December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Baran on Net Security
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

RAND has put on it Web site eleven "classics" on distributed communications, most of them by Paul Baran. They offer good background to current debate on secrecy, security and cryptography. Here are the contents of No. 9 on security. http://www.rand.org/publications/RM/RM3765/ Memorandum RM-3765-PR August 1964 On Distributed Communications: IX Security, Secrecy, and Tamper-Free Considerations Paul Baran Contents, Preface, Summary, Foreword I. Introduction II. The Paradox of the Secrecy About Secrecy The Assumption of a Clear Dichotomy Between Classified and Unclassified Subject Matter Cost and Result of Present-Day Cryptographic Equipment On Secrecy of Secrecy III. Some Fundamentals of Cryptography Digital Transmission Layers of Encryption IV. Implications for the Distributed Network System Link-by-Link Cryptography in the Distributed Network End-to-End Cryptography in the Distributed Network Genealogy of the Keys Generation and Distribution of Keys Protection Offered by Semi-Random Path Choice V. A "Devil's Advocate" Examination Appendix Use of a Function of N-Boolean Variables as a Second-Order Modifier for "Next-Key" Generation

1 0

The Advent of Netwar
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A RAND publication relates to the administration's focus on borderless crime and/or dissent as national security threats: The Advent of Netwar. J. Arquilla, D.F. Ronfeldt 118 pp, 1996. $15.00 ISBN: 0833024140 Key concepts: Cybernetics -- Military aspects; Electronic intelligence; Military art and science -- Technological innovations; Communications, Military -- Technological aspects; Electronic countermeasures Abstract: The information revolution is leading to the rise of network forms of organization, with unusual implications for how societies are organized and conflicts are conducted. "Netwar" is an emerging consequence. The term refers to societal conflict and crime, short of war, in which the protagonists are organized more as sprawling "leaderless" networks than as tight-knit hierarchies. Many terrorists, criminals, fundamentalists, and ethno-nationalists are developing netwar capabilities. A new generation of revolutionaries and militant radicals is also emerging, with new doctrines, strategies, and technologies that support their reliance on network forms of organization. Netwar may be the dominant mode of societal conflict in the 21st century. These conclusions are implied by the evolution of societies, according to a framework presented in this RAND study. The emergence of netwar raises the need to rethink strategy and doctrine to conduct counternetwar. Traditional notions of war and low-intensity conflict as a sequential process based on massing, maneuvering, and fighting will likely prove inadequate to cope with nonlinear, swarm-like, information-age conflicts in which societal and military elements are closely intermingled. ----- There is a summary of this document and ordering info at: http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR789.html

