December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

[Portland] Cypherpunks party at Orycon 18
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Orycon 18 is a local Science Fiction convention held at the Red Lion hotel at Janzen Beach this weekend. I will be having a room party for Cypherpunks and related crypto-anarchist-types sometime during the convention. Anyone who wants more information, just drop me a line. I will be on a couple of Internet related panels, as well as a "PGP and Cryptography panel". Anyone interested in helping out with those, contact me as well. --- | "Remember: You can't have BSDM without BSD." - alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0

Re: Sliderules, Logs, and Prodigies
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> At 10:30 AM 11/1/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: > > >Sliderules were just becoming common when I was in high school.... When I was in high school, slide rules and log tables were standard equipment - calculators started to come in towards the end. There was a *lot* of controversy over their use in exams, and in homework ('show your working...'). At one point, you could use a calculator, but only if you noted the fact (and model) on your exam paper. I had a couple of nice 12-inch plastic slide rules - the better one, with about 20 scales and double sides was stolen while I was in college. I still treasure one of the heirlooms from my grandfather - a 12 inch bamboo rule, with his name carefully engraved in engineering lettering ( which he used during his 50+ years at Ma Bell). Not long ago I visited the MIT Museum, and in the shop found for sale 'new' (circa 1975) plastic slide rules, both straight and circular. I got one of each for old time's sake, and am thinking of having one framed with a 'break glass in case of emergency' sign. Peter Trei trei(a)process.com

1 0

Paper on Electronic Payment Systems (Swedish)
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Sender: e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: gustavw(a)wineasy.se (Gustav Winberg) Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 14:43:23 +0100 From: gustavw(a)wineasy.se (Gustav Winberg) To: Multiple recipients of <e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com> Subject: Paper on Electronic Payment Systems (Swedish) For all interested and Swedish-speaking (sorry...) list members: I have just completed my graduation thesis in law at the University of Stockholm. The title of the paper is "Elektroniska betalningssystem - Teknisk säkerhet och juridisk osäkerhet" (eng. Electronic Payment Systems - Technological Security and Legal Uncertainty"), and is available at http://www.users.wineasy.se/gustavw where you will find the ToC in HTML and the complete paper in pdf-format (about 230K). If there is sufficient interest, I might consider translating the paper, or parts of it, into English. The legal bits are specifically about Swedish Law, though, so I'm not sure how useful they would be for non-Scandinavians. Any comments or suggestions are greatly welcome and can be sent to gustavw(a)wineasy.se. BTW: Bob, thanks for a great list - I couldn't have done it without you... Cheers! BR, Gustav WInberg --------------------------------------- (ex.) Student of Law and Informatics University of Stockholm, Sweden gustavw(a)wineasy.se --------------------------------------- --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "The cost of anything is the foregone alternative" -- Walter Johnson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

1 0

ClipperFUD: tracking smart cards
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Sender: oldbear(a)tiac.net Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 00:20:34 -0500 To: Digital Commerce Society of Boston <dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu> From: The Old Bear <oldbear(a)arctos.com> Subject: tracking smart cards Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: bounce-dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: The Old Bear <oldbear(a)arctos.com> TRACKING SMART CASH A senior Justice Department official has urged makers of smart carts to include a mechanism for tracking transactions over a certain dollar amount. Assistant Attorney General Robert Litt also called for "sensible limits" on how much value can be stored or transferred on a single card or PC. The government hopes it can work with industry without stifling smart card development, and without compromising individual rights. "We don't want to dictate how these features are designed, but there are certain reasonable parameters that industry should build into their systems," says Litt. source: BNA Daily Report for Executives 29 Oct 96 page A24 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this list, send a letter to: Majordomo(a)ai.mit.edu In the body of the message, write: unsubscribe dcsb Or, to subscribe, write: subscribe dcsb If you have questions, write to me at Owner-DCSB(a)ai.mit.edu --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "The cost of anything is the foregone alternative" -- Walter Johnson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

1 0

Unix Review - letter to editor
by peter.allan＠aeat.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[ I refer to the article starting on p55 of the Nov 1996 Unix Review. ] -----letter to Ed start here------ Andrew, Congratulations on a welcome crypto article in UR. This is an important topic for security, networks, web-based commerce etc and is only going to increase in importance as people realise data is money. The article did raise my eyebrows a few times though with some wild statements - about the speed of brute-force attacks on DES, and about USG 'key escrow' proposals, patents and key certification. Also there are absolutely crucial issues not touched on, probably for lack of space. Details matter, and if you're contemplating another article on the subject I'd be happy to write it [subject to my boss' approval] or review it before publication. The field moves fast at times, and it would be good to keep an eye on the subject in a fairly regular column. Strangely, your author didn't mention ftp.ox.ac.uk, an ftp site for many good crypto tools, which (as a UK site) is not subject to US export restrictions. -- Peter Allan peter.allan(a)aeat.co.uk

1 0

Re: Censorship on cypherpunks
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Geez, the traffic has quadrupled, with most of it about Vulis. Get over it already! And so, just to add to the garbage, here's my two cents. :-) Declan McCullagh wrote: > > Libertarianism is not incompatible with strict regulations, as long as > the rules violate nobody's rights. Now, there's an Orwellian statement if ever there was one. OF COURSE Vulis's "rights" were violated. The question is, so what? The decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious. I find the rational balancing of rights and responsibilities to be less wrong than defining away your opponent's rights. Since AFAIK there was no precedent for kicking Vulis off, and in fact cpunks has long prided itself on absolute anarchy (especially after the victory of the Tim May [neutral term for rant] factions over the Perrygram faction), there is a "rights" issue. I think cpunks broke an implied contract guaranteeing Vulis absolute rant rights. But I also think that that's OK. It's ironic that you're making this argument while a piece from you making the opposite argument is still on the news stands. My response to your half of the Internet Underground article can be found on Usenet, but I think the best summary of my position came in my response to the contrary point of view -- concurring in your judgement, but disagreeing with your reasoning. - From <53i4d5$skm(a)Networking.Stanford.EDU>: |>FLAMETHROWER |>By Solveig Bernstein (sberns(a)cato.org) |> |>The decision to remain silent is an act of conscience, just like the |>decision to speak. So the view that acts of "private censorship" |>violate rights of free speech is incoherent. If an online service |>provider ousts a Web site that posts explicit messages about sex, in |>violation of the terms of their service contract, or a non-profit |>organization persuades some Internet Service Providers to refuse to |>host "Holocaust Revisionist" web sites, these decisions do not violate |>rights of free speech. | |I agree, up to a point. The only "right" of free speech is the right to |be free from force and threats of force based on the content of speech. |As publishers, librarians, archivists, and access providers, though, we |have a *duty* to society to tolerate ideas we despise. But this duty |comes from the public's right to know and from the kind of people we |are, not from the "rights" of the speakers. | |Anyone who claims to be a content-neutral ISP, a librarian, or an |unbiased source of news who suppresses things she doesn't like is a |*LIAR AND A FRAUD* because she is giving her audience a dishonest, |distorted view of the world. Protests against such capricious exercises |of editorial power are appropriate and are necessary, but they should |be viewed as attacks on the character of the editor, not defenses of |the human rights of the suppressed. In this case, I think any fair investigation of the facts of the matter would clearly demonstrate that Gilmore was right to kick Vulis off, and that he was neither acting capriciously nor removing any substantive content. I do believe, though, that that's an investigation we must be prepared to accept (not that I think anyone's seriously going to ask for one, given the relative reputations of the parties involved). Granting the cpunks owner absolute property rights over the content of messages on the list, though, as you do, while strictly correct, is extremely dangerous because it gives license to all kinds of distoritions, lies, and fraud. The right of "the public" to inquire and respond must be respected. And it has been, as all these useless threads show. - -rich owner-fight-censorship-discuss(a)c2.net - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMn5xRioZzwIn1bdtAQH7JwGAhI91c5/AkamPaUUlfkC95sRzmHn6uUx9 j/AGAZQ4QTw6SHdgl5rBu9SkpncTh43b =Q7O4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

just what we #$%^&* needed from big brother....
by attila＠primenet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Welcome to 1984+ what else with useless and illegally constituted bureaucrats add to their total infringement of every facet of our life. .NEW SYSTEM LINKS LENDERS, IRS .The Internal Revenue Service is developing an electronic program to link .mortgage lenders with the IRS, allowing them to exchange e-mail comparing .stated earnings on the mortgage application with actual tax return .information for the previous couple of years. If the cross-check turns up a .more than $10,000 discrepancy between the earnings claimed on the application .and those declared for tax purposes, the IRS has the option of pursuing the .loan applicant via an audit. IRS has targeted the system at self-employed .borrowers, who often declare high earnings in order to qualify for a larger .loan, but lower earnings when it comes to paying taxes. "Who knows what .their real incomes are?" asks one mortgage broker. (St. Petersburg Times 2 Nov 96 D5 courtesy of Edupage) -- one of the few things we all share: the utter, corrosive contempt for our elected officials. Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly, and for the same reason.

