December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?
by doug＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger(a)lehman.com> said: >A single fiber optic strand has enough capacity in theory to carry the >equivalent of every call made in the U.S. during the peak capacity >utilization period on Mother's Day. This is a nice reduction to theory; the current optical modulation rates fall vastly short of the theoretical limits, but yes, at their maximum it would be something on that order. >I don't know about you, but I personally can't produce more than 750 >simultaneous videos at once for network distribution, so I suppose I'm >uninteresting, but even the people who can do more than that are >likely going to be fine. If they aren't, well, I suppose they could >get TWO fibers coming into their home, or maybe even TEN or ONE >HUNDRED if necessary. Heh. Well. By today's standards, theoretical-capacity fiber optic will be indeed be overkill; there would be plenty left over. Keeping in mind that we're talking about the medium to long term future rather than the immediate future, though: needs tend to grow easily as fast as does capacity to meet needs. In the past one can point to 1950's quotes about how many computers would ever be needed worldwide, or to 1970's arguments about why GUI interfaces would never be realistic, or even to Bill Joy's late 1980's Nanotech Conf. talk when he coined the unit of VAX-MIPS-Millenia, which he thought would be useless even if available. Counterexamples to Joy's thesis are trivially found in cryptography, and less obviously in things like computer generated holography. The latter might easily become a GUI standard of the future, and will indeed require VAX-MIPS-millenia of computation to compute in real time. They would also require similarly astronomical amounts of bandwidth to transmit. By today's standards, that's ridiculous to assume. But by the standards of 10 years hence, two dimensional video may well appear as primitive as 110 baud text transmission does to us today. Judging the future by today's standards tends to leave one's predictions high and dry. Doug

2 1

Politics on the List?
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <199311120422.UAA28483(a)mail.netcom.com> tcmay(a)netcom.com writes: > Of course, I notice that very few of us are writing any code these > days. Some of the remailer wizards are still revising their code, and > a few C-punks are trying to implement DC-Nets in code. But the vast > majority of the 500+ folks on this List are either not writing crypto > code, or are keeping silent about it. Just FYI, I'm working on integrating pgp to the mailer that comes with 386bsd. I hacked it first a long time ago, and never gave it out because it had a lot of loose ends - now I'm tidying them up so that I can give it out and people won't have to be careful what they type to avoid some of the misfeatures... > The intent of the "Cypherpunks write code" line, if I can venture a > motivation (it was of course Eric's line), is that we are more > interested in seeing the Brave New Crypto World happen than in just > jawboning about export laws, the Zimmmermann case, and whether > libertarians are right and socialists are wrong. The intent of 'Cypherpunks write code' is that Perry can dump on people talking about anything other than code ;-) (When we *do* talk about practical stuff he tells us its impractical or been done before or pointless, or that we should stop *talk*ing about it and go away and do it...) I'm surprised we bother running a list at all actually. We should all be locked away in our garrets hacking I guess. (What I'm really saying is that this list clearly serves a purpose, and it is evolving into its own character, whatever that may be, despite the efforts of the early founder members to keep it on some tightly defined track that they once conceived it as. I don't see this evolution as being a problem, and I'm slightly (though not to Detweilerian proportions) annoyed whenever people like Tim or Perry pull rank and try to limit the topics of discussion, when on closer inspection they're just as bad as the rest of us at drifting 'off topic'.) G

2 1

Are we gatewayed to Usenet
by Clark Reynard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Never. I don't _ever_ want to see this made into a 'semi-private' mailing list. Extropians, for example, does this, and it's ended up being an incestuous, closed group, with extremely low signal-to-noise ratio; as the same groups of people chatter and blather about the same subjects to no end. I'd rather have the list the way it is. At least the noise is usually _new_ noise; and new signal comes in constantly. I even prefer it with L. Detweiler; perhaps he'll cease his rather garbled rants and return to being a constructive poster. In any case, if this sort of thing were ever to be put to a vote, I'd be emailing everyone I knew not to have anything to do with such a giddy, doomed proposal. ---- Robert W. F. Clark PGP Key Available Upon Request rclark(a)nyx.cs.du.edu clark(a)metal.psu.edu

2 1

Bandwidth limitations
by Clark Reynard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

pmetzger(a)lehman.com (Perry Metzger) writes: >Doug Merritt says: >> I hate to disagree, considering that I prefer to agree with the philosophy >> here, but it *can't* work that way, regardless of what we wish. >> >> The problem is that bandwidth is a highly limited resource, just like >> real estate is a limited resource. Eventually we will complete saturate >> network bandwidth no matter what technology is used. >I don't know about you, but I personally can't produce more than 750 >simultaneous videos at once for network distribution, so I suppose I'm >uninteresting, but even the people who can do more than that are >likely going to be fine. If they aren't, well, I suppose they could >get TWO fibers coming into their home, or maybe even TEN or ONE >HUNDRED if necessary. >I suspect that we have a wee bit longer to go than that. When people >start faxing themselves regularly we may have to go to slightly more >exotic technologies. Apparently, information-theoretically, there is a limit to the bandwidth available in any given area of space before overlapping of signal occurs. While I don't agree that it is likely to occur soon, eventually we will hit an information bottleneck; probably somewhere after we manage to use subquantal particles as signal-carriers. Our current system would, indeed, allow people to fax themselves regularly; in fact, I occasionally fax things to myself already. However, when people start doing genuinely exotic things, such as emailing their entire genome to their doctor; or emailing vast files on self-administered MRI tests to the hospital; or transmitting graphical images of components for something as simple as factory work; then we'll seriously have to think about theoretical bandwidth limitations. However, with any luck we'll be off the planet, and will have the infinite bandwidth we need by the time we need it. ---- Robert W. F. Clark PGP Key Available Upon Request rclark(a)nyx.cs.du.edu clark(a)metal.psu.edu