2 1

Bountyserver Round2
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you all for you comments and input. I am in the process of rewriting the propsal to make things clearer, and to revise some of the procedures. The original draft will, and the revision will be up at <http://www.bounty.com/proposal.draft.html> by the time most of you get this. I am making a single reply, rather than one at a time to save time and bandwidth. I wrote these replies before I started working on the revisions to the proposal, so things might have changed a bit. Matt: > > This mechanism should be as simple as possible, and as easy to use as > I assume you will make it all web based? Make sure you are using a Yes. It is going to be web based, with (hopefully) email and Usenet access. > secure server. Pay close attention to security of the underlying OS. I am planning on using Apache-SSL or Stronghold, if I can afford it, with Linux as the underlying OS. I plan on disabling telnet access as soon as the server starts accepting credit card numbers. Anyone who then need shell access will have to use SSH. > > Originally I proposed this to apply to software, but I don't see why > > it should stop at software. Initally the server will be restricted > > to software, but I hope that this will work out, and be expanded > There is no reason that it should only apply to software, so I am > glad you are thinking this way. Realize that your costs will go up Software is my main objective, and software is easier. > if you applythis to non-software related industry. You may need to > hire experts in other industries, etc. Of course, it may all pay off > anyway for you. Yeah. There is that. The other technologies I was thinking of were more in the realm of algorythms and protocals rather than hardware. Hardware is possible, but difficult, and may (would) be better suited to Ian's proposal. >> The proposal: >> What I am going to attempt to do is to set up a "Bounty Server" where >> send their initial "bid" to the organization. > Presumably web forms that generate a standard piece of output so that > developers dont have to sift through "original" specs. I have > questions about bids, but ill get to that later. Prozactly. >> This is the "bounty". Other people can add to this bounty, allowing the >> and the server operators. Other technology will be figured out as it >> becomes necessary. > You will need to make several things clear here. When people "add" <snip> > not. It is not impossible to solve this problem, it just takes a bit > of good wording in the Contract. I understand that. If you are willing, I will ask for your opnion on the wording. >> The initial bounty contract gets posted to the WWW server, (possibly) to >> a "developers list" of interested people, and (possibly) to an >> appropriate UseNet Newsgroup. >This may not be a popular point but you asked for legal tips >(/disclaimer BTW, this is not to be relied upon as legal advice. I am > giving it only to make you aware of some issues that you may want to look > into.disclaimer/). You need to be aware of possible discrimination > claims. There is a theory called disparate impact which you may have > a problem with. You should find a way to distribute these > announcements as widely as possible. This is a tricky area and one > you should be aware of. The final decision, of course, is yours. I don't really understand this. I plan on spreading the word as far as possible, but if I only post information in one or two places, isn't that my choice? If I am tryind to hire someone am I required to place adds everywhere I can, or can I choose my medium? >> Once the bounty is posted, other people can "bid up" or add to the bounty, >> and their contribution will be added to the total bounty as well as their >> accepted by credit card, check, money order, and possibly ecash >> (e-cash will be taken at some point, but it really isn't important >> at this point since almost no one uses it.) > > It would be good to accept ecash and maybe contact MarkTwain to see > if you can set up discount accounts for your developers. The people > involved in this project would be familiar enough to give the system > a boost. Why do you think the amount people give is not relevant? I wasn't refering to the amount, but rather ecash being not-relevant AT THIS POINT <runs and hides behind asbestos sheild> Not many people have ecash accounts, so it isn't a priority. It would be nice tho'. As to the amount: It really doesn't matter, but I am thinking of making a minium of $5, just because anything less really isn't worth the book keeping, but I really haven't made up my mind. >> The first developer to upload a _working_ package to the server will >> be cut (or ecash mailed if that works out). > Why do you think you need to keep an archived copy? If you deal with > Copyrighted material you MUST get a license up front. That shouldnt > be a problem for you since the developers are benefiting, but I am > just curious as to your thought process here. Archival copies are for legal reasons. Copyrighted material other than that uploaded by the authors is not going to be allowed, and part of the agreement is that they allow the Server to keep a copy for historical/legal reasons. >> The Server Adminstrator will also do an cursory check to make sure that >> there are no obvious copyright violations. > This needs to be much more than cursory. If you put a copylefted > piece on an open ftp site and it winds up to be copyrighted guess who > could get named in the suit. Not only should you vigorously research I will have the name of the submitter, and I will make a "good faith" effort to detect copyrights. I think that is enough. I don't (in fact I doubt any one person does) have enough knowlege to know every peice of software out there. I am more worried about people decompiling commercial products. >> In the event that there is a conflict between the initiator and the >> developer, the claim will go into adjudication. The server adminstrators >> decesion is final, and he will make every effort to settle the claim >> fairly. Adjudication will incur an additional fee (see the fees section). > appearance of impropriety is important but more important to you is > the need to have someone other than yourself to blame. You dont want > to be held responsible for an "anti-developer" decision if you dont > have to. I am hoping that reputations will handle this. > > Writing the bounty: >> The bounty specifications should include the