1 0

Q.E.D. - MONTGOLFIERING, SPOOFS +
by cypher＠cyberstation.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I recognize that the vast majority of list readers are sensible human beings trying to better the profession they love and serve the interests they represent. As such, readers of this thread do not need me, or a claque of snivelers, to determine the probity of the impartations being made. You are capable of determining that for yourselves. This posting is not meant to in any way denigrate your important work or to challenge the efforts being made by the vast majority of you to be objective, civil, fair and to examine the facts and determine the truth to the best of your abilities. Accordingly, most of the commentary included in this posting is directed toward the hallucinating thralldom of a dozen or so self proclaimed cryptographic jackadandies who beneath their public veneer are simply a flock of flaccid jackanapes. As proof of that thesis, look at the transpirations of the past few weeks. Preamble: In law school, potential attorneys are drilled in the three prong postulate: 1. If you can argue the facts, argue the facts, the evidence. 2. If you cannot argue the facts, then argue the law, Shannon and Sneider. 3. If you cannot argue the facts, or the law, then attack the opposition, the people presenting the facts. Another statement parable is "if you do not like the message attack the messenger." This stratagem can be applied not only to the courtroom but to any affray. Evidence: 1. The cabal of pedants has looked at the IPG web site in detail, as evinced by their frequent citing of materials that were not theretofore set out in any of the postings made to this list. Where did they get it? Obviously from the web site. 2. They quickly discerned that they could not possibly argue the facts as proved by the fact that not a single one of them have deigned to do so. They quickly realized that algorithm was unassailable from their extremely limited low level of competence. Actually, it cannot be attacked from any level of competence as close analysis of same will reveal. I bet none of that eau de vie crowd has ever cracked real ciphertext in their life. They live in a self hypnotic fantasy mirage world. Obviously, they are incapable of breaking real encryption systems. Oh, they have posited all kinds of crackbrain scheme for breaking systems under some silly hypothetical scenario - most of which have been forseen and solved decades ago by people who are real professional cryptographers. I could pose a theory of broad jumping from New York to London too. All I would have to do is to jump two feet high and be traveling at a velocity of roughly 63,360,000 feet per second, only about .067 c, and I COULD make it. Some of the self presumed cryptographic jackadandies' hairbrain schemes are even more obtuse than that. 3. Unable to attack the algorithm because of their gross impotence, they started citing their law. They attacked my position that the stream cipher was an OTP, citing Shannon as proof that was not the case. In essence invoking the oracular doctrine of Shannon infallibility. They skim over Shannon, read Schneier and then get on their pulpit and preach their version of the Gospel and to all of us mere mortals because they are totally incapable of solving real life applications of cryptography. They spout meaningless turkey gobbleddegook instead of actually doing it. As noted before, their information = P log_base_infinity P, and as is equally evident, their disinformation = P log_base_0 P I acknowledged the truly unique contribution that Shannon has made to cryptography, communications and related fields and the coessential redound on Schneier for the codification of cryptography. However, my position is that Shannon mathematically proved in absolutism only the limitations that we must work within, not what can be done within those delimiters. Accordingly, I argued that the disputation was a matter of semantics. I agreed that the algorithm did not have infinite entropy but it was still an OTP because it fulfilled the other basic tenants of an OTP in all respects saving entropy. I further asserted that the entropy question was immaterial because the entropy of the algorithm was far greater than any possible practical need, by tens of thousands of orders of magnitude. Such rationale fell on parti pris deaf erudite ears. 4. As a result, I realized that from my vantage point such an argument was counter productive at the very best. As a result, I took the OTP issue off the table by agreeing, as I had stated on numerous occasions, that the algorithm produced noncommunicative stream ciphers, PRNG streams that manifested remarkable random like properties, though they certainly are not random. 5. Deprived of their dogmatic dictums with respect to IT, those detractors, like all disconcerted confuters since the dawn of human controversy, turned to the use of sophomoric fustigation. They imagine themselves as a clique of cryptographic superdupers; but in this case they were overwhelmed by the strength of the algorithm, which pricked their hyper-inflate egos. That in turn, led to their futile efforts to try to strike back and cudgel the source of their foil as they vented their acute frustrations. In this case, since many of them are obviously very bright and articulate, their resultant falderal is very adroit and humorous. Even though being the butt of their lampoonery, I nonetheless was highly amused, got some good laughs, found it entertaining and was flattered by the expended efforts of the author(s). Although I recognize that it was not intended to be so, I found it to be exemplary raillery. Levity can help all of us to keep serious matters in perspective and I applaud the authors for their jocose entertainment. Keep it up, not only is it fun, it also helps everyone to see through the smoke screens in order to discern the real underlying truths. 6. Note that during the whole discourse and postings made to this thread, not a single individual has critiqued the algorithm itself. Not many of them will even own up to having looked at the algorithm, much less having attempted to analyze it and assess its strengths or weaknesses. Get real. How many readers really believe that all of those fast cryptographic guns would ignore the real, very simple, algorithm in unison if they stood a ghost of a chance of cracking it? Any talk of a mediocre pecunary reward for breaking the algorithm is giddy poppycock and everyone knows it. They would much rather have the satisfaction and pride that they were the one that gigged me, the only rub being that that is patently impossible . Each individual in that elitist cabal obviously salivates at the opportunity to crack the algorithm and throw it back in my face since my postings have raised seemingly heretic controversy. It should be clear to all readers of this thread, that with a possible exception or two, those detractors have looked at the algorithm and realize it far exceeds their meager cryptanalytic abilities. Accordingly, it is transpicuous that they have resorted to trying to use their turkey flapdoodle to cloud the issue since they have nothing of substance to reason upon. They could not crack their way out of a wet Kleenex with an unlimited number of gigaton thermo nuclear weapons. Perry Metzger and others have even used inculcative factoids to try to claim that the algorithm had been broken. What they were referring to of course was the algorithm that was posted a few months ago. As several then cypherpunks know, that first algorithm was posted to try to get some of the list sharpshooters committed. I believed that those intellectual cowards would leap at the opportunity to display their prowess if confronted by weakness; while on the other hand, that same small flock of turkeys would inevitably run for cover, flapping their wings, and spluttering out puny excuses and their turkey gobbledygook if confronted by strength, just as they are now doing. I wanted to show up gross hypocrisy for what it is, pure spineless cowardice by that gashouse, in more ways than one, gang. As a result, I posted that first algorithm with the intention to answer back with the real algorithm fairly quickly. However, a few cypherpunk confidants recommended that IPG provide the capability for the users to generate all their own keys in order to erase that stigma against the algorithm. In addition, some of them also urged me to prove some of the statistical contentions that I was making instead of just stating them. Accordingly, I decided to do those two things and to reconstruct the web site accordingly. Further, one very helpful cypherpunk gave me a number of references which required me to go to the University of Texas in Austin in order to research them. In doing that, and as result of that research and testing, I changed the algorithm slightly; most importantly, from using a linear congruential generator as the method of providing the algorithm seed, to a nonlinear congruential generator method.. That is, I added two lines to the seed generator engine, to wit: DO (ADDED) JV = JV+1 IF JV = 53 THEN JV = 0 A[JV]=( A[JV] + B[JV] ) MOD C[JV] WHILE ( A[JV] AND 16384 ) = 1 (ADDED) or in effect (WHILE A[JV] > 16383 ) Copyright 1996 by Donald R. Wood. All rights reserved. NOTE: The 53 is a variable. All this took time, and before we could completely regroup, 5 months had passed into history. That does not negate what I was trying to establish though. That is, that the alleged highly puissant sharp shooters are in reality just a bunch of impuissant intellectual cowards feeding everyobne cryptographic pablum. They leap like wilding pit bulldogs at perceived weakness and like all fraudlent impostors completely, and very conveniently, languish from rational reality when they face strength. They fancy themselves as a school of great white sharks plying the waters of cryptography but in reality, they are merely little batty harmless blowfish pumping themselves, and each other, up with "write bites" of pompous flattery, self and group veneration, and other fawning, obsequious giddiness. Having set out my view of the derogators, the remainder of this posting, excepting the one obvious paragraph, is intended for all readers. I trust that most readers will not be diverted, or dissuaded, by the myopic view of traducers. Computer software, is becoming infecte with obsessive compulsive technical interests that are attempting to lead us down the primrose path to intricacy and complexity that will eventually result in much lower productivity and fewer users. Microsoft Office is a perfect paradigm of such sophistry being used to deceive - it does not increase productivity at all, au contraire, in the words of Scott McNealy it serves as a serious impediment to real productivity - what does 23 fonts, 45 colors and all kinds of other unnecessary paraphernalia add to content, understanding and ultimately productivity. Misplaced appeal to aesthetics has all but supplanted the much more important goal of making us, and the interests we serve, more efficient and more productive. Such a course, if not corrected, will eventually lead to, among other things, our World Wide Web becoming a Gordian tangle in terms of usage by the vast majority of technically impaired users. I am not alone in raising this issue of everything becoming too complex and too complicated for potential users. My very weak voice is merely being added to the far more weighty enunciations of McNealy, Ellison, Andreessen, Jobs, and other industry illuminaries. Nowhere, is that usage gap between the technophiles and the technophobes more pronounced than it is in the use of encryption. If we do not keep it simple and easy to use, we will impose defacto standards that only the technically exceptional, such as readers of this, will be able to use. That is an important part of what the IPG EUREKA algorithm and system is about: Making it simple and easy for neophytes to use, and work with. Certainly EUREKA is not a panacea for all encryption needs. For example, it is obviously NOT the best solution for the problems relating to conducting commerce over the Internet. Further, without question, RSA, PGP, ENTRUST, and other encryption systems fill very important exigencies. Where EUREKA shines is in three important strategic user applications: 1. To set up a permanent line of Internet/intranet communication privacy between two, or a group of, individuals. As a result, pass phrases, session encryption keys, and other work impediments of that genre can be eliminated. While applicable to everyone, this is especially true of newbies, computer novices, technophobes, and other non-techies. It is easy to make it transparent to clerks, secretaries, attorneys, accountants, brokers, insurance agents, administrators, law enforcement personnel, and others to whom the computer is merely a necessary implement used to perform their job. EUREKA is much faster, more secure, easier to use, and more flexible than other systems for this application. As such, it is ideal for business intranets, or mixed Internet - intranet systems. It is also ideal for private use by two individuals or a small group of friends and family. 2. To protect your private hard disk files, programs or data, from compromise by hackers and interlopers. In this application it is unsurpassed because differential analysis, and other attacks that can be made to evolving files is rendered impossible and it is extremely fast. It is simply the best product available for this application, though it has some limitations in terms of partial file access and reencryption that will be relieved in the months ahead. 3. For the mass distribution of proprietary content over the Internet. Using authentication codes, similar to military codes of the day, a manufacturer can easily encrypt and transmit software products of all types to an unlimited number of users. Where do we go from here? As you read this, many companies and individuals have purchased, are purchasing, copies for test and evaluation under the newly announced limited moneyback guarantee offer set out in our web site at: netprivacy.com As set out, we are temporarily offering PC compatible systems: 1. For encrypting and protecting your hard disk files from hackers and interlopers for $19.50 2. The same as 1 plus encryption of e-mail and other files for transmission on Internet for $29.50 3. A six pack, six of the number 2 package above for trial use by corporate intranet users for $99.50 All prices include S&H but NOT state taxes where applicable. Our unconditional money back guarantee also includes guaranteed free updates, currently being developed by independent software developers, through December 31, 1997. I realize that there are many Sancho Panza minds out there, who mistakenly think they speak for all list members, and will then go and say that no one will bother with the product. They have already been proved wrong. They are not by any means Rozinantes, they are mere inferior Rozins, Playtyrs at best, Kyrie Eleison kryson. In addition, Coderpunks, Cypherpunks, and other Internet users have committed themselves to helping IPG to improve the EUREKA system, to make it even easier to use, to significantly increase the performance ( by at least an order of decimal magnitude), to develop it on other platforms, and the other things that must be done if it is to achieve its potential. Some of these product revisions and enhancements should be available late this year and others next year. Stay tuned for the results of these efforts. Such efforts are in response to our offer set out at: netprivacy.com/mlmplan.html Therein, as you may know, we explain how we intend to develop and market the IPG products using Internet. As described, instead of establishing an inhouse organization to do those things, as well as system testing & evaluation and system engineering, we plan to use independent developers and agents over Internet. That way, effort will be rewarded on a competitive merit basis. We believe this will be the wave of the future.. Exceptional talent, working out of their own homes, located in the place of their choice. These people will be creating product that will be marketed by other creative people working from their place of choice. Find out how you can participate at. netprivacy.com/mlmplan.html IPG will NOT COMPETE with its software developers or its marketing agents. If you can build a better mousetrap, or invigorate the marketing effort, you will be rewarded commensurably. Even if it is not a better mousetrap, you will still receive pecuniary participation for your efforts. There is a huge upside potential with very little downside risk, except for your time. Others have got in on the ground floor of opportunities like this, here is your chance. This offer is of course currently limited to U.S. and Canadian citizens. The software development kit has been reduced down from $395.00 to $39.50 on a limited offer basis. We anticipate that we will withdraw these limited offers on December 31, 1996. See for yourself. Prove it to yourself. Also, remember, the algorithm is available at: http://netprivacy.com/algo.html We would be very proud to work with you in a synergistic effort to improve ourselves and to produce products for the cryptographicand other markets. Contact us oprivately if you are interested, With kindest regards, Don Wood, > =================================================================== > > Donald R. Wood > ipgsales(a)cyberstation.net > > =================================================================== > > Some people are more certain of their own opinions than they are of > facts presented by those they disagree with - Aristotle > > --------------------- Quod Erat Demonstrandum --------------------- linear congruential generator as the method of providing the algorithm seed, to a nonlinear congruential generator method. That is, I added two lines to the seed generator engine, to wit: DO (ADDED) JV = JV+1 IF JV = 53 THEN JV = 0 A[JV]=( A[JV] + B[JV] ) MOD C[JV] WHILE ( A[JV] AND 16384 ) = 1 (ADDED) or in effect (WHILE A[JV] > 16383 ) Copyright 1996 by Donald R. Wood. All rights reserved. NOTE: The 53 is a variable. Running statistical tests on the encryptor stream with the two lines included versus excluding the two lines, revealed that using them was much stronger from every vantage point. There is sound mathematical reasons why that is true, which succinctly as possible is because it generates a more even distribution of the seed values, ( 0,..,16383 ), with the addition of the two lines. I had experimented with the modified form before I posted the first algorithm but had tentatively rejected it because it decreased overall performance and did not seem to be necessary - I simply did not recognize its importance at that time. However, subsequent testing caused me to change my mind because the standard deviations, Chi Squares, 1st differences and each and every one of the other statistical tests proved that the addition of the two lines produced more random like resultants. In addition the revised algorithm, with the two added lines, makes it impossible to block the algorithm output stream in the absence of the specific As, Bs and Cs used. All this took time, and before we could completely regroup, 5 months had passed into history. That does not negate what I was trying to establish though. That is, that the alleged highly puissant sharp shooters are in reality just a bunch of impuissant intellectual cowards. They leap like wilding pit bulldogs at perceived weakness and like all impostors completely, and very conveniently, languish from rational reality when they face strength. They fancy themselves as a school of great white sharks plying the waters of cryptography but in reality, they are merely little batty harmless blowfish pumping themselves, and each other, up with "write bites" of pompous flattery, self and group veneration, and other fawning, obsequious giddiness. Having set out my view of the derogators, the rainder of this posting, is intended for all readers. I trust that such readers will not be diverted, or dissuaded, by the myopic view of traducers. Computer software, is becoming infected with obsessive interests that are attempting to lead us down the primrose path to intricacy and complexity that will eventually result in much lower productivity and fewer users. Microsoft Office is a perfect paradigm of such sophistry being used to deceive - it does not increase productivity at all, au contraire, in the words of Scott McNealy it serves as a serious impediment to real productivity - what does 23 fonts, 45 colors and all kinds of other unnecessary paraphernalia add to content, understanding and ultimately productivity. Misplaced appeal to aesthetics has all but supplanted the much more important goal of making us, and the interests we serve, more efficient and more productive. Such a course, if not corrected, will eventually lead to, among other things, our World Wide Web becoming a Gordian tangle in terms of usage by the vast majority of technically impaired users. I am not alone in raising this issue of everything becoming too complex and too complicated for potential users. My very weak voice is merely being added to the far more weighty enunciations of McNealy, Ellison, Andreessen, Jobs, and other illuminaries of our industry. Nowhere, is that usage gap between the technophiles and the technophobes more pronounced than it is in the use of encryption. If we do not keep it simple and easy to use, we will impose defacto standards that only the technically exceptional, such as readers of this, will be able to use. That is an important part of what the IPG EUREKA algorithm and system is about: Making it simple and easy for neophytes to use, and work with. Certainly EUREKA is not a panacea for all encryption needs. For example, it is obviously NOT the best solution for the problems relating to conducting commerce over the Internet. Further, without question, RSA, PGP, ENTRUST, and other encryption systems fill very important exigencies. Where EUREKA shines is in three important strategic user applications: 1. To set up a permanent line of Internet/intranet communication privacy between two, or a group of, individuals. As a result, pass phrases, session encryption keys, and other work impediments of that genre can be eliminated. While applicable to everyone, this is especially true of newbies, computer novices, technophobes, and other non-techies. It is easy to make it transparent to clerks, secretaries, attorneys, accountants, brokers, insurance agents, administrators, law enforcement personnel, and others to whom the computer is merely a necessary implement used to perform their job. EUREKA is much faster, more secure, easier to use, and more flexible than other systems for this application. As such, it is ideal for business intranets, or mixed Internet - intranet systems. It is also ideal for private use by two individuals or a small group of friends and family. 2. To protect your private hard disk files, programs or data, from compromise by hackers and interlopers. In this application it is unsurpassed because differential analysis, and other attacks that can be made to evolving files is rendered impossible and it is extremely fast. It is simply the best product available for this application. 3. For the mass distribution of proprietary content over the Internet. Using authentication codes, similar to military codes of the day, a manufacturer can easily encrypt and transmit software products of all types to an unlimited number of users. Where do we go from here? As you read this, many companies and individuals have purchased, are purchasing, copies for test and evaluation under the newly announced limited moneyback guarantee offer set out in our web site at: netprivacy.com As set out, we are temporarily offering PC compatible systems: 1. For encrypting and protecting your hard disk files from hackers and interlopers for $19.50 2. The same as 1 plus encryption of e-mail and other files for transmission on Internet for $29.50 3. A six pack, six of the number 2 package above for trial use by corporate intranet users for $99.50 rant way than _any_ government has ever in history behaved

