December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

1994 Digital Telephony Bill campaign
by Shabbir J. Safdar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Voters Telecomm Watch has officially taken a position against the 1994 Digital Telephony Bill. It's not that we're slow, but it's taken time to reach a consensus (and even reach the board members), to compose all our materials, and gear up for the fight. In opposing this bill, I hope to exceed our efforts of "watching" with the Cantwell bill. If you followed that bill, you'll remember that we attemtped to notify the Net community before every vote with accurate information including sample letters, phone numbers, bill histories, and legislator positions. We had a few problems (legislators with changing addresses and phone numbers, voice votes that leave no record that we could tie to the legislator) but we also had many successes. We'll be doing the same thing (even better, I hope) this time with the Digital Telephony bill. We're going to try something new though. This message will be sent to all the mailing lists we usually use on our announce list. If you have access to news, check the following newsgroups: alt.activism alt.conspiracy alt.mag2600 alt.politics.datahighway alt.politics.libertarian alt.privacy.clipper alt.wired comp.org.cpsr.talk comp.org.eff.talk comp.risks comp.society.cu-digest comp.society.privacy misc.activism.progressive talk.politics.crypto (Crossposting will be done carefully, so people with decent newsreaders only see these alerts once) I'll be forwarding this to the following mailing lists, who will be removed from the vtw-announce(a)vtw.org mailing list: cypherpunks(a)toad.com eff-activists(a)eff.org eff-crypto(a)eff.org thesegroups(a)tic.com nii_agenda(a)civicnet.org com-priv(a)psi.com risks(a)csl.sri.com rre-maintainers(a)weber.ucsd.edu cpsr-berkeley(a)cpsr.org Please do not forward this announcement to the above lists, they have already seen it. A number of people complained that the political announcements we were sending were off topic for the lists during the Cantwell campaign, so I hope this is a reasonable compromise. If you do not have access to Usenet news, please feel free to subscribe to the announce or the working lists at vtw-list-request(a)vtw.org. -Shabbir

1 0

Windows PGP shell
by David K. Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've just finished making an ftp deposit to soda in the cypherpunks/incoming directory of WinPGP26.ZIP; it's the latest version of the Windows PGP shell. Shareware, and understands 2.6/2.6ui/2.7. Dave Merriman - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Finger merriman(a)metronet.com for PGP/RIPEM public keys and fingerprints. Unencrypted Email may be ignored without notice to sender. PGP preferred. Remember: It is not enough to _obey_ Big Brother; you must also learn to *love* Big Brother.

1 0

Windows Front End PGP 2.6
by John L Tocher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anybody know where I can find a windows front end that works with PGP 2.6? Any feedback on this would be appreciated! Thanks, John Tocher ????Windows front end: PGP WinFront from Ross Barclay????

4 3

RE: Computer Security Conference & Exibit
by Pat Farrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Claborne, Chris" <claborne(a)microcosm.sandiegoca.NCR.COM> writes: > Has anyone been to the Computer Security Conference & Exhibition? If so, > what did you think of it. > > I am thinking of goin to the 21st annual on Nov 14-16 in Washington D.C. > PGP key signing party??? I gave a presentation at the one last year, hung arround checking out the others. Bill Murray gave a nice pitch about PGP, how bad Clipper/skipjack was, DERD gave her usual technical discussion of Clipper. I'm up for a keyswap, or beer drinking, or anti-GAK session. Pat Pat Farrell Grad Student pfarrell(a)cs.gmu.edu Department of Computer Science George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Public key availble via finger #include <standard.disclaimer>

1 0

Re: Voluntary Governments?(Coercive Persuasion)
by blancw＠pylon.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<Delete if you don't find this spine-tingly, effervescently thrilling> >From Jason W Solinsky: . . .You can form a fairly potent government using economic coercion. . . . . . the power of a cybergovernment to banish citizens gives it the abilility to enforce its regulations. ......................................................... (assuming I have nowhere to go besides the astral plane) I wasn't going to add to this discussion anymore, but I couldn't believe it. I didn't use to think that it was so difficult to distinguish between "real" government and any other kind of controlling influence. Reflecting upon the difference between kinds of control and the difference it makes, I made a list of important elements which help me identify what kind of a yoke is over my neck: . governance by force = control . the direction of the intended influence: a withholding of services & benefits, or an imposition over the individual . the duration of that controlling influence: related to a specific event, or maintained ever-presently as a matter of course . the scope of the influence: specific to a particular function, or encompassing a geographic area; limited to family, friends, or inclusive of all mankind, or perhaps encompassing every living thing on the planet as well all the mineral rights and all the forests and the seas . the kind of control being exerted: dependent upon an individual's self-committment, or having overriding precedence . expected complicity from the recipients: their apparent willingness to knowingly subject themselves to another's ministrations, or their protests against obligatory participation . recognition of Authority: passive recipience, or active participation; acknowledging the other party's sovereignty; or not considering themselves subjects of it . how those in control "achieve" or ascend to their position of authority over all others within that system, and . how the relationship to that authority is managed: by the individual's own attraction/desires for the possession or reception of things which s/he does not have; by threats against the capacity for self-determination & self-command . what it is that "they" are aiming for: what do they want from those upon whom they exert influence or control: - their business - attention - their material property - their soul - support for their delusions of grandeur Otherwise, I can usually tell because they give themselves names like "United", "National", "World", or because all of the individuals within that jurisdiction presumably belong to it and assume the identity of the organized entity; they are known outside of it by its name (Americans, Greeks). Blanc

