December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Wiretaps and Surveillance Expanded
by John Young 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Note: Alan is referring to the closed-door added provisions available at: http://jya.com/fiiti.htm From: Alan Davidson <abd(a)CDT.ORG> Subject: House Passes Roving Wiretaps, Expands Federal Surveillance Powers House Passes Roving Wiretaps, Expands Federal Surveillance Powers In a closed-door manuever, controversial "roving wiretap" provisions were added to a major Intelligence authorization bill and passed by the House this afternoon. Current wiretapping law allows tapping of a particular person's phones. The new provisions would dramatically expand current authority by allowing taps on any phone used by, or "proximate" to, the person being tapped -- no matter whose phone it is. Such a broad law invites abuse. In the last Congress, the full House of Representatives rejected these provisions after an open and vigorous debate. This week, behind closed doors, a conference committee added the provisions to the important Intelligence Authorization Conference Report, almost certain to pass the Congress. The provisions were not in either the original House or Senate versions of the bill. CDT is particularly concerned that such an expansion of federal authority should take place without a public debate. The text of the new roving wiretap provisions will be available this evening on CDT's Web site at: http://www.cdt.org Alan Davidson, Staff Counsel 202.637.9800 (v) Center for Democracy and Technology 202.637.0968 (f) 1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 1100 <abd(a)cdt.org> Washington, DC 20006 PGP key via finger

1 0

Re: NT 5.0 and EFS -- A victory for widespread use of crypto?
by geeman＠best.com 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

EFS is being deployed because They realized that with NTFS-readers available for other OSes besides NT there was no longer even the illusion of security offered by the NT architecture. Hence they figured they'd scramble things up a bit. It leaves some interesting features OUT ... it will not Save The World. At 06:06 PM 10/7/98 -0500, Steve Dunlop wrote: > >All, > >Does anyone have any opinions on the encrypting file >system (EFS) that is supposed to ship with NT 5.0? > >The white paper on the MSDN web site says it uses >DESX (no explaination as to what the X is) and an >RSA public key algorithm to store the symmetric keys, >which are random for each file. > >So what's DESX? > >EFS appears to have the architecture to support >arbitrarily long keys although this has been crippled >in the NT5.0 release, presumably because of >export limitations. It has the key recovery features >you would expect in a commercial product of the >type; they can be turned off administratively. > >Is this a victory for wider use of encryption? > >-- >Steve Dunlop >letters: "dunlop" at "bitstream" dot "net" >http://www2.bitstream.net/~dunlop > > > >

1 0

Re: I thought of an initialy regulated industry!... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 22:08:08 -0400 (EDT) > From: Ryan Anderson <ryan(a)michonline.com> > Subject: Re: I thought of an initialy regulated industry!... (fwd) > > Consider the difference in volume of these two waste products... > > > Really? The amount of fuel that goes into a nuclear plant is farirly low, > compared to the amount shoved into a coal plant. Exactly my point. A 1000MW coal plant produces approx 300,000 tons of waste product per year. A nuclear plan produces .5. This means the concentration of the chemicals in the coal plant are much lower by many orders of magnitude than the nuclear, hence making the nuclear waste more toxic by a great deal. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Jim Choate 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 21:52:17 -0400 (EDT) > From: Ryan Anderson <ryan(a)michonline.com> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > > The Mafia. The handful of world-class coke dealers. Your local church. > > Umm... both of those are around because the governemtn made the cost of > delivering both alcohol and drugs prohibitively high, That's inaccurate. The Mafia pre-dated the US by several hundred years if not more (depends on how one wants to choose the bloodline). Most definitely they predated the bans on alcohol. As to the coke market, In S. America it has been around for quite a while as well. The chemical has been used medicinaly for hundreds of years until just recently. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

4 3

Search Engine Placement--Your Key to Web Traffic
by results＠magnumhosting.com 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