following: >> else will contribute), owned by the programmer (well someone might >> be that magnanomous), or "copylefted". > > This will be up to the writer. It might not be a good idea for the > initiator to have input here as it will be a wedge causing more > adjudication than it is worth. I disagree. The iniator (hence forth known as Alice) is establishing the rules, it is up to that person to set forth the conditions. If the writer doesn't like it, they don't write it, and Alice looses her money. If enough people add to the pot, someone will bite, and Alice gets what Alice wants. >> 6) Where the initiators money is to go if the bounty is not claimed: >> choice. > Why not give it back to the initiator (minus a fee for the > opportunity). While I am sure you have good charities in mind, > people on the net dont like being forced to do anything. Keeping the > charity donation as an option is a good idea. To keep Alice from reniging once the money is given, it is gone. It means that you have the choice of software or nothing. > > Adding to the bounty: > > Fees: >> The Organization will get 2% of any bounty where the software or >> Technology that is copylefted. 20% of any other scheme. > 20% seems steep. You might want to at least start out with a > discount on this percentage. I like the discount for copylefting. 20% is an 18% penalty for not Copylefting the software. It means that I am going thru a lot of work, and not getting what I want, so I am going to get something. I want this server to produce Free Software. >> Adjudication will incur an additional fee of 2 to 5% depending on the >> difficulty in judging the claim. > This needs to be a certain percentage not a range. If need be assign > it via hourly charges. It is not easy to get people to stay out of > also encourage you to include the amount in all of the bids. You can > spread exposure and lower the rate. You are probably right. I really want to charge each equally. > > Where I need help at this point: >> Legal issues. Any lawyers want to talk to me about this? > Let me know if you have any questions. None of this is legal > advice...blah,blah,blah. Fine. > Looks like a good start. Keep me informed. Thanks. ========================================================================== Omegaman: >> The objective is to actually bring this system online. > "cypherpunks write code." good. Soemthing like that. > > Background: >> graphics editing software, easy to use Graphic Design Software (TeX >> is NOT easy to use) and easy to use Cryptographic software. > many would pay good money for Linux native versions of programs like > Wordperfect, Corelpaint & draw, Pagemaker , etc. I think "pay for" might be a little strong a word. "Assist" is more accurate. >> 4) Desired "quality" level: Proof of Concept, Alpha, Beta, Release etc. > Needs flesh. What defines "alpha" or "beta" for purposes of bounty > or is that up to the person initiating the bounty? If I can find good working defininations (sp?) I will use them. Otherwise I will insist that Alice document what it wants. >> 6) Where the initiators money is to go if the bounty is not claimed: >> honest, as well as the server. Each contributor will also get this >> choice. > Do you have the charities in mind? They should be listed in the > abstract, I think. March of Dimes, NORML, NRA, ACLU, GNU Foundation, FSF, SPLC. As the time gets closer this will get more exact. > Who will be publicize the initial bounty offer -- the server or > bounty initiator? Information about a specific software project will > need to be disseminated beyond bounty.org. Automated positing to relevant newsgroups, and maybe a mail list for those interested. > More details on conflict resolution are needed in a final draft. The > process and priorites the server administator will use to make his > specific hypotheticals detailed. Ok. ======================================================================= Peter Allan: > Snow, I know, Spell Check. >> Abstract: > "new technologies" doesn't seem to be what you mean later on. > I suspect you will get _higher_ overheads with this. For instance > suppose 2 people start work on something, and one wins the bounty, > the other goes unrewarded. To compensate each coder for this risk That is life. First to market means a lot. Look at Lotus. I am contemplating adding in a place for developers to meet and collaborate, sharing the bounty. >> community of users to decide which projects should have priority, >> and which shouldn't. > Hmmm. What about people ahead of the game - like PRZ. He get a VC or two and goes commercial. >> award to be paid to the developer. They then post it on the server and >> send their initial "bid" to the organization. > > Where is the scope for iterative discussion of the spec ? > This is _the_ killer stage for most work. This is Alices responcibility. >> This is the "bounty". Other people can add to this bounty, allowing the >> totals to add until someone claims that bounty by providing proof of > What about proof to the satisfaction of other contributors ? > How do I know Bill and Ben aren't cheating by starting and claiming > a bounty to which I contribute ? (Bill and Ben are fictitious in this > example. <g> ) Good point. Solututions? >> I will provide a short (8 or 10) list of charities that the money >> honest, as well as the server. Each contributor will also get this >> choice. > How does this keep anyone honest ? Keeps them from reniging (sp?) on the bid. =========================================================================== Ian: > Hi, Snow, >> I have started drafting a proposal statement for the Bounty server. > Wow, you've gotta move fast in this game :)) If I don't keep the inertia up, I will never get it done. > [chop where agreed or not disagreed] > > Background: >> It is the "Copylefted" software that interests me at this point. > OK, although for my model, I am assuming that all forms are covered. As I pointed out in private email, I think our model serves different objectives. > > The proposal: >> What I am going to attempt to do is to set up a "Bounty Server" where >> someone can iniate a "bounty" on a peice of technology. The initator > Separate this out, for clarity of model. The initiator (I used > Proposer, and called her Alice coz Alice always initiates) proposes I will do that. > BTW, bid to do what? Using market terminology, I have assumed thay > bid is to buy, that is provide cash. Offer is to sell, that is provide > software. Ah, yes, bid is