2 1

[Noise] Re: Censorship on cypherpunks
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:36 PM 11/4/96 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >I would appreciate an example of "strict regulations" which do not violate >anybody's rights. Obviously you have not known any good Dominatrixes. "Whip me, beat me, make me write bad crypto!" --- | "Remember: You can't have BSDM without BSD." - alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0

Re: Thank you, John Gilmore, for protecting freedom of spee
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Ironic how the list championed flooding Germany(?) with material in response to their > suppression of certain "objectionable" material, then gets into this sticky wicket. Absolutely, As much as I might hate Vulis`s stuff (and believe me I do). It is no justification for removing him from the list. We are supposed to be a platform for the discussion of cryptography but as the list has become more and more a libertarian platform for ideas and discussion we cannot really justify censorship in this way. I very much wish I could say that I agreed with John but I cannot do so with a clear conscience. 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: Censorship on cypherpunks
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:45 AM 11/4/96 -0800, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Libertarianism is not incompatible with strict regulations, as long as >the rules violate nobody's rights. > >-Declan Obviously many voluntary religious organizations have quite strict rules for their members and are compatible with libertarianism. Government monopoly regulations that cannot be opted out of are not compatible with libertarianism. Instead of using the loaded term "regulations' it might be better to call things like the rules of the cypherpunk's list "club rules" or protocols. DCF

2 1

Group order for "Secret Power" ... (San Francisco Bay Area only)
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm looking for 19 other people interested in "Secret Power" (Craig Potton Publishers has indicated that there is a discount for 20 or more copies). If you are in the San Francisco Bay Area, please contact me by phone or E-Mail. As usual with these things, I would prefer to see you in person and have a cash or check committed. Also remember that the shipping is quite steep (for the faster methods) ... The US price uses US$0.71 per NZ$1.00. US PRICE 1 Copy NZ$27.50 per copy US$19.53 NZ$19.00 for shipping via air US$13.49 NZ$12.50 for shipping via economy US$ 8.88 NZ$10.00 for shipping via sea US$ 7.10 20 Copies (per copy) NZ$24.75 per copy (10% discount) US$17.57 NZ$ 9.50 for shipping via air US$ 6.75 NZ$ 7.25 for shipping via economy US$ 5.15 NZ$ 5.90 for shipping via sea US$ 4.19 ---- Ernest Hua, Software Sanitation Engineer Chromatic Research, 615 Tasman Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1707 Phone: 408 752-9375, Fax: 408 752-9301, E-Mail: hua(a)chromatic.com