**Guaranteed Top 20 Placement** Achieving a top spot on the major search engines is still the most cost-effective way to increase web-site traffic--and Profits. It's free and you can reach millions. However, you are also competing with millions. You *MUST* be ranked within the Top 20 or your customers will find your competitor instead. That is why we offer this important service: >>We GUARANTEE to get you placed within >>the Top 20--and Keep You There! If you would like FREE, no hype INFO on the ways that you can dramatically improve your ranking, write to us for more info. Help your customers find you...not your Competition! ______________________________________________ «€»¥«€»§«€»¥«€»§«€»¥«€»«€»¥«€»§«€»¥«€»§«€»¥«€» ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ For FREE INFO, simply send an email to us at: responses(a)digital.intersponse.com and put the word "free" in the subject line! Email us and Start *uncovering* YOUR treasure! >>> Do it today! Do it NOW! ______________________________________________ «€»¥«€»§«€»¥«€»§«€»¥«€»«€»¥«€»§«€»¥«€»§«€»¥«€» ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message complies with the proposed United States Federal requirements for commercial e-mail bill, Section 301. For additional info see: http://www.senate.gov/~murkowski/commercialemail/EMailAmendText.html Required Sender Information: AMFX Promotions 12407 N. MoPac #100-413 Austin, TX 78758 (512)834-2021 Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618, further transmissions to you by the sender of this e-mail may be stopped at NO COST to you by sending an email to responses(a)digital.intersponse.com with the word "remove" in the subject line. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

1 0

Dr Suess - Fox in Sox Part 2
by Secret Squirrel 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

This is a new poem found in one of Dr. Suess' books: Starr: I'm here to ask As you'll soon see -- Did you grope Miss Lewinsky? Did you grope her In your house? Did you grope Beneath her blouse? Clinton: I did not do that Here or there-- I did not do that Anywhere! I did not do that Near or far -- I did not do that Starr-You-Are Starr: Did you smile? Did you flirt? Did you peek Beneath her skirt? And did you tell The girl to lie When called upon To testify? Clinton: I do not like you Starr-You-Are -- I think that you Have gone too far I will not answer Any more -- Perhaps I will go Start a war! The public's easy To distract -- When bombs are Falling on Iraq!