add to bounty. Think if it as a bet. Kinda like Mr. Bells AP proposal, Alice is betting that the software _won't_ get written. Once the bet is high enough, it _will_ get written. >> This is the "bounty". Other people can add to this bounty, allowing the >> development to the initiator of the bounty. In software terms they would >> and the server operators. Other technology will be figured out as it >> becomes necessary. > This is where I have put most of my efforts, because I need to design the > microstructure that is built into our market. I am going to try to keep it simple, and let the thing evolve as necessary. As Alex (a former reader of this list) put it, the first anonymous remailer was a perl hack done in an afternoon, and improvements came from that. Things will improve as needed, I am just trying to think things out as thoroughly as possible first. >> Originally I was going to put the stipulation in that the software written >> rather simply desired. To aid in that desire, I am going to build in >> an initative to releaseing the software "copylefted". > Absolutely - let the market decide. Some of us, for example, do not like > copyleft. What do you have against "copylefted" software? Is it the specific GNU copyleft, or the concept? > > To get more specific: > [chop] >> The first developer to upload a _working_ package to the server will >> be awarded the total bounty, ... > This worries me. If I, as a junior programmer, am looking to enter the > market, I will have the daunting task of beating everyone else. Real life > doesn't work that way - there are ways in which I can pick up some newbie > tasks for low money, so as to build up experience and/or reputation. 1) As a junior programmer, you take on simpler bounties first. 2) Team up with a more advanced programmer, pool efforts and split the bounty. > I guess the notion of bounty is just that - first one takes all. > However, I think that the solution might be a bit limited in the > long run. It isn't intended to solve all problems, just some. > Interesting in that my proposal leads to task distribution by awarding > contracts, your proposal leads to task incentives by rewarding speed. Yours seems suited for longer and more involved tasks. Mine to shorter. >> "First" will be soley determined by the time stamp of the server. As soon >> as the package is uploaded, the initiator and the server adminstrator >> will be notifed, and the bounty marked "claimed". If the package is >> be cut (or ecash mailed if that works out). > OK, my proposals specifically assume no need for a "decision" by Alice. > That's not to say either is right, it's just that I prefer to design > something that eliminates the individual decision rather than cope > with the complexities. I believe it will result, in the end, in a > more efficient market. It might be more efficient to have a "paid" staff to evaluate the product to make sure it meets the specs. I don't have the funds to set up that infrastructure. >> The Server Adminstrator will also do an cursory check to make sure that >> fairly. Adjudication will incur an additional fee (see the fees section). > Same as above, no adjudication in my system. > Although, it is possible to add underwriters, > by simply making the task offerers (Bob and Carol) > into bond writers who front for programmers. I am hoping that it doesn't come up too much. Honesty and reputation should help. > > Status: >> At this point in time I am (obviously) still in the process of developing >> the procedures. I have registered a Domain Name (bounty.org) and I have >> a couple promises off assistance in certain areas. As well, I have >> a server to start off with. > Wow, *gotta* move fast. As I say, our stuff is based on a lot of > pre-existing software, so we make a lot of assumptions. Given our You are starting with the software, and then figuring out the rest. I am doing it the other way. > different approaches we may end up with competing systems rather > than one, but that's fine, indeed highly valuable as an experimental > approach. I don't think that the two proposals will necessarily compete. > What's financing you in this? Or should I say, monetarily enthusing? Financing? ======================================================================== Blake: > I missed the original discussion of this idea, but it sounds delightful to me. > A couple of thoughts on your most recent post: > What counts as a copyleft should be explicitly defined, i.e. just the GPL, > or how about Perl's artistic license... or Aladdin's GhostScript agreement? Ok. I will put up examples of each, and let Alice choose. > Public domain software should incur no larger percentage fee than copylefted > works. True. > How is the expiration for a bounty determined? I am thinking either 2 years after initial, or 12 months after last contribution, With a 1 year one time extension if someone claims to be "working on it". > Adjudication fees should be split in some fashion between parties. (Otherwise > the initiator has nothing to lose from disputing. (Unless of course you'd > like to > handle that on a reputation basis.)) I am hoping that reputation and the threat of adjudication will prevent it from happening. That is one area that does need work tho'. ========================================================================== Jim Cook: > be awarded the total bounty, minus "brokerage" fees (discussed later) > "First" will be soley determined by the time stamp of the server. <SNIP> I don't like this way of picking a winner ... because I think it would encourage fast and dirty work ... instead of quality ... better I think would be a process analogous to peer review for grants and publications ... with the added feature that the submission of a product is announced ... so that competitors who are almost done can get their entry in also ... and the initiators can evaluate several products simultaneously <SNIP> My reply: In a way it _does_ encourage quick and dirty work, like the first cpunks remailer, hacked together in an afternoon, then came the rest. It is a way to get _more_ software out there, hopefully some of it will be good, some bad. It really can't be much worse than the dreck comming out of some of the commercial houses. I am thinking of a way of implementing checks tho'. ===================================================================== Thanks for the comments. Keep them coming. The original draft will be up at <http://www.bounty.com/proposal.draft.html> later tonight.