1 0

Re: Nuclear Weapons Material
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <paBMkOwscIgG070yn(a)io.org> Mark Terka writes: > Not to mention the fact that without tritium, the "trigger" for nuclear > weapons (and extremely expensive and rare at $ 100m a gram) all you have > is a radioactive paperweight. To the best of my knowledge, tritium is not used in nuclear weapons (meaning A-bombs), only in thermonuclear weapons (H-bombs). One of my teachers was involved in the Manhattan project; he never mentioned any need for tritium. -- Jim Dixon

19 37

Anonymous questionnaires
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My partner is a participant in a long term psychological study. I have been asked to fill out a questionnaire to aid in this study. Some of the questions address issues that I would never answer non-anonymously. After speaking with the research director, I ended up with the following problem: is there a way that would allow the institute to 1. Correlate my answers to the answers of my partner. 2. Verify that I have indeed sent in a filled out questionnaire (and send me a check for participating). 3. Allow a supervisory agency, such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, to verify that the researchers did not just make up all the data - that is to allow an audit. 4. Protect my privacy by making it impossible to correlate my name to the answers given. I would very much like to help to advance medical knowledge, but am concerned what might happen once the institute is forced to hand over all accumulated data to the Kommunal Kare Kontrol Kommittee under the Health Care and Crime Prevention Act of 1998. The researchers seem to think that there is no way to satisfy all the above criteria. I, after following discussions on this list for a long time, am not so sure. I intend to forward any workable suggestions (if the problem even has a solution) to the researchers. I am sure that better privacy protection would not only increase the number of participants, but also the quality of the data. Thank you all in advance, -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> PGP public key by finger

3 2

CEB 8 - I GUESS I'LL JUST HAVE TO DO IT MYSELF!
by Gary Jeffers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CYPHER_REBELS" ELECTRONIC BOOK (CEB) 8 - I GUESS I'LL JUST HAVE TO DO IT MYSELF! Fellow Cyphers - rebel/punks, I have decided to do the CEB myself. I am going to post it on Cypherpunks about once a month & on other lists as well. The CEB will exist as an often updated & posted file. I now need contributions of text. I need the WNSTROM steganography program internet source location & a concise write up of it. I also need the same for PG shell program. I also need a concise write up of how to use remailers, how to chain them, etc.. The CEB will be an up to date source to show locations of best privacy software, essential information, & electronic privacy concerns. PUSH EM BACK! PUSH EM BACK! WWWAAAYYY BBBAAACCCK! BBBEEEAAAATTTT STATE!

2 1

Re: In Search of Genuine DigiCash
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:08 PM 8/23/94 -0400, Jason W Solinsky wrote: >Well we agree that the selling point is economic efficiency. But "anonymity >reduces overhead" ? I keep getting tangled up in that. I'll try again. Anonymity is not the issue. Strong Cryptography is the issue. Anonymity comes from strong crypto. Like I said before, anonymity is the byproduct of using strong crypto to build a digital cash system. It's like what I said about flight in this same thread. It turns out the best way to go really fast is to fly (at least until someone builds an evacuated tunnel with a magnetic levitation train in it, anyway). In inventing aviation, we discovered how to go really fast. It turns out that going really fast is a cheaper way to do things if time is valuable. Being able to fly, while an end in itself, is also a byproduct of wanting to get somewhere fast, at least in economic terms. It turns out that in creating an anonymous digital cash system, you can do very cheap, irrefutable transactions offline in an internetworked environment. That's cheaper for a whole lot of reasons, a relatively minor one being the ability to pool the cash without a lot of transaction recordkeeping. You don't have to know who gave you each piece of money in order to find who stiffed you, if it happens. The reduced overhead increases economic efficiency. There are other reasons for not doing on-line transactions. Including credit checks, interest calculations on outstanding balances, vendor reserve requirements, transaction threading, on-line wait states and bandwidth, etc. It's considerable. In addition, I'll forward to you off-line the Eric Hughes postings that got me started on this. They were put here on 8/19 at 12:20, 1:02, and 4:24 and 4:43. Cheez, looks like I'm citing scripture here. I feel like one of those fundamnmentalists you see in football endzones on TV. You know, the guys with the sign that says "John 6:66". ;-). > There are alot of reasons why I think anonymity is important, but I fail >to see any significant economic advantage that anonymity confers to a person >who otherwise couldn't care less about it. I think like stellar formation, evolution and economic progress, the privacy of digital cash may be a happy accident resulting from the activities of a random process (internet commerce) looking for a way to make itself more efficient. It happens. Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone Shipwright Development Corporation who eats too little and sees Heaven and 44 Farquhar Street someone who drinks too much and sees Boston, MA 02331 USA snakes." -- Bertrand Russell (617) 323-7923

3 2

Re: (Fwd) Something of Interest
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: jf_avon |I received this out of the blues. I suppose that you received it |too. ........................................................... I didn't receive it, and I set off quite a round of discussion with Jim & the list, at one point. Guess I'm not considered controversial enough to get it. :>) .. Blanc

2 1