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Jim Choate 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:12:58 -0400 (EDT) > From: Ryan Anderson <ryan(a)michonline.com> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > Those were monopolistic markets? If not, you're forgetting the whole > basis of the discussion. I apologize for the length and range of topics, I think I got carried away and wandered a tad...:) At the time. Absolutely. What was happening is that the markets were going through a growth phase. This phase was partialy defined by the conflict by the many small wanna-be's who got weeded out quickly. As time went on the 'families' developed. Such a period is the early 1900's and also during the Irish expatriate phase for example. The size of the potential market is seen as valuable by all. They percieve their resource control and quantity is at near parity so small differences in strategy can become amplified. Very shortly (at least mathematicaly) a cylcle of halving participants (knock off the competition) and doubling of resource control occurs if we assume parity. Now consider a slight increase in efficiency in one strategy over another (or it could have a significantly longer life span) and the geometric growth of resources control that occurs as a result. Historicaly what one sees is a sudden increase in competition (of one form or another) and then a falling off of competition and a reduction in participants. As soon as the remaining participants percieve a market advantage and the belief in sufficient resource stores the cycle repeats itself all over again. Note that I don't prohibit 'brittle' markets that because of some process or mechanism breaks out to 1-of-n survival rates. This can be modelled quite easily using cellular automatons and playing with the rules that define the 'neighborhood'. Only in a market that is no where near saturation, meaning to have all consumers supplied (see your local grocery, all one or two of them... one of the issue with produce market saturation is the time-to-delivery for fresh produce. This helps explain why for a given goegraphic area you see two or perhaps three major grocery chains.), do you see a situation where businesses grow in parallel in roughly equivalent rates (otherwise they die out). This is where model of ecology come into play, such as the red and brown squirrel example I used a while back. You don't even need overt conflict to saturate the market because of limited resources and slight variances in survival strategy expressed over many generations. An additional result of the monopolization in the real world are some foot-prints behaviours of corruption and abuse. Such things as reduction of product quality, increase in price to compensate for increase R&D costs (there are now fewer bright people involved commercialy because business can't afford to hire critical infrastructure people and they be flighty, at least not for long), maintenance efficiendy of systems and mechanisms falls-off, unsafe and life-threatening behaviours such as toxic waste dump, etc. Now some folks will scream and holler about law and police. But this turns our model into a(t least) slightly regulated market, an entirely different beast. Further there is the argument that 'the word' will get around. What has never been explained is the mechanism this will occur with when the producers (aka media) are effected negatively by it (how do they stay in business?...advertisement, who buys advertisement? It ain't your grandma that's for sure.). Given that there are no police or other enforcement bodies (perhaps because there is nothing to enforce in a pure free-market economy) even a rare resort to violence has huge pay-offs. That's just playing right into human nature. My argument is thus (and I intentionaly leave the issue of what is money out for brevity. Consider it some system of value agreed upon at least partialy by both parties): A free-market exists. The market consists of two, and only two, types of parties. The parties are called suppliers and consumers. It is possible for a supplier to be a consumer at the same time. There are many suppliers and consumers. The intent of a supplier is to make profit, profit above all else. This profit is expressed as money paid to the share-holders. A share-holder is a person or party who puts up money to a supplier to use for operations in return getting a cut of the resultant profits (or losses). The limitations and relationships are defined or mediated by contracts. A contract is a list of issues and resolutions which both part agree to in order to pursue some goal. It is implicit because of the requirement of 'fair competition' in free-market economies that the agreement by a party to a contract is without coercion of one form or another. The parties agree to contracts according to some percieved strategy. Given the efficiency of a strategy (ie producing n+i money for n initial investment, and make i some honker of a function that goes through the roof if you please). Given sufficient time, even if fair competition is taken as a given, the difference in strategies will produce a monopolization. Either through elimination or by subsumption, two or more businesses mergeing operations to reduce cost, increase efficiency (to the advantage of the business, not necessarily to the consumer), and reduce staffing and other resource sinks. The monolithic image of the consumer base by the business only increases potential for price inflation, quality reduction, etc. - where else you gonna go? Start your own business, every time you don't get your way, in a new industry? Get real. It is a rare day in *any* market model when a consumer begins direct competition with a supplier (except in the very initial phases of technology development - ala those jaunty young men in their flying machines). I hold that *any* such market will saturate. In other words the number of long-term suppliers will reduce such that only a hand-full and in some more ideal cases a single supplier in a given industry or market. At least some of the issues in that process will be the total potential sales of the product, costs of manufacturing, complexity and resource requirements of the process or mechanism, communcations speed, geography, etc. I do not believe that given any potential business strategy it is guaranteed to fail. That in fact some business strategies *properly* applied will in fact sustain themselves indefinitely. Now considering the Prisoners Delima and the maximal stratgy (ie play along and cheat occassionaly) are implicit in human behaviour because of our biological history any system that we develop will as a result have involvements of those issues. Because of that bias in behaviour, because there is no third party to arbitrate disputes that would be acceptable to either party (in principle at least), reduction in the quality or quantity of product for a given price level, etc. the market will eventualy provide these long-lived strategies ample opportunity to collect resources and experience to such a level as to effectively shut out all potential competition. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code)
by Eric S. Raymond 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Perry Metzger writes: >I live in both Richard Stallman's world (the Open Source community) >and in the Cypherpunk crypto community. > >The two have different goals. RMS is mistaken about appropriate >licensing for crypto code written by cypherpunks because he thinks the >goals are the same, when they are not. > >The Open Source community seeks maximum spread of free software. >The Cypherpunk community seeks maximum spread of the use of non-GAKed >cryptography. With respect, Perry, I think you may actually have confused *three* different agendas. RMS's advocacy of the GPL should not be taken to represent the entire open-source community, and GPL is not the only license conforming to the Open Source Definition. The open-source community as a whole shares many of RMS's goals, but much of it differs with RMS, in a way very relevant to this conversation, on the question of tactics. There's serious question as to whether the spread of open-source software is best served by a "viral" license like GPL, or by licenses like BSD's which allow the code to be used without disclosure conditions by commercial developers. The Open Source Definition embraces both kinds of license. That is very much by design. Clearly, the "non-viral" licenses such as the BSD or MIT licenses exactly serve the purposes of developers such as EAY who would like the impediments to reuse of their code to be as low as possible. Accordingly, I urge you not to encourage an artificial split between the cypherpunks and the open-source community. Your licensing argument is not with the open-source community as a whole, it is very specifically with the partisans of the GPL. I think I may safely assert that the wider open-source community regards the cypherpunks valuable as allies in the struggle for freedom and openness, and would not press you to sacrifice your objective of spreading non-GAKed cryptography in order to conform to a licensing doctrine that we, ourselves, do not unanimously agree with. -- Eric S. Raymond The following is a Python RSA implementation. According to the US Government posting these four lines makes me an international arms trafficker! Join me in civil disobedience; add these lines of code to your .sig block to help get this stupid and unconstitutional law changed. ============================================================================ from sys import*;from string import*;a=argv;[s,p,q]=filter(lambda x:x[:1]!= '-',a);d='-d'in a;e,n=atol(p,16),atol(q,16);l=(len(q)+1)/2;o,inb=l-d,l-1+d while s:s=stdin.read(inb);s and map(stdout.write,map(lambda i,b=pow(reduce( lambda x,y:(x<<8L)+y,map(ord,s)),e,n):chr(b>>8*i&255),range(o-1,-1,-1))) Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' -- Mao Tse-tung, 1938, inadvertently endorsing the Second Amendment.