4 3

Re: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Well put! I tired a long time ago of Dr. Vulis and several others on this > list. Rather than bitch about it or resort to the same big brother > gestapo-censor bullshit we profess to abhor I simply utilized the extensive > filtering capability of Eudora. > > I don't need "big brother" or big "cypherpunk" censoring my mail for me. > We have become what we fear the most. How prophetic and pathetic. Absolutely, John, if you, and those who support your actions, claim to be libertarians you need to take a good hard look at what you have done. This is a distinctly "big cypherpunkish" move and really cannot be condoned even bearing in mind the inane and wearisome behaviour of Dr. Vulis. 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"

5 6

Re: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> The short answer is, No. Their problem. > More specifically, we constantly have > a stream of new readers sampling Cypherpunks. Some are > technically sophisticated; some are not. In either case, new > readers do not have the historical perspective not to fall for > Dimitri's big lies. It is not a requirement in a libertarian forum to tell the truth. You also seem to be implying that people need protecting from Dimitri, much the same authoritarian argument we hear from govt. about people needing to be protected from porn/drugs/free spech etc. > Nor do they have any way of know what an > abberation his sort of behavior is on this list. "So this is > what Cypherpunks are like," would be a sad, but understandable > misinterpretation of what we're all about. What John did was > appropriate. I understand the point here but I suggest a note at the top of the "welcome to cypherpunks" note every new subscriber gets explaining who Dimitri is and how to set up their mailer software to block his posts. 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"

5 6

Re: New On WWW.Infowar.Com Vol I #4
by Betty G. O'Hearn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

New On WWW Infowar.Com Take a look. Pass it on. We thank our sponsors: National Computer Security Association Open Source Solutions New Dimensions International - Security Training Secure Computing Corporation HOMECOM Communications ___________________________________________________________ > > * New Order Theat Analysis: A Literature Survey > * USAF Opens First Information Warfare Training Laboratory > * The E-Bomb- a Weapon of Electrical Mass Destruction. > * Financial Cryptography 1997 (FC97) The world's first financial > cryptography conference, workshop, and exhibition! > * Where is Winn Schwartau? Check out his schedule! > * New Full Body Scanning Planned for US Airport Security; But is it > safe? > * Lighten your load - some randomly offensive funnies. > * Virtual Reality-Training For the Future, points out that there may be more than one way to learn marksmanship and other skills that may be needed in a military/crisis environment. > * A valuable resource... Stateless Warfare: Commandant's Planning > Guidance > * IBIS (International Banking and Information Security) Conference > New York City, February 20-21, 1997. > * "Infowarrior Road Kit" - Don't leave home without it! > * A valuable resource... G-TWO Open Source Intelligence > * Quasi-technical humor that should really not offend anyone. 11 Tips. > * From Steve Macko, ENN editor, a briefing and analysis on the > Russian military. > * The Ethics of Information Warfare and Statecraft by Dr Dan Kuehl, NDU. > * Interview of Winn Schwartau for a Dutch publication by W. Belgers. > * Infosecurity News....check this out!!! > * A good read by Ralph McGehee on "CIA's Failure of Intelligence RE: > Terrorism" > * Read about the results of Information Weeks' Information Security > Survey: Internet vulnerability, malicious internal attacks by employees and lack of confidence are key findings. > * Excellent information on How To Get Less Junk Mail... > * U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency > * Do you want a copy of your FBI file? Or your file with another > agency? Here's how! > * From Sweden, DESTA Newsletter. > * Big money maker for Year 2000 Problem. >************************************************************* > > We are kicking off the discussion group infowar(a)infowar.com. > > If you are not registered and want to be to receive this list, go > the website and register. (http://www.infowar.com) > > To start off the moderated discussion that will be posted in digest > form we are to begin with opening up the topics to non-lethals, psyops, > chemical warfare agents and WMD. Hope you participate! > >>************************************************************* >Archives of C4I have been received and will be available after some hardware >upgrades. > >************************************************************* > > Announcing Winn Schwartau's New Book - > >"Information Warfare - Cyberterrorism: Protecting Your Personal Security In >the Electronic Age" by Winn Schwartau >Thunder's Mouth Press, New York. 212.780.0380 >ISBN: 1-56025-132-8 >Released Date: October 30, 1996. >For futher information contact Thunder's Mouth Press at 212.780.0380, your >local bookstore or NCSA at 717.258.1816. > **************************************************************** DIRECT REQUESTS to: list(a)infowar.com with one-line in the BODY, NOT in the subject line. Subscribe news_from_wschwatau TO JOIN GROUP Unsubscribe news_from_wschwartau TO LEAVE GROUP **************************************************************** http://www.Infowar.Com Managed by Winn Schwartau winn(a)infowar.com Interpact, Inc. 11511 Pine St. Seminole, FL 33772 813-393-6600 Voice 813-393-6361 FAX Comments, Content, Sponsor Opportunties Betty O'Hearn Assistant to Mr.Winn Schwartau betty(a)infowar.com 813-367-7277 Voice 813-363-7277 FAX

1 0

Re: Compromise proposal
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> [this goes to cypherpunks(a)toad.com and freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org. I am > not reading f-k, but I am interested in Dave Hayes's opinion.] What weight can my opinion possibly have? This list is apparently owned by a Mr. John Gilmore. If he's being censorous, that's bad, but it is apparently within his means to execute said censorship. > Many members of cypherpunks list are right when they oppose the forced > unsubscription of Dimitri Vulis from this list. The sorry state of this > list is not the result of his flames alone, there is a large number of > people who discuss things of no cryptographic relevance. Not to speak for the cypherpunks (we all know their reputation) but I should think the cypherpunks are savvy enough to know the subjectivity of the term "on-topic". > I propose the following: > 1) The block on Dimitri Vulis's subscriptions should be removed > 2) We should not impose any limitations on anyone's speech except 3) > 3) Dimitri and everyone else should put prefix "[FLAME]" > into all Subject: header fields of their flame-related > messages. Gee. What a great idea. > This solution will allow anyone with a clue to use appropriate filtering > and improve the signal-noise ratio, and at the same time will not in any > way limit anyone's freedom of speech. Improving signal to noise is a laughable goal at a social event of more than 100 people, why do people insist upon trying it on the net? ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors and miss

2 1

Re: Telling quote from Bernstein hearing
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rich Burroughs wrote: > I did not find his arguments very persuasive -- he seemed stuck on the idea > that crypto is not speech, when that had already been ruled against by > Judge Patel. As I understand the government's argument, this is what they're trying to say: Even though code can be speech, if it is executable code it is speech and something else at the same time. The government is entitled to regulate or prohibit the export of the "something else" without regard to the speech component, as long as they are content-neutral with respect to the speech component. For example, a cruise missile is subject to export control. Painting words on the side of the missile won't change that. Executable crypto code is subject to export control, and the fact that it has an expressive component doesn't change that. The comments about "We don't know or care what Mr. Bernstein is doing and we're not trying to control his academic discourse" were intended to emphasize that the government is content-neutral with respect to the expressive content of his crypto code. Because the regulations are content-neutral with respect to the expressive content, they are subject to an "intermediate scrutiny" standard (not the "strict scrutiny" standard which would be applied if the restrictions were content-based). The government believes that the AECA and the ITARs can pass the "intermediate scrutiny" test. In a nutshell, the government thinks that the expressive content of code is the algorithm(s) expressed in it. For example, expressive content of PGP 2.x is RSA and IDEA and MD5 and some key management stuff. And they say that their regulations won't be interpreted to cover versions of that expressive content which don't take the form of machine-readable code. While I think that the entire export control scheme, as it is applied to crypto today, is an exercise in dishonesty and futility*, I think that the questions this case presents are difficult questions. I don't think it's really comprehensible to separate the "expressive content" of source code from its "functional content", because one dictates the other. Either the government is able to control the functional content (in which case it controls the expressive content), and the First Amendment is seriously curtailed; or the government is unable to control the functional content, and its ability to control the production and import/export of items of politico/military significance is seriously curtailed. Historically, courts have been deferential to the executive branch's ability to control military and political/diplomatic matters. Either way, someone's pissed off, and someone thinks the court is sending the country to hell in a handbasket. The "crypto is central to national security" argument shouldn't be dismissed summarily - at least not if you think Tim's predictions about cryptoanarchy are accurate. Crypto _is_ important. Crypto _is_ significant in the political and military venues. (* It's dishonest and futile because it is insufficient to reach its stated goals - if the purpose is to prevent the spread of strong crypto worldwide, the government must control the expression of strong crypto algorithms and techniques in all media and all forms. Such regulation would be incompatible with the First Amendment and freedom generally. The present regulations are so poorly matched to the apparent goal that I suspect they have another purpose; and I suspect that purpose is to control the domestic development of strong crypto. And attempting to do so while claiming to do something else is dishonest. (That result is also incompatible with the First Amendment and freedom generally.) And that's what I think of crypto regulations, whether or not I appear to be agreeing with the government.) -- Greg Broiles | "We pretend to be their friends, gbroiles(a)netbox.com | but they fuck with our heads." http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | |

1 0

Cypherpunk Inquest?
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Return-Path: lzkoch(a)mcs.net X-Sender: lzkoch(a)popmail.mcs.net Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 12:28:29 -0600 To: jya(a)pipeline.com From: Lewis Koch <lzkoch(a)mcs.net> Subject: Regarding a story for Upside Magazine John Young: This is an identical letter to a limited number of contributors to Cypherpunks regarding an article I will be writing for Upside Magazine about the Cypherpunks List -- its history and the current controversies it now seems to be facing. (I'm the person who uncovered the Gorelick/"Manhattan project" story. A more recent "Cybersense" column dealt with Chicago Police Superintendent Matt Rodriguez wanting to escape from a 1974 Federal Court injunction against police department spying on "radicals" so that he could now join in on investigating Cyberterrorists. See http://www.upside.com/ ) I will be writing a number of articles for the magazine itself. I have been "lurking" on Cypherpunks for about nine months with only one communications to the list regarding a request for leads on "Snake Oil" stories.) I would like to better understand and be able to explain to Upside readers why several members have chose to "leave" the List. Perry Metzger and others have argued that flaming and extraneous personal attacks have negatively impacted serious discussions of encryption, hacking and public policy and thus they have chosen to end their relationship and their writings on Cypherpunks, with Metzger forming his own, moderated list. Others contributors to Cypherpunks have argued that there have been "distractions" rants about religion, assassination politics, and language which are inappropriate for the List membership. Late last week John Gilmore wrote and said he had taken steps to remove Dr. Vulis from the list which has prompted differing responses. Some have responded positively to Gilmore's actions while others have said that it was an affront to freedom of speech and individual decision-making. (I have very deliberately chosen _not_ to make this an open letter to the list, nor will I engage in any open List-dialogue about the people I am interviewing or what I expect to write. Naturally I will respond to individuals once the article is published.) I do not expect to be able to publish your responses in their entirety. They will be edited with honesty and clarity. I have no agenda here. I will consider all your written and/or phone communications to be "on the record" unless you specifically wish prior selected and/or identified parts of your communications to be "off the record" or "for background purposes only." I will _not_ publicly announce a full list of those I have contacted. While you are of course free to share this letter with others, I have already made fairly firm decisions as to who I will contact. I would ask that your circulation be highly limited, if circulate you must. On the other hand, I will seriously consider suggestions you might offer me regarding other people who you believe I should contacted regarding this article. The article will be lengthy but I do not entertain the idea -- at this point -- about expanding the article into a book length manuscript. That doesn't mean that if thousands upon thousands gather outside by home demanding more information, that sometime in the future... I would prefer to communicate in the open, mainly because I am just now somewhat tenuously managing PGP through Private Idaho. Those of you who insist your communications be encrypted, well, it's probably good for my soul that I honor your request. Here are the questions I would like you to consider. Please do not consider them "definitive" or limiting. If you believe I have missed out on pursing certain avenues of thought and argument, please do not hesitate to point them out to me. I will note that I will be looking at the history of the list and I have noted the letter from Hal Finney regarding http://chaos.taylored.com:1000 I do not expect to write a general follow-up question to this entire list but I may wish to seek further clarification from individuals from their answers to this letter. Thank you, in advance, for what I know will be thoughtful and considered responses. * * * * * * 1. What was the original purpose of the Cypherpunks list and has it changed? For the better? Worse? 2. Does the apparent breakup reveal anything in general about unregulated, unmoderated lists? Can one make a link to the breakup to an inherent failure in the concept of anarchism? Can one make a link from this breakup to any insight in the nature of the Net itself -- both now and in the future. 3. What do you think led to the growing number of highly personal, highly inflammatory attacks made on various contributors to the list -- Tim May most especially. 4. Do you consider discussions about religion, assassination politics, and other non- cryptographic/encryption subjects to be "distractions" or substantive additions to intellectual inquiry? Are some threads more valuable than others? 5. Has the list imploded or veered off in a new, positive direction? I would ask that you use the header "Cypherstory" in your response and Cypherstory 1, 2 etc. for further communications, additions, changes. ********************************************************** Thank you Lewis Z Koch lzkoch(a)mcs.net http:www.upside.com/ "Cybersense" column

1 0

UNSUBCRIBE CENSORSHIP
by paratama＠idola.net.id 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

UNSUBCRIBE CENSORSHIP

1 0

Re: [NOISE] Censorship of Dr. Vulius
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:00 AM 11/4/96 -0500, you wrote: >someone abuses that priveledge they may lose it. Plain and simple. It is >also worthy to note that the Right to Free Speech, etc. applies to the >government (IOW, the government can not hinder the right to free speech so >long as that speech does not infringe upon someone else's right. Since when >is this list government run? The decision was apparently a personal one. I don't think anyone has argued that the owner of the list doesn't have the right to remove people from it. However, simply because he has the right to doesn't mean he should, and it also doesn't mean other members can't or shouldn't argue that he made a bad decision (unless, of course, the dissenting members are removed as well.) Many, if not most, members believe the list should be run in a non-authoritarian manner (whoever argued that the term authoritarian applies only to governments is wrong. the difference is a person has the right to act in an authoritarian manner over his own property whereas a government doesn't have that right over it's citizens. Again, however, having the right doesn't necessarily make it "okay"). //cerridwyn//

2 2

Re: Any Info for Sen. Pressler....
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:57 PM 11/4/96 -0700, Troy M. Barnhart wrote: >Due to circumstances I occasionally see and speak >w/ Senator Larry Pressler - (Committee Leader)... >Been talking to him w/ the Burns Bill and such... >He wants less gov't. control, but does have "concerns" >w/ the garbage... What does the Burns Bill have to do with "the garbage"? We're not talking about the CDA... >And, wants to balance the business and private concerns... Tell him that we get real nervous when someone uses the phrase, "wants to balance." It contains the implicit assumption that the market ("The Market") is somehow incapable of providing that "balance." It also seems to assume that the person using the term has the AUTHORITY to "balance" those issues. While senators probably assume that they always have the authority to do whatever they want, there is no reason to believe that this should be true given the ostensible restrictions of government power in the US Constitution. Since the Internet is really just a large conglomeration of private property acting together in cooperation, the government's role should be at best quite limited, if not non-existant. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

[CRYPTO] Death of USENET Cabal Predicted, Film at 11
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

VICTORY _____________________^_. KOOKS RULE CANCELBOT|..`. SPAM IS GOOD SPAMBOT |...= s P a M O==-o <- Cabal FUCK THE CABAL GRUBORBOT|...~ \ |\ HAIL DR. GRUBOR------------------v~~ ~~ DEATH TO UUNET DRG CJ3 AGA` BOURSY` ` DLV` `

1 0

Re: Censorship on cypherpunks [RANT]
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 04 Nov 1996 07:20:15 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >> > I'm quite upset about this. Up to now I was able to tell >> >people that "there is at least one mailing list on the net that >> >functions in a completely open manner". No more. >> This has been taken far too seriously. Cypherpunks is a *PRIVATE* list. >> There is no obligation to accept anyone. >Isn't this the same argument used by the state whenever they want to differentiate >between your "rights" and your "privileges"? Can they reject one of your privileges >whenever they want to, at their discretion? No. >So if c-punks is really "private", how does it decide (arbitrarily?) who to include >and who to reject? It's a big difference. Can you set up your own mailing list? Yes. Can you go elsewhere? Yes. Can Mr. Vulis send email directly to list-members anyway? Yes. Can you do the same if the government runs it? No. Can you set up your own list/printing press* if the state won't publish your ideas? No. One could apply a similar rationale to socialism - after all, it may seem like an extension of "love your neighbor" to take care of their needs, which is certainly a laudable goal. That's not the problem. The problem is when it becomes mandated *with no alternatives*. # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # <cadams(a)acucobol.com> | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY" "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them." --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)

1 0

Re: Dr. Vulis
by Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Frantz wrote: > > As I put on my flame resistant suit... > > IMHO, most of the posts about John Gilmore's action re: Dr. Vulis are > seriously miss-analyzing what has happened. As far as I can tell, John > instructed his Majordomo to refuse subscription requests to cypherpunks > from Dr. Vulis. That is all that John has done. What John has not done > is: Of course John was right to give Vilus the boot. Cypherpunks is a club and like many private clubs occasionaly finds it necessary to give some oik the boot. And of course this is not an action that can be strictly justified in terms of absolute rights which many are fond of prating on about. Rights are limited, as Mills observes they are a product of law. Society finds it necessary to enact laws to protect rights. Dmitri's posts were affecting other people's right to speak. There is thus the traditional liberal conflict, that of having to infringe rights to protect them. If libertarians would read "on Liberty" rather than using it like a magic charm they would know that the main theory it advances is of the *balance* between the rights of communities and the rights of individuals. The genius of Mills is that he shows that the "rights" of government stem from its duty to protect the "rights" of the citizens. Its an imperfect answer because the notiopn of "citizenship" it advances fails to take any account of foreign relations. Mill's rationale for obeying laws breaks down when one crosses national borders for example. > The best paradigm I can come up with to analyze John's action is my quite > imperfect understanding of communitarian theory. In essence, > communitarians say that there should be a level of social control between > individual rights and the forceful coercion of the state. What John has > done is step forward and excommunicate Dr. Vulis. He has said to Dr. > Vulis, "You are no longer a member of the cypherpunks community." Rather than "should", try the word "is". One of the things the Web demonstrates is that there are such communities. I would not state the action in terms of "excommunication", rather consider that John took the action on behalf of the community for the good of the community as a whole. > I would love to hear how people feel this action fits in to the > cryptoanarchy, libertarian utopias we frequently discuss. E.g. Why is it > not a perfectly reasonable action for some one to take in an anarchy? If we could get away from the bleating denials of the need for government and instead consider them as a positive force, preventing a power vacum that others would fill a synthesis can be reached. The founders of the US realised that to pervent tyranny it was necessary to have different branches and levels of government. The essential point being however to prevent power being used. When a community of people get together they can exercise far more power than individuals acting alone. Sometimes this power can be for the common good, other times it can be the sectarian persuit of one minorities interests against another. Phill

