they are taking a stand? -- Kahn is an editor at Newsday). I wrote "The greatest flaw in the argument is it's very reason, 'criminals... are increasingly using encryption to conceal their plans and activities'" which they changed to "It reports...". I never considered an op-ed piece as "reporting", even if it states a fact. The following paragraph There are also a variety of technical problems associated with escrowing encryption keys, mainly, how to do so securely? A single `backdoor key' (or set of keys) for a popular product can become an easy target for crackers who can jeopardize the security of an entire system. Software can be easily hacked to disable or damage the key escrow features, and there are techniques to hide even the presence of a message in something innocuous as a digitized image. (Mr. Kahn seems to have forgotten to mention that the FBI not only wants to overhear cellular phone conversations but also read E-mail and any other encrypted files people have.) was changed to just There are also several technical problems associated with escrowing encryption keys, mainly, how to do so securely. They did leave the last two paragraphs relatively intact, though. Yeah, yeah... the piece could have been much longer & detailed, but it's only a letter to the editor... - --Rob -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvhdzgTNlSxdPy6ZAQEw8Qf9FnDSSd/m+XwUxU1CCJnwVOrvS4qyIubX 2E18o2rrS+F8TDjkhVsaDR3lJNqikdOzAL2GfjX53/cBEOhYcYcip7IHkd8UxqY6 zDHp2LwWnSuF8wwxeKw/DyPhAURsxYAl+LCJbsJjK+zxpgPU1Z0YzFkj3Am6bscv t8qiPoTxUF3tusueT5I3xQsRgEAx1SNwRHgQGzLS+zPwdFBT9ZsIsp4EbZ0fx1cE ZpbIxu1koDCWhkmJdTiL5HXXJ6mROJvCIGHfr1NU099AlIOO/FXq2UTnti2TzQn7 wYF73490ru1AFMEViLipj3zXzJsIGBo32La37yDozBEItd32B0L/+w== =3wRg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----- "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

Newt's phone calls
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimwit L)amentation( Vehement K)retin(OTM enjoys sucking the puss from his syphilitic homosexual friends. /\_./o__ Dr.Dimwit L)amentation( Vehement K)retin(OTM (/^/(_^^' ._.(_.)_

1 0

Re: [ADMINISTRIVIUM] Extradition treaties
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Drunkard Vilest K>rap<OTM wears satin lingerie embroidered with pink swastikas, prancing around for his faggot, AIDS infected lovers. |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ __ | \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ | O~-_ Drunkard Vilest K>rap<OTM | >----|-|-|-|-|-|-|--| __/ | / / / / / / / / |__\ |/ / / / / / / /

1 0

Re: AltaVista Tunnel
by Anil Das 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rick Osborne wrote: > > He triumphantly exclaimed that the encryption was 128-bit, but when > I said "128-bit what?" he cowered and muttered that he didn't know and went > on with his little speech. The rest of my crypto-specific questions met > with equal dark stares. And these are the people setting industry standards... I should be happy that you are bashing a competitor and all, but give them a break, OK? The marketing dweeb who has to do product pitches on roadshows is not the same as the design engineer who designs the system and sets technical standards. There can be a big difference in technical knowledge about the product, and even basic competency, between the two. -- Anil Das