1 0

re:PGP263UI
by Steve Crompton 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Adam Back posted re PGP 2.63ui >I was under the impression that with the Legal_Kludge option for >pgp263i, that it already was compatible with old versions of pgp using >the version byte of 2. We kept the control structure of the original ui version by "Matthew". But the compatibility of 2.63ui has been expanded to allow it to Export public keys generated with Version=3 (Legal_Kludge=on) to old versions (2.3a) of PGP. >What else does pgp263ui offer? The GNU license? What about pgp3? >Some people aren't going to be very happy if you do a GNU version of >that, as GNU doesn't preclude selling commercially provided that >source is provided. See the original announcement for the numerous fixes & enhancements not currently available in 2.6.2 or 2.6.3ia including Added CONFIG.TXT parameters/functions LabelEncrypt and PrePendSigV Expanded disk write error checking Ability to edit other people's keys's UserID's. We have no current plans re PGP 3.0. Probably a GNU version of it is not legally possible. But if source is released independent enhancements would be, depending on the license. It also remains to be seen if or how fast PGP 3.0, if it ever comes, will supplant previous versions of PGP in public acceptance. >PS Steve and friends: I've got some stealth code close to usable in >the form of a patch to pgp263 if you want it :-) Yes. Please send me a copy and we'll take a look at it. But the external stealth utility currently available is quite adequate in my view. Steve Crompton <sunray(a)globalnet.co.uk> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Requires PGP version 2.6 or later. iQEVAwUBMp11UxRHWQsRmI2RAQE/EggAwtnT312Wmi7dWn4sYK/GxVJDqbKpuGuh yVekVPRsrBRQlhcQqm1ICzucGMOd+uDNTNqoxx82tBzjAphN2adANayin3I7FpW1 mkvdCj77pzkEwqc60OcPjqRg5q9xKsPCczAmaHBVmuyKjCDJemEzLMUQsrllohha c3v4WcRgB+epnDpF0hpdDYH7aiIo/FmN59ItcMEvrytkt5Hv7GjZq974UC/1ALik sFsML7QWp6bpVNzDeE8H7FmrT7kKVBddQwQcwFP2dPHOaFdqMRPjVcIxxjiOs5/o I3sCaH8L5VAF/WivcRCvYOBV+kklbTQsJIdt/eTrCGtTpoWtjVhyyw== =VPSl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re:PGP263UI
by Steve Crompton 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mark M. (markm(a)voicenet.com) wrote on Sat, 23 Nov 1996 22:24:41 -0500 (EST) >... >> Note that I personally have not done very much of the actual coding on >> this version. However if bugs are reported or constructive >> suggestions for improvements made I will pass them on to the >> individual(s) who have done the bulk of the work to make this release >> possible. I am assured that continuing support will be provided. >I found two bugs so far: > >This version doesn't recognize either .pgprc or pgp.ini as valid >config file names. It is very minor, but this functionality is >stated in the manual. I couldn't find any mention of either filename in -our- docs. Please point out the reference if I missed it. I think this was an MIT "feature". I don't plan to copy it. >One of my favorite options, +makerandom, isn't supported in this >version. This is an undocumented option, but it is useful in >many situations. Not as useful as you might think. A bug has been reported in the MIT version that +makerandom produces -weak- pseudo-random output, as (I am told) can be verified by just generating a large "random" file and viewing it with a hex viewer, looking for regular patterns. I don't know if this was ever fixed in Stale's version. This bug does not produce a weakness in the normal functions of MIT or Stale's PGP. MIT heavily rewrote the random number functions for their versions of PGP