8 10

NRC crypto breifing
by Decius 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Did the NRC discuss the State Department's GROSS FAILURE to prosecute Phil Zimmermann? (PGP) is military strength, and it's out there!" -- Audience member at NRC crypto briefing Dr. Herb Lin <hlin(a)nas.edu> of the National Research Council's Computer Science and Tecommunications Board gave a briefing this afternoon to address the Council's recent report, Cryptography's Role in Securing the Information Society. The briefing was sponsored by the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. One of the most striking aspects of the briefing was the diversity of perspectives on the issue. Most of our discussions on cryptography have been with people in the cypherpunk community; this was the first time we had ever come face to face with people on the other side of the fence. It is quite obvious that there is much emotional intensity here and we do not feel that this issue is going to go away soon. However, the NRC seems to be a voice of reason. We are faced a policy problem: the developing information society is vulnerable to security threats. Cryptography can be a powerful tool to thwart these threats, but it is also a dangerous weapon in the hands of criminals. As a result of concentration on the above issues, the cryptography debate has often been framed as a conflict between privacy rights and law enforcement. The NRC feels that the current policy on cryptography discourages its use by the private sector. Lin states that cryptography is a very valuable tool for crime prevention and thus benefits Law Enforcement. Policy makers should promote cryptography because it can help legitimate businesses better secure themselves against would-be attackers. However, cryptography also assists criminals in circumventing surveillance. So there are both positive and negative impacts for Law Enforcement, but Dr. Lin notes an important statement made in the NRC report: "The benefits of the widespread use of cryptography far outweigh the risks." Dr. Lin and the NRC believe that there will be an explosion of interest in computer security in the coming years, and that government should provide guidance and technical input, both to industry and law enforcement. The upcoming debate can (and should) be carried out on an unclassified basis. He said that open standards should be promoted in an effort to reach consensus between government and industry interests. Interested parties should be encouraged to study and understand the algorithms employed by their cryptosystems so that market forces may drive crypto policy to that which best fulfills the needs of US industry. NRC promotes the growth and leadership in the private sector and encourages all organizations to invest in information security. In addition, the NRC supports the use of link-level encryption in public networks, especially the cellular network. In this mode, LEOs can still access plaintext, but it is much more difficult for unauthorized listeners to get it. It should be noted that Cryptography is just one part of a comprehensive information security program. While it is useful to prevent eavesdropping, provide user authentication, and ensure data integrity, it is not particularly effective in overcoming the problems of insecure operating systems, and corruptible employees. One of the more controversial points in the report is the recommendation for domestic cryptography policy. The NRC recommends that no restrictions be placed on the use of domestic cryptography, and that the market should be allowed to choose the best systems. This was met with incredulty by many members of the audience, particularly those representing the government. They seemed to feel that "the people" should not be allowed to make this decision and that many important aspects of cryptography policy are not necessarily reflected in market interests. While NRC recognizes Law Enforcement's growing problem in adapting to new technologies, Dr. Lin said that the FBI could provide not one example of a class three wiretap that had been thwarted by means of encryption. Access to encrypted files seemed to be a bigger issue for LEOs. This takes us naturally to the topic of key escrow. NRC cautions that key escrow is an unproven technology. Of particular concern is the integrity of escrow agents: how it is to be evaluated, and what level of integrity is sufficient in any particular instance? Who is liable if keys are incorrectly disclosed? What are the liability issues if the key escrow system fails to provide LEOs with access? There just isn't enough information at this time to make these judgments. Many audience members commented that the administration had rushed into key escrow without forethought or open discourse. The NRC discourages the hurried passage of new legislation without clear, thorough discussion of the issues involved by those who will be most directly affected by the law. Furthermore, any government supported cryptography system must provide additional value to the end users. The Clipper system does not do this. Dr. Lin mentioned that data recovery might be of significant value to most users. If encryption systems are too strong then users will have a bigger problem with lost keys than they ever had with stolen intellectual property. The NRC recommends that the US government act as a test market for key recovery rather than pushing it out to the public before it is fully developed. The NRC also recommends that Congress consider criminalizing the criminal use of cryptography. This issue has already been discussed at length in academic fora, and the general consensus is that this concept is much easier said than done. We feel that such a policy is not likely to be a serious deterrent unless the additional penalty outweighs the benefits of secure crypto. It is also worth noting that if crypto is the default in system people shouldn't be charged with additional crimes for not turning it off. As for export issues, the NRC recommends that the government allow export of 56-bit DES without special approval, effective immediately. The recommendation also suggested that the allowable key length should be increased over time in order to keep up with improvements in cryptanalysis and computing power. They feel that export controls should be lessened but not fully removed. Law Enforcement needs time to develop the skills and technology necessary to deal with new situations. We would take issue with the NRC's assertion that 56 bit DES is "good enough for most commercial applications," and that algorithms be designed to preclude multiple encryption. It certainly depends on the threat model involved. DES would be an improvement over plaintext networks, but it is certainly not strong enough to defend against industrial espionage efforts. We feel that strong cryptography should be exportable now to defend against such attacks. We feel that legitimate law enforcement interests can get access to the information they require in most cases without even having to employ cryptanalysis, especially if systems are secured at the link level as the NRC recommends. We would also point to the reality that wiretapping is not often used by Law Enforcement, and we don't feel that they have justified any increase in it's use. The NRC briefing was very helpful in understanding the meaning of the report and highlighted many important issues. NRC will have a number of briefings in major cities all over the US, in hopes that this will spark more debate over these issues. Attendance at this briefing was much smaller than we had expected. We would encourage anyone who is interested in cryptography to attend a future briefing. It is a very good opportunity to hear and meet people on all sides of this issue. We would also encourage the cyber-rights crowd to seriously consider the NRC's recommendations. It seems to be a realistic look at these issues, and there is plenty of room here to defend fundamental civil liberties. Tom Cross and Jeremy Mineweaser Electronic Frontiers Georgia

1 0

Protecting Your Data With Crypto
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We have put the November UNIX Review article Peter cited in his letter to the editor, "Protecting Your Data With Cryptography," at: http://jya.com/protect.htm ---------- Peter Allan wrote: > >[ I refer to the article starting on p55 > of the Nov 1996 Unix Review. ] > >-----letter to Ed start here------ > >Andrew, > >Congratulations on a welcome crypto article in UR. > >This is an important topic for security, networks, >web-based commerce etc and is only going to increase in >importance as people realise data is money. > >The article did raise my eyebrows a few times though >with some wild statements - about the speed of brute-force >attacks on DES, and about USG 'key escrow' proposals, >patents and key certification. > >Also there are absolutely crucial issues not touched on, >probably for lack of space. Details matter, and if you're >contemplating another article on the subject I'd be happy >to write it [subject to my boss' approval] or review it >before publication. The field moves fast at times, and >it would be good to keep an eye on the subject in a fairly >regular column. > >Strangely, your author didn't mention ftp.ox.ac.uk, >an ftp site for many good crypto tools, which >(as a UK site) is not subject to US export restrictions. > > > -- Peter Allan peter.allan(a)aeat.co.uk

1 0

Re: Censorship on cypherpunks
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri "Too Hot for Cypherpunks" Vulis writes: > Does saying "The list owner should not kick people off the list for speech" > violate the list owner's right to free speech? That depends on whether plug- > pulling (and mailbombing and ping-storming and other obnoxious behavior) > is speech. The entire, highly recursive question of free speech versus censorship relies almost entirely on the assumption that human beings can be controlled. The observation that certain behavior is obnoxious arises from an inability to control one's own environment at a basic level. Issues such as this have nothing to do with mailing lists or net.protocol, except as vehicles of expression for human conditioning which is already present. Until the fly can be tolerated, removing the shit will only serve to turn one's attention to a new annoyance. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet In a dark alley, a pickpocket tried to snatch Nasrudin's purse. There was a violent struggle, but eventually Nasrudin got the thief pinned on the ground. At this moment, a charitable woman passing called out: "You bully, let the little man up and give him a chance!" "Madam," panted Nasrudin, "you ignore the trouble which I have had getting him down."

1 0

Re: Digital signatures
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May is not only as queer as a three dollar bill, but he is also into having sex with children.

1 0

Bay Area Cypherpunks Meeting, Saturday Nov 9, C2Net, OAKLAND
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

November's Cypherpunks meeting will be held at C2Net's office in Oakland, 1212 Broadway, 14th floor, at 1-5 pm. (12:00 for lunch/hanging around, 1:00 program.) Agenda: - Demo: Ecash plug-in for Netscape - Bernstein Hearing updates - there'll be another hearing Friday 11/8. - Stronghold secure web server - Mondex smartcard weaknesses - Possible IPSEC update - Show&Tell - bring toys! - Bagels Directions: 1212 Broadway, Oakland, 14th Floor, between 12th & 13th on broadway, immediately above the 12th st/city center bart station. Parking garage at the corner of 13th & franklin, one block away. The parking garage closes at 6pm on saturdays though, so you need to be careful you don't leave your car there past six. We're on the 14th floor. The door is locked; see guard for access. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk # Nov. 5 is Guy Fawkes Day - Vote Early and Often, and create Fireworks!