1 0

OECD Waffles
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

2-4-97. Reuters: Global group fails to endorse Clinton encryption plan Washington: An influential economic research group is preparing guidelines on computer encryption for its member countries but will duck some of the most contentious issues involved, according to a draft obtained by Reuters. The Clinton administration, seeking to rally support for its controversial policy on exporting encryption products -- which encode and decode e-mail and other computerized messages -- failed to win an endorsement from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), although the group did discuss the administration's approach. On perhaps the most difficult issue, the draft guidelines do not favour or oppose a requirement in the U.S. policy that data-scrambling encryption programmes provide a way for law enforcement officials to obtain keys to crack the codes when necessary. After indicating that governments should carefully weigh the costs and benefits of imposing so-called key recovery, the draft report said, "this principle should not be interpreted as implying that governments should, or should not, initiate legislation that would allow lawful access." On all the controversial areas in the draft, "the member countries of the OECD have strongly held views but they don't always coincide," John Dryden, head of the group's Information, Computer and Communications Policy division, said in a telephone interview from Paris. Some countries see widespread use of encryption as a way to protect the privacy of computer users and businesses, thereby encouraging global commerce, Dryden said. But others see encryption as possibly thwarting law enforcement's efforts to catch riminals and global terrorists, he said. The guidelines suggest encryption users should have access to products that meet their needs. Government controls should be "no more than are essential to the discharge of government responsibilities." Instead of reconciling the different views, the draft guidelines lay out competing interests and approaches. "It's not in itself a cryptography policy and it's not an attempt to draft a model national law that we're encouraging people to adopt," Dryden said. Cryptography refers to products and systems used in encryption. The guidelines also suggest encryption standards and usage should be "determined by the market in an open and competitive environment." "There's a strong view that the private sector should have the possibility to use information networks to the best of their potential in order to create growth and jobs," Dryden said. U.S. officials who have seen the preliminary draft praised the guidelines. "They're an important and helpful step forward," Undersecretary of Commerce William Reinsch said. "They're helpful because they put down on paper the proper foundation for getting into this," he added. Reinsch said most countries will follow the U.S. lead and require so-called key recovery features for law enforcement. Under the Clinton policy, domestic use of encryption is not regulated but the strongest coding products cannot be exported unless they include key recovery. U.S. companies that have opposed the Clinton policy, contending it stifles their ability to compete with unfettered foreign firms, drew little solace from the draft guidelines. "This is not helpful," said Netscape Communications Corp.'s public policy counsel, Peter Harter. Netscape and other companies preferred stronger language endorsing free-market policies, he said. The draft guidelines, approved by a group of government and private-sector experts at a meeting at the end of January, still must be approved by a top-level OECD officials from the group's 29 member countries, including the United States. -----

1 0

'Total Recall' Come True!
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Major Organizations Are Experimenting With Computer Chip Implants in Humans, According to EE Times Special Report Manhasset, N.Y., Feb. 4 -- The implantation of computer chips into humans and animals is now actively being funded, researched and experimented by major institutions such as Stanford University, British Telecom, the National Institute of Health (NIH) and major corporations, according to the first of a two-part special report published by EE Times (http://www.eet.com) Although the work is drawing fire from civil libertarians and conspiracy theorists, among others, many scientists and physicians defend the work for its potential to ease suffering. "It's 'Total Recall' come true! Our in-depth look into this state-of- the- art research reveals that the mix of electrical engineering and medical technologies to surgically implant computer chip-driven devices is here today -- a micro chip implant is simply one step beyond a pacemaker," said EE Times Internet Editor Larry Lange. According to the EE Times report, Mitsubishi Electric Corp. (Tokyo) recently developed a low-cost input device that can recognize human movement and convert it to commands for use in software applications. This device is expected to find its way into tools used by people with disabilities. On other fronts, the semiconductor research lab at Motorola Inc. is working on body-embedded electronic blood-sensors that may one day allow diabetics to measure their blood sugar levels without ever drawing a drop of blood. The special report, appearing in next week issue in print and online, looks at additional areas of research and the differing reactions to it. -----