and the +makerandom feature depends on this rewrite. I did not want to try to import "mass quantities" of code from MIT both to respect their copyright and to maintain to some degree the independence of the MIT-derived and 2.3a-derived versions to that a bug in one might not be reproduced in the other. For Random numbers up to 24 bytes (192 bits), just use a -copy- of RANDSEED.BIN. For a longer random file, just encrypt (either RSA or conventional IDEA) a file a little longer than the file desired. Throw away a few hundred bytes from the start and end. The result will be just as strongly random as +makerandom even without the current bug. >This version uses +version_byte instead of +Legal_Kludge, but I >consider that a feature. I haven't had time to experiment with >the "Charset:" header. One other minor problem is that >ClearSig doesn't default to "on". This could cause some >frustration with new users. I haven't tried to imlpement the "Charset" header and probably won't. If this feature is important to you, use Stale's version. I will look into this for the next version, but no promises. Clearsig is working correctly as we document it. Another MIT change. It would be more work to change the documentation than the code, but I will consider this for the next release. >Other then that, it's just fine. Thanks for your constructive criticism and comments. Steve Crompton 100645.1716(a)compuserve.com (preferred) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Requires PGP version 2.6 or later. iQEVAwUBMp14FhRHWQsRmI2RAQHndggAgNdcOqya2NPX+8KOkoj1qoYnGBRprREK t0l3sK2HHqUQwTwKSkW5ugD898kG26HjCVlMsqfgQVcw+3nAhZgU/t7MCU9/orD8 yUc9vtXr/C4lLJHTtDGVpjPfRAJpV0m0myDwoqXZo4gTrkoQG43mKaE4eLv9qcl4 zGv4fMv/lh7hUwfUsZ6c7ULGPfKeYtknO1Hh3gKYX6HJPz5Qki2toIdH8qxpw51v CC/Q/MLxLQUGYH/jdHqvUSSD0G1QIu/D/LlL9VaUtPJemqPOuBGmk+ywvE7AAfNG uEnO/AumU3j1yPnFXqv5pUKGxP1gKbMyKR8lrEwWcrDapaiC6mW4oQ== =qk2B -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: IQ and age
by Lurker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:47 PM 11/27/96 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >Dale Thorn wrote: >> The biggest influence on IQ are the so-called "engrams" (fears, super- >> stitions, anxieties, etc.) planted in your brain early in life. >> >> Some of this can be overcome with mental exercise, and awareness of what >> negative influences are holding you back. Much easier said than done! >> >> IQ as they attempt to measure it can probably be most easily explained >> as pattern matching skills. Unfortunately for testing, and although you >> can be every bit as intelligent at 70 as at 10, your pattern-matching >> skills change and evolve over time, so any given tests will only apply >> (more or less) at the age group they are optimized for. >> > >Would you dismiss strong correlations between IQ and success in life >and academia as something irrelevant? > I would. If you look at who has the oppertunities to go college you will note that those who are good at taking tests (SAT, ACT, or IQ) are those who get to go. You will also note that money also breeds success, or can someone give me an argument for the fact that there are more rich kids going to Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and the like than poor kids. (These schools almost gaurentee success.) If you want to find a correlation look for it in money not tests. And if you are insistant on finding it in tests, ask why the scores are as they are (was the test written to the advantage of one group over another or can one group buy the "A" with special courses which teach the skills needed to score high.)