1 0

IRS Subscribed to Cypherpunks
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Got the following bounce. The Cc: was to a real address. DCF >Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 05:24:21 -0500 >From: Administrator(a)ccmail.irs.gov (Administrator) >Subject: Message not deliverable >To: Duncan Frissell <frissell(a)panix.com> >Cc: XXXXXXXXX (Administrator) >Content-Description: cc:Mail note part > >At 04:45 AM 11/4/96 -0800, Declan McCullagh wrote: >>Libertarianism is not incompatible with strict regulations, as long as >>the rules violate nobody's rights. >> >>-Declan > >Obviously many voluntary religious organizations have quite strict rules >for their members and are compatible with libertarianism. Government >monopoly regulations that cannot be opted out of are not compatible with >libertarianism. Instead of using the loaded term "regulations' it might be >better to call things like the rules of the cypherpunk's list "club rules" >or protocols. > >DCF > >

3 2

Re: Copyright violations
by Matthew J. Miszewski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> American Banker: Thursday, October 31, 1996 > > Two Retail Giants Sue Visa Over Debit Cards > > By LISA FICKENSCHER > > Two of the largest retailing companies have filed a lawsuit against Visa > U.S.A., claiming the bank card association illegally forces merchants to > accept debit cards. (major snip) This is the first step towards repudiation of real electronic cash. I am not in favor of "forcing" companies to act (BTW, they are not forced to do anything, they can choose not to accept Visa), but if Visa will go to bat to support their debit cards, they may be willing to support ecash the same way. Matt -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzDq+FoAAAEEANM9+JcJmUp4aCSGpdOG4Y1b6m4630XA8H41Utbvr7Tr6wEH CD6tlxZ+k+Pycj4w/f8WQa8fC50skoLjUNeP4lYsR7NYaMGRp6WkqCLMI/3Nohvk pfLDqnzZZdwVL2liB7mfTURoF6doQaVehHmMBjSaVTfD12tzNGm6VvyEc77JAAUR tClNYXR0aGV3IEouIE1pc3pld3NraSA8bWptaXNraUBleGVjcGMuY29tPg== =lkx1 -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

US Exit Tax Wrapup in Forbes
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The current Forbes has a good short article wrapping up the status of the "taxpatriate" control movement in Congress. The Health Care Bill that passed in August didn't include an Exit Tax as previously reported. What it did contain was a provision that states that taxpatriates with a net worth of more than $500K who renounce their citizenship will still be on the hook for ten years for income taxes on their US source income. This provision is easily dodged however by tax planning techniques that assure that the individual involved has no US source income. Borrowing and trusts can be substituted for an income stream. The second provision was in the immigration bill. It subjects all those who renounce their US citizenship (for any reason) to a visa requirement for entry to the US. State can then deny visas in cases where the expat is a taxpat. This applies to new citizens of those OECD countries that have visa-free entry to the US. How State will filter recent expats out of the flow for special treatment is unclear, however. Nation of birth is shown on passports, so that might be able to be used. This gimmick is also easily dodged by entry into Canada or Mexico with a low profile border crossing into the US. Gee, I wish I had enough assets to become a taxpatriate. DCF "Vote for the only Swiss Citizen in the Presidential race -- Harry Browne."

1 0

Re: Sliderules, Logs, and Prodigies
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A quick note, I consider myself to be a nerd. This is in part "reclaiming", as I found myself uninterested in sports, as my classmates were, and found computers fun.(good reason too, considering I had access to one of those, an old TI99/4a, longer than I had classmates). I didn't grow up un either log tables or slide rules, but I did learn how to do basic arithmetic on both the traditional slide rule, and a round one designed for engineers. At one time, nerds were the intellectuals, the only thing that has really changed is that now the nerds are in control, making intellectual arts a little more appealing. I'm only a 21 year old college student who is still somewhat ignorant, make that quite ignorant, about the world, but I do feel that just because it was an unpopular term to describe you, it isn't disrespectful to consider ourselves nerds. Relevance to Crypto, none. Just attempting to defend myself in the ether. >From ???@??? Sun Nov 03 22:49:13 1996 To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com From: Sean Roach <roach_s(a)alph.swosu.edu> Subject: Re: Sliderules, Logs, and Prodigies Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: A quick note, I consider myself to be a nerd. This is in part "reclaiming", as I found myself uninterested in sports, as my classmates were, and found computers fun.(good reason too, considering I had access to one of those, an old TI99/4, longer than I had classmates). I di

1 0

AOL / CyberPromo email blocking
by Three Blind Mice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This was in the Daily Brief on 11/05: * A federal Judge ruled yesterday that America Online can block junk e-mail from Cyber Promotions Inc. - said neither the First Amendment nor the constitutions of Pennsylvania or Virginia allow Cyber to send unsolicited computer ads to AOL members. Does anybody know where I can find a full article on this? It sounds like it might set some precedent for other cases dealing with the Internet. Thanks, --3bmice

1 0

Kill Files
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've been experimenting with a kill file. It is quite effective, takes very little time to set up, and imposes minimal overhead on my machine. In general people who have written worthwhile articles continue to do so. Those who have not in the past, tend not to in the future. So, I sort by poster into three categories: the A-list, the maybe-read list, and the killfile. My A-list has about 35 names and the resulting messages are, in my opinion, almost entirely signal. I use the maybe-read list to find people who should be on the A-list. The kill file I don't read. If people post on things that don't interest me, I killfile them. If they bore me, I killfile them. If they are rude, I killfile them. If they use obscenities I am likely to killfile them. If they make naive statements, I killfile them. If they whine too much, I killfile them. I now have a cypherpunks list which is worth reading. I was surprised that so many core cypherpunks allowed Dmitri Vulis to upset them so much. That was obviously his intention. Is it really so shocking to learn that somewhere out in the world there is one loser? Follow Tim May's fine example - killfile him and forget him. Killfiles are easy to set up. You don't need to write a line of code. I use the filters in Eudora. Eudora is available for Macs and PCs. If you are using a Unix box, procmail will do the trick. If you don't know much about these tools, you probably know somebody who does. If you don't, you can probably find people on the cypherpunks list who will be more than happy to help you. I will be happy to help you. It is wonderful that John Gilmore and Hugh Daniels have done so much to keep this list running. John can do anything he wants with his machines and with this list. But, I was disappointed to see him remove somebody from it. Why? I prefer to choose for myself who to killfile and who not to. Unfortunately, beggars can't be choosers. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

1 0

[NOISE] [philosophypunks] Re: Dr. Vulis
by Bryce 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Dr. Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> wrote: > > And of course this is not an action that can be strictly justified in > terms of absolute rights which many are fond of prating on about. > Rights are limited, as Mills observes they are a product of law. Society > finds it necessary to enact laws to protect rights. Dmitri's posts were > affecting other people's right to speak. There is thus the traditional > liberal conflict, that of having to infringe rights to protect them. to which I, Bryce <bryce(a)c2.net> replied: > > Dear Sir: I humbly put it to you that the above reflects a > misunderstanding about the libertarian conception of "absolute > rights". I personally do _not_ subscribe to said theory, but > I try to understand a thing correctly before criticizing it in > public. to which he, <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> wrote: > > Given that the only recognised philosopher to take the libertarian > position is Nozdic and he has semi-recanted I think it perfectly > reasonable to base the libertarian position on the views of > people calling themselves libertarians. Okay. Normally I would rather argue about viewpoints expressed in written opinions by writers like pre-communitarian Nozick, Ayn Rand, David Friedman and so forth than about difficult-to- pinpoint "views of people calling themselves libertarians", but in this case it will make little difference to my argument, which is that your article quoted at the beginning of this message reflects a misunderstanding of those views. > If you don't ascribe to "absolute rights" based in natural law > then it sounds as if you accept that rights are derived > from prior principles. If you accept that then you are a > simply taking the traditional liberal position. Hm. This is as may be, but it is tangential to my purpose in publically calling you on your (presumably innocent) misrepresentation. <snip on Hallam-Baker on Mills on "'absolute' rights"> Sure, I agree with you that Mills doesn't start with rights as an assumption, but rather argues for them from prior assumptions. When I said that Mills argues for "absolute ('unbalanced')" rights, I meant that he argues for individual rights with (almost) no exceptions, in constrast to your your assertion that "the main theory it advances is of the *balance* between the rights of communities and the rights of individuals.". I doubt very much that Mills _ever_ used the phrase or the concept of "rights of communities" and I know that the main theory that _On_Liberty_ advances is the (almost) total sovereignty of individual rights. (I see now that I shouldn't have called Mills' conception of rights "absolute", because of the existence of that "almost" there...) But this, too, is tangential to my point... > Mill was not an anarchist, he was a classic liberal utilitarian. > Its rather ironic that nobody on the list has recognised that I > advance a classical utilitarian position and that if I quote Mill > I'm quoting a principle authority. Hm. I was taught that Mills recanted Benthamism and became a vigorous philosophical adversary of it before writing _On_ _Liberty_. Are you counting _On_Liberty_-era Mills as some kind of "neo-Benthamite utilitarian" or is one of us mistaken on his self-identification? But this, too, is tangential to my point, which I will get around to now. You wrote, in the article that spawned this thread: > And of course this is not an action that can be strictly justified in > terms of absolute rights which many are fond of prating on about. Now I must strongly assert that this _is_ an action that can be strictly justified in terms of absolute rights as understood by people who call themselves libertarians. I don't believe that Dr. Vulis _should_ have been banned from cypherpunks, and I don't believe in absolute rights as understood by people who call themselves libertarians, but I must state that your assertion quoted above reflects a profound misunderstanding of that viewpoint. The idea of absolute rights as understood by libertarians states that no-one is justified in exercising "the use of force" against another person unless in self-defense against similar "use of force" from that person. [Note: "the use of force" is in quotes because it has a particular meaning in this context which is essential to appreciating the theory. The meaning of "the use of force" in this theory is: "One of: a. performing physical violence upon the subject, b. threatening to perform physical violence upon the subject, c. stealing the subject's property.".] Now if you are able to read and comprehend the above paragraph then you must find it obvious that this theory does not forbid John Gilmore from banning Dr. Vulis from cypherpunks. If you are able to read and comprehend the above paragraph and _also_ understand its deficiencies and begged questions, then more power to you, but you must still admit that the theory, as understood by people who call themselves libertarians, fully permits John Gilmore to ban Dr. V. I look forward to your reply. Regards, Bryce -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2 iQB1AwUBMn97m0jbHy8sKZitAQGiPgL9GJqxboWmhOoMheYpPZTgPyRB6eMbf4J6 q2EmtQPoQB8HwhFLR4AV9C9TgZ4wb2lH2gCCDjqaUi0I+0Kc5AMUBfXvmh3tU/Q6 BkztyVtRQsM/IJ0ruLItYqJmrRTAmDou =QQJG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Information
by kb4vwa＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm a new Cyberpunk! I apologized if this is not the place to post this message request. I have some interesting projects and questions for the Cyberpunk world. I would like to know if there is any Cyberpunks in S. Florida (Miami) who could converse with me about Crypto? I am very interested in making new Cyberpunk friends, meeting places, etc.., or please send me E-mail. I would like to know where to place my Public Key? Note, I only have E-mail access at this time, and not the Net access, but could have a friend place the key for me. Last, I would like to know once and for all, is PGP compromised, is there a back door, and have we been fooled by NSA to believe it's secure? Ed - kb4vwa(a)juno.com