1 0

NFIC Warning About Sexygirls web site
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I had to laugh when I read this... Cheers, Bob Hettinga --- begin forwarded text X-Sender: themet(a)pop.mindspring.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 01:50:36 -0800 To: fraudnews(a)silverquick.com From: Mark Taylor <themet(a)mindspring.com> Subject: NFIC Warning About Sexygirls web site Reply to: Mark Taylor <themet(a)mindspring.com> Here is an interesting twist on how some crafty scamsters can rack up money on your phone bill =========== National Fraud Information Center Monday, February 4, 1997 PORNO SURPRISE Consumers who visited a pornographic website (www.sexygirls.com) last month got a big surprise on their phone bills. After a few teaser pictures, surfer was told he/she needed to download a special program to view the archived images. That program was actually a viewer with an entire communications suite hidden deep inside (a non-self propogating Trojan Horse). The program disconnected user from his/her ISPs, shut off the volume on the modem if it was computer controlled, and dialed a number in Moldova -- a small, former republic of the Soviet Union wedged in between the Ukraine and Romania. All the while the consumer was on the website, and even if he/she then browsed other sites on the World Wide Web, the Internet access was being provided through the Moldova number, resulting in huge international phone charges! Consumers didn't know that until their phone bills arrived. According to the Toronto Star Business Reporter, there are Canadian reports of bills into the thousands. The Toronto star also reports that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has requested all calls from Canada to that number in Moldova be blocked. Bell Canada is attempting to provide relief for Canadian consumers. US consumers should contact their long distance providers if they find these unexpected charges on their bill. The RCMP has also required the owners of sexygirls.com to place a disclaimer on the site, alerting consumers to the presence of the communications software in the viewer. The disclaimer also tells consumers how to disconnect if they do not wish to use the server in Moldava. In November, Internet Fraud Watch warned consumers concerning the possible dangers of downloading programs over the Internet. Some tips: Don't download unnecessary items. If it's just a piece of razzle-dazzle, don't bother. It will only take up space on your hard drive and perform no useful function. If there's no gain for you from the program, there's no reason to take a risk. Only download from sites you know and trust. While even a major corporations site can sometimes have a viral infection, a lone programmer might be using an attractive piece of code as a delivery vehicle for his pet virus. Don't download material directly onto a computer network at work. First download it onto a stand alone PC. Test it out. Make sure it doesn't have any malicious side-effects. Check that machine for known viruses. Only at that point should you install the downloaded program on a networked machine. If you feel you must download files, keep track of what files you have on your system and what files are created during a program installation. That way you can easily uninstall any program if you find it to be undesirable. This also helps in detecting new installed files that aren't supposed to be there. Remember, your main worry is an executable file (i.e. a program or application). Despite what you hear all over the Internet, you cannot get a virus from a piece of e-mail. If you are having a problem with calls to Moldova, the connection will only be made if you attempt to use the viewer. If you try to use the viewer, shut down your machine after you are finished at that site. If you wish to remove the viewer altogether, the file name is david.exe (for IBM users). If you are in Windows, it should be in your program folder. FraudNews is owned and published by : Mark Taylor: themet(a)mindspring.com All material published is copyright.It must not be reproduced in any form without the express permission of of the owner. ============================================================= This Newsletter is broadcast using the List and Newsletter Management facilities of Silverquick Communications You may subscribe to FraudNews and the Fraud-Discuss lists on the web pages at : http://www.silverquick.com ============================================================= --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/

1 0

Re: AltaVista Tunnel
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anil Das wrote: > Rick Osborne wrote: > > He triumphantly exclaimed that the encryption was 128-bit, but when > > I said "128-bit what?" he cowered and muttered that he didn't know and went > > on with his little speech. The rest of my crypto-specific questions met > > with equal dark stares. And these are the people setting industry standards... > I should be happy that you are bashing a competitor and all, but give > them a break, OK? The marketing dweeb who has to do product pitches > on roadshows is not the same as the design engineer who designs the > system and sets technical standards. There can be a big difference in > technical knowledge about the product, and even basic competency, > between the two. HP in their first 17 years of making personal computers always sent real engineers along with salespeople to their product rollouts. Starting in late 1983 with their first MS-DOS computer, they did a 180-degree and eliminated the engineers, and started sending people who knew nothing about HP products, which is bad in the sense that some folks wanted to know "Why should I buy HP when I can get the real thing, i.e. IBM"? As a sales manager, I always had a hard time with that one. I blame HP in retrospect, for a moron mentality in their marketing department.