2 1

Eudora/PGP Plug-in--Free
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Eudora/PGP Plug-In Download version 0.20 from the Web: * http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gt6525c/eppi/epp16_02.zip (for 16-bit version of Eudora 3.0 for Windows 3.1) * http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gt6525c/eppi/epp32_02.zip (for 32-bit version of Eudora 3.0 for Windows NT/95) If you don't have Web access, but have FTP access, try the following sites. Note that if the version you are trying to get was released today or just a few days ago, it may not have shown up at the sites below yet, so give it a few days: papa.indstate.edu: /pub/winsock-l/mail/epp16_02.zip /pub/winsock-l/Windows95/mail/epp32_02.zip /pub/winsock-l/WindowsNT/mail/epp32_02.zip ftp.winsite.com: /pub/pc/win3/winsock/epp16_02.zip /pub/pc/win95/winsock/epp32_02.zip If you want to be automatically notified of new versions, send e-mail to gt6525c(a)prism.gatech.edu with the subject of "eppi news", and the following message body: join stop

1 0

More anonymous hate mail from John Gilmore, Timmy May, and friends
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've received the following e-mail from an anonymous coward. It didn't have any carriage returns (I added them). >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 09:23:00 -0700 >Message-Id: <199611281623.JAA03709(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu> >To: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com >From: nobody(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) >Comments: Please report misuse of this automated remailing service to <complaints(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu> >Subject: Yo, Kook! Read this. > >... > >>"Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> writes: >>> Actually the opposite is the case, he is a notorious womanizer. >> >>Are _you gay, Phil? > >Look, Kook. Can you at least wait 24 hours after complaining about eliptic >curves being somehow off-topic (as I recall, it was 50k rants about Armenian >genocide that got your dumb ass booted) before posting your own off-topic >sewage? Who gives a flying fuck who is or isn't gay or perverted or whatever >in their private lives? What does it have to do with crypto, or proficiency >in programming, or anything that matters to most of the list? It seems to me >that you should try casting your "pearls" before the much more "noble" >animals of the freedom-knights, who (as opposed to me) _DO_ care who is or >isn't homosexual. Get back on your meds, it'll do you (and the list) good. > >me One of the meanings of "punk" is "young homosexual". There are a lot of them on the "cypherpunks" mailing list, trying to be social and to make friends. They think that the "cypher" part is "kewl" and even rant about it, without understanding the meanings of the technical terms they use (like the recurrent rant about brute-force attacks on one-time pads). But they don't know much about cryptography, so when someone, e.g., tries to talk about elliptic curves, the "punk" crowd screams that it's "off-topic". Today is Thanksgiving, so I hope you choke on your turkey (or whatever else ends up in your mouth :-). I'm thankful that I wasn't born in this country, because Americans are so stupid.

1 0

RE: Re: wealth and property rights
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In <199611281157.DAA12088(a)infomatch.com>, on 11/28/96 at 04:53 AM, "Murray Hayes" <mhayes(a)infomatch.com> said: >On Wed, 27 Nov 96 10:16:20 -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote: >>In <009ABBF7.ACB06A80.64(a)SPRUCE.HSU.EDU>, on 11/22/96 >> at 12:18 PM, jc105558(a)spruce.hsu.edu said: >> >> >>socialism uses FORCE to take what it wants while the capitilism you have a >>free & volintary exchange. >> >>why is this so hard to understand?? >> >Don't be an idiot. Socialism has nothing to do with force. It is an >economic system not a military stance. >Communisist belive: >>From each according to there abilities >To each according to there needs. >Socialist belive: >>From each according to there abilities >To each accoring to there contirbution. >They are very similar, BUT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH FORCE!!! >Some countries have very socialized systems with democracy. Those people >want socalized everything. The US is socialized to a very small degree. >The UK is socialized to a further degree. <sigh> socialism has EVERTHING to do with force. Socialism is based on the TAKING from one to give to another. Without FORCE or the threat of FORCE most people will not allow their hard earned property to be taken away from them. You look at any socialist program in the "democracies". Every one is a) Manditory b) Backed by FORCE. No socialist program has ever been implemented on a large scale without the use of FORCE. It just can't work without it. I do not wish to be part of the socialist programs in the U.S. Medicare, Medicaide, Welfaire, SS, WIC, FoodStamps, ...ect. It is only because of the threat of the use of FORCE against me that I continue to pay for such programs AGAINST MY WILL. This is the same everywhere. If these were programs that the majority were willing to participate volentary then why are they Manditory?? Why use the FORCE of government to implement them?? Because socialism is THEIFT and people naturally resist the theift of their property. -- ----------------------------------------------------------- "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> -----------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Whitehouse Releases Blueprint...
by null＠void.gov 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Notably, the emphasis is on the needs of business, not "people." We are in an excellent position to observe and document the process whereby "business" -- that is, organizations motivated primarily, if not exclusively, by the desire for short-term profits accruing to vested interests -- comes to dominate and control a technology. The auto and television industries come to mind as two prior examples. We are about to see the net go the same way. Take notes. "I have to praise the administration and Ira for reaching out to the private sector for comments," Computers and Communication Industry Association President Ed Black said. "There's a great emphasis on the needs of business here." Even so, privacy activists remained disappointed with many of the document's features. "This isn't anything new," said David Banisar, counsel to the Electronic Privacy and Information Center. "The privacy stuff is terrible. They say it's market driven, but markets don't work with privacy. It's like what happened with P-Trak."

1 0