4 3

Announcement-- Reward for Errors...
by pcw＠access.digex.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At this moment, I'm preparing the second edition of my book _Digital Cash_. In order to reduce the errors and improve the book, I'm announcing rewards of $10.00 per technical error to the first person to report each particular error to me. They will also receive a personal mention in the thanks given at the front of the book if they don't want to remain anonymous. Naturally, I need to limit this offer. All awards are subject to my whims. Errors in grammar and spelling are not eligible. I will make the decision of which person is the first to make a bug report. If something seems more like a feature than a bug, I may not pay a reward. Also, I am free to decide upon the basic granularity of the errors. My decision is final, but I hope to be as inclusive as possible to reward people who take the time to write. I want to be as generous as my pocketbook allows. If this works out well, the second edition will sell more books which will allow me to offer even larger rewards when I prepare the third edition. I'm also asking that people forward any suggestions for additional topics to me. A copy of the table of contents can be found on my web page (http://www.access.digex.net/~pcw/pcwpage.html) If you're a company or a researcher with an interesting contribution to the world of digital transactions, please write. I want to be as inclusive as possible. My thanks to everyone who takes the time to consider this offer. The offer is in effect for a limited period of time and may be withdrawn at any time. See my web page for announcements. -Peter Wayner pcw(a)access.digex.com

1 0

Re: URG_ent
by droelke＠rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Not to beat up on Medcom - but doesn't this sound like a nice DES cracking target? > > "Medcom introduces a "Super Cafe" data encryption product" > > Medcom's latest data encryption product, the Secure Socket > Relay (SSR), features strong encryption with full key length > (56-bits DES). A demo version can be downloaded at > http://www.medcom.se/. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Oelke Alcatel Network Systems droelke(a)aud.alcatel.com Richardson, TX

2 1

"Fortune" article on crypto
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Wading through 150 or more messages from while I was away (a huge fraction of them either about or from Vulis), I didn't see mention of the long article on crypto, export issues, RSADSI, Bidzos, the NSA, etc., in the current issue of "Fortune" magazine, 11 November. One think caught my eye, though I haven't finished reading the whole thing. "Bidzos professes what seems sincere respect for the spy agency--several of its former staffers even work for him. But he insists that it needs a gadfly: "I've gone there a few times and listened to their dark-side folks. I always come out feeling that I'm a traitor. I deserve to die. I'm causing the early demise of society and should just scuttle the company, But an hour after I leave the agency, my head clears and I think, "Okay, back to reality."" This echoes the feeling I often have (though I have never been given the "If you knew what we know" spiel, though I have a vivid imagination and have known for the last half-dozen years what the implications of strong and untraceable crypto implies). That is, I understand the role of the NSA and the longterm "threats" strong crypto implies. (I avoid blather about how all it is useful for is to protect the democratic and privacy rights of citizen-units. That's comforting twaddle, popular with some journalists and some namby pamby privacy advocates. In fact, strong crypto is a tool for deconstructing and demolishing democratic institutions, which is why I support it. Obviously. Yes, I sometimes get concerned about the lives which will be affected, but, ultimately, the ubermensch must do what he must do, regardless of how some in the herd are affected.) Also Sprach Tim, "The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos,.."We warned IBM that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology." [NYT, 1996-10-02] We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

HAPPY GUY FAWKES DAY!
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On this day in 1605 the Gunpowder Plot was foiled. Guy Fawkes and his compatriots had intended to blow up Parliment. The English celebrate it because Guy Fawkes failed. I celebrate it because he tried. :-) S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

6 6

RE: Dr. Vulis
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hallam-Baker <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> wrote: > the main theory [Mill's book _On_Liberty_] advances is of the *balance* > between the rights of communities and the rights of individuals. Two words: Schelling Point. James

1 0

RE: Dr. Vulis please read this.
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Butler, Scott" <SButler(a)chemson.com> writes: > Dr. Dimitri Vulis (KOTM) > > Do you think that it would be possible for you to leave this mailing > list quietly WITHOUT sending mail to it again unless you have anything > that may be found interesting / useful regarding cryptography. Thank you, Scott, for your advice, which reminds me of the following story: One day the Germans were about to shoot two Jews, named Abram and Moisha. The Germans offered the Jews blindfolds. Abram bravely declined, to which Moisha said: "Take it, Abram, don't make trouble!" --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: [NOISE] If the shoe fits, wear it [VULIS]
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > I've pointed out already that apparently John is not, so far, > filtering out my submissions to the c-punks list. Correct. It's just a formal way of saying you're unwelcome, really. Shoo. > However I'd like to take exception with the two claims made in > the articles cc'd to me so far: > > A that only governments can censor; > > B that post-factum punishment for "inappropriate" speech is not > censorship. I agree with your objections, probably because you're attacking straw men. > Certainly Disney owned WABC and was within its rights to censor it. > Likewise John Gilmore is within his rights to destroy his own > credibility and to expose his own hypocricy. Yes, this gets to my point. Private censorship tells more about the censor than about the censored. In this case, John acted properly, and his credibility has only been enhanced. You are of course free to rant and rave about his hypocrisy, but expecially since you'll always be able to post to the list, at least under a nym (the only thing he's prevented is your reading the list under your own name), you're only proving yourself to be an idiot. - -rich - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMn+0UioZzwIn1bdtAQE+DwF/YHGRdPpQ3JqotsUWw303aYCmKn7d9il1 4sCKaEIMy7NHT1uvRR1DL8oBgZGsVUwH =acPs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Dr. Vulis
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Tue, 5 Nov 1996 Phill wrote: > Of course the two sentences don't say exactly the same thing, > otherwise I would have written one. That never stopped academics before. > I don't think we have a problem with the statements conflicting, > there is an interaction. What a Hegelian would call dilectic. > I prefer to use a different term for much the same reasons as > Sorros, the misuse of the term has created garbage that one > does not want to associate with (eg Historical materialism). Please eschew the obfuscation. The sentences Phill hastely wrote are simply contradictory. It's fatuous to claim, after the fact, that he intended some sort of dialectic (i.e., a system of arguement in which conflicting ideas are resolved). Intellectual honesty isn't required on this list, but it is appreciated. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 1

Re: Censorship on cypherpunks [RANT]
by camcc＠abraxis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:20 AM 11/4/96 -0800, you wrote: : :So if c-punks is really "private", how does it decide (arbitrarily?) who to include :and who to reject? Since it IS private, the owner has to justify NOTHING, vis-a-vis the list. We _choose_ to supplicate to join; we are _allowed_ to join (or not allowed) by the owner's grace; we may always _choose_ to unsubscrive [sic]; if we do it correctly, we are off the list. Let me repeat, the onus is NOT on the owner to justify the use of his property. Cordially, Alec PGP Fingerprint: pub 1024/41207EE5 1996/04/08 Alec McCrackin <camcc(a)abraxis.com> Key fingerprint = 09 13 E1 CB B3 0C 88 D9 D7 D4 10 F0 06 7D DF 31

1 0

Re: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more [VULIS]
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > I guess libertarian philosophy permits operating a private mailing > list and imposing whatever rules the host deems necessary to invent. Clearly. And contractural principles suggest that there should be transparency in those rules. > The question is, can this ist be called a free medium for exchange of > ideas, or not. My answer is no. I say you're wrong. Vulis has been denied nothing but the dignity of reading the list under his own name. He still has freedom to read under a pseudonym, and he still has freedom to post under his own name, or any other. > Moderated forums might create some utility (by saving the time of > their participants, for example), but they should identify themselves > as such. Such as by notifying the list that exactly one particularly obnoxious member has been kicked off, and allowing *unlimited* discussion on the list about the impact of doing so? I think this is working. - -rich - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMn/BzSoZzwIn1bdtAQGk+wGAgv2SrJzetHEzgs9DxahGvB8ReGWi8mDB aEGj8o8aW2DNGrDSx4f8DBDS4a8605Tc =oQeM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[rant] Re: Censorship on cypherpunks
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >Obviously many voluntary religious organizations have quite strict rules >for their members and are compatible with libertarianism. Government >monopoly regulations that cannot be opted out of are not compatible with >libertarianism. May I remind you that if you want to leave this country, all you have to do is board a plane. Many people have suggested similar things about various groups for about two centuries. The major difference between this list and this government is that it is easier to start a new list.

1 0

[noise] Re: Sliderules, Logs, and Prodigies
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Trei wrote: > >When I was in high school, slide rules and log tables were standard >equipment - calculators started to come in towards the end. There >was a *lot* of controversy over their use in exams, and in homework >('show your working...'). At one point, you could use a calculator, but >only if you noted the fact (and model) on your exam paper. If I remember my history right, the order that math was done often depended on the model of calculator it was done on. I remember being warned as late as 1991 how some calculators may still still add before they multiply, and to use those parenthesis for good measure, just to be safe. >I still treasure one of the heirlooms from my grandfather - a 12 >inch bamboo rule, with his name carefully engraved in engineering >lettering ( which he used during his 50+ years at Ma Bell). I know where there used to be a basic model slide rule that spans about 10 feet, it was mounted on the wall of the math room where I spent junior high. My dad actually taught me basic arithemetic on it. (Ironically, on the opposite wall were the computers, an Apple IIe, a Commodore 64, two TI99/4a's and about 4 Tandy 1000/tx's, this did all take place before 1989) Sean Roach

10 13

News: Europe Wants Stronger Encryption
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From C/Net News (http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,5076,00.html) Europe wants stronger encryption By Alex Lash November 5, 1996, 5:30 a.m. PT The European Electronic Messaging Association has told the European Commission that European companies are at a competitive disadvantage without access to strong American-made cryptography, according to the organization. ....

2 1