1 0

Newt's phone calls
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimwit L)amentation( Vehement K)retin(OTM enjoys sucking the puss from his syphilitic homosexual friends. /\_./o__ Dr.Dimwit L)amentation( Vehement K)retin(OTM (/^/(_^^' ._.(_.)_

1 0

Re: [ADMINISTRIVIUM] Extradition treaties
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Drunkard Vilest K>rap<OTM wears satin lingerie embroidered with pink swastikas, prancing around for his faggot, AIDS infected lovers. |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ __ | \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ | O~-_ Drunkard Vilest K>rap<OTM | >----|-|-|-|-|-|-|--| __/ | / / / / / / / / |__\ |/ / / / / / / /

1 0

Re: AltaVista Tunnel
by Anil Das 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rick Osborne wrote: > > He triumphantly exclaimed that the encryption was 128-bit, but when > I said "128-bit what?" he cowered and muttered that he didn't know and went > on with his little speech. The rest of my crypto-specific questions met > with equal dark stares. And these are the people setting industry standards... I should be happy that you are bashing a competitor and all, but give them a break, OK? The marketing dweeb who has to do product pitches on roadshows is not the same as the design engineer who designs the system and sets technical standards. There can be a big difference in technical knowledge about the product, and even basic competency, between the two. -- Anil Das

3 2

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by Roy M. Silvernail 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In list.cypherpunks, gbroiles(a)netbox.com writes: > My mention of Usenet was somewhat tongue-in-cheek; I don't know if I'd bother > with the list if it were moved to (or gated with) Usenet, as Usenet has > become for the most part 100+ Mb/day of uselessness. An obvious point. But you go on to say... > The good side I see to a move to Usenet is that it lets people use the > comparatively better tools for managing messages [...] FWIW, I gate all my subscribed mailing lists to local newsgroups because my newsreading tools are much better than my mailreading tools. > The down side is that Usenet is more or less a sewer these days, and some of > it's bound to spill over. The unfiltered list already had spammers and flamers. Would you expect nore sewage, different sewage or a combination? - -- Roy M. Silvernail [ ] roy(a)scytale.com DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division PGP Public Key fingerprint = 31 86 EC B9 DB 76 A7 54 13 0B 6A 6B CC 09 18 B6 Key available from pubkey(a)scytale.com, which works now -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvgPUBvikii9febJAQElRwP+IC40bwrsV7w7NI0IMmdwGRPO8tHNo6qU pCb6i9UNSrtaFseZ6I04RIsy1mitoJbmDaoJqKcWz1smi4pr1Te/1QZDt8CLouP2 lXwZV9PojttoBbGlfrc1gY/ZEOnOtwwBemiMSiyIS0Md26f1VM9i1OMVR4RDpLY8 +VrFN9htVyc= =jMyg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Matts Kallioniemi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: >On the choke points note, mailing lists are better than usenet because >legendary AOLers with there 5 free hours of fame and their ilk usually >don't figure out how to pester mailing lists. Being on a mailing list >usually requires a commitment, that is enough of a barrier for many of >the usenet underirables. Another way to get rid of the totally clueless and involuntary subscribers would be to require subscription requests to be PGP signed and acknowledged by the subscriber. Matts -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMviI5xVFhWUyiUQRAQFdEwf/ZI2WW/2OVKq4xdwmsPNzCP3yJj7NfsOP JSBegY21WX/Oa+gT/Zmo5lrOh9wWQlF2OpFlzggvBef1Vm5qidge5dRqSxmUPipc 5/HZFK1KxQI5uLjC7pZo5pMfjIroPYI4pldfYP2fjn3qo82sg8IWEn1FSH3b5iEE qrL71rWmG3ekx7qDMvZPGKrjwi7XNJlKUT7qIjQaR25sg3U4KsntV5FZ+Iof6FRz cFX0G2bQ5r1tE/QIqrMm94cD27KNFshSArBFgTqNqqCJtym2v+oOtiCpm8uqirlB oREDHaIs7pJyUA3VkdQnVwKbN+c/Ln9nBAZ9V0BGBg4rZMp/rDRo+Q== =YOIl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1