4 4

No Subject
by Clinton Duclaux 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

1 0

1999 San Antonio/Austin Guide to Business Technology
by HyperReal-Anon 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Prospective Sellers are Asking for Information about Your Body and Soul Let them know that you are local and are selling yourself into slavery by participating in the 1999 Guide to Slave Buying. The Guide is an annual publication that is distributed to potential local and regional buyers giving them useful buying information about slaves and servants such as: * Data Entry Slaves * Humiliation Slaves * Forced Exhibitionism * Slave Consulting * Y2K Slave Financing Plans * Sex Slaves * Additional Uses For Your New Sex Slave I am contacting you, because you were listed in the search engines as wishing to sell yourself into slavery to offer services tht fit the needs of the prospective buyers we contacted. To get more information, go to: http://www.sexslaves.com or email: alt.sex.wanted(a)news.demon.co.uk or alt.sex.bondage(a)news.demon.co.uk **Note you will only receive this message once for each time you spam us. This is a list, and you do not need to respond with "yes". It is automatically assumed that you are interested in our offer. If you are purchased, you will be abducted by a black van as you depart for work one morning. Jennifer Stinson-- BDSI <jstinson(a)trip.net> wrote: >Prospective Buyers are Asking for Information about Your Products and Services > >Let them know that your company is local and can supply what they need by participating in the >1999 Guide to Business Technology. The Guide is an annual publication that is distributed to local >and regional companies giving them useful buying information about services and products such as: > >* Cellular * Computer Hardware * Computer Networking * Computer Software * Computer >Telephony Interface * Consulting * Emerging Technology * Internet Access * Intenet Marketing >* Outsourcing * Software Development * Video Conferencing * Wireless Communications * Y2K > >I am contacting you, because you were listed in the search engines as having products and services >tht fit the needs of the prospective buyers we contacted. > >To get more information, go to: http://www.biztech99.com > >or email: jstinson(a)trip.net > >**Note you will only receive this message once, this is not a list, you do not need to respond with >"remove"

1 0