2 1

Re: (fwd) Netcom adds access in Denver area
by hfinney＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Unfortunately, netcom's nearest point-of-presence is a $.10/minute nighttime long distance call away from me. So this "free" service would cost me about $6/hour. There are several services which provide access via packet-switching networks which have hundreds of POP's, including some local to me. Two of these networks are Sprintnet and Compuserve's network (which is separate from the Compuserve service itself). These networks charge $2-$3/hour off-prime, so they are a better deal. But the carrying capacity of these networks seems somewhat limited, and you don't get the full throughput of your baud rate. There are resources available on the net, the "pdial" and "nixpub" lists, which provide lists of service providers for Internet access. I don't have access information handy.... Well, I just grabbed some info. Here is an excerpt from alt.internet.services FAQ: > *** 3.1: WHERE CAN I GET INTERNET ACCESS IN MY AREA? > Check out PDIAL, a list of public access service providers offering > dialup access to Internet connections. PDIAL lists both free and pay > services all around the world. The PDIAL list is posted semi-regularly > to alt.internet.access.wanted, alt.bbs.lists, ba.internet, and > news.answers. > > To receive PDIAL via e-mail, send mail with a subject line of > "Send PDIAL" to "info-deli-server(a)netcom.com". To receive future > editions as they are published, send email with the subject > "Subscribe PDIAL" to the same address. The most recent PDIAL is also > available by sending mail with a message body of > "send usenet/news.answers/pdial" to "mail-server(a)rtfm.mit.edu". To get > PDIAL via FTP: > ftp.netcom.com:/pub/info-deli/public-access/pdial > rtfm.mit.edu:/pub/usenet/alt.internet.access.wanted/P_D_I_A_L_(P) > > For more information about service providers and getting on the > Internet, read "FYI: Searching for Treasure" (FTP info at the end of > this document.) > > Another list of service providers, and tips on getting Internet access, > is provided in the "alt.bbs.internet" FAQ, available via FTP as > rtfm.mit.edu:/pub/usenet/news.answers/inet-bbs-faq.Z > > Access provider information from the book "Internet: Getting Started," > (detailed in the final section of this document) is available via > anonymous FTP as > ftp.nisc.sri.com:/netinfo/internet-access-providers-us.txt > ftp.nisc.sri.com:/netinfo/internet-access-providers-non-us.txt > > If you are a college student or faculty, check with your campus computer > center to learn about the online facilities available to you. Many > schools offer free accounts to students and staff. > > Next, turn to the Usenet community for assistance. Find out if there is > a local newsgroup for your area or state. For instance, Columbus, Ohio > users can check on the "oh.general" and "cmh.general" newsgroups. Many > other areas have regional newsgroups. Ask the locals questions about the > area - who better to know the answers? > > If all else fails, post your plea on the Usenet newsgroup > "alt.internet.access.wanted". Note that such requests aren't looked > kindly upon if posted elsewhere. > > *** 3.2: I NEED A BBS (ON THE INTERNET OR IN MY AREA)! > This is covered extensively in the "alt.bbs.internet" FAQ, available on > the Usenet group "alt.bbs.internet" or via FTP as > rtfm.mit.edu:/pub/usenet/news.answers/inet-bbs-faq.Z > > Also look for information on the Usenet newsgroups > "alt.internet.access.wanted" and "alt.internet.services". Get the PDIAL > list, mentioned at the end of this document. > > Also available is NIXPUB, a listing of over 100 free and pay-for-play > accessible systems. It is posted regularly to the Usenet newsgroups > "comp.misc", "comp.bbs.misc", and "alt.bbs". Retrieval information near > the end of this document. > > Also, for BBS information for your area code or specific interest, FTP > to: > wuarchive.wustl.edu:/mirrors/msdos/bbslists > I check these lists every so often, hoping to find cheaper access, but still no luck. But I agree with Graham Toal that a much better setup would be smarter software on my home PC, with an intelligent protocol for communication with the net service provider. I wouldn't care if it was UUCP, POP, SLIP, or whatever, at this point; it's probably better than semi-automated ZMODEM. I hope that these facilities become more widely available at a price of around $20-$30 a month or less. Paying hundreds of dollars a month for these capabilities is far beyond my budget. I can't understand why England is so far ahead of the U.S. in this regard. No offense intended, but I always thought of their telecommunications and computing infrastructure as being several years behind the U.S. Hal

1 0

Re: OMNI CARD
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This sounds almost identical to the Racal-Guardata Watchword. It's old technology (although making the unit small might be new). I have a Watchword on my desk as I write this. It's a calculator with authentication built in. There's my own DES key inside. To get to it, I enter 1 of 2 PINs. (the second is a "duress PIN" -- works but sounds a warning in the security office, saying that I have a gun to my head, if I use it for a challenge/resp). The system authenticating me gives me a 7-digit challenge number. I enter it and my Watchword gives me a 7-digit response number back. I then give that number to the system -- typed as a password or over the phone to a person. ------- The SecureID (which I carry in my wallet, against directions from the vendor) has my encryption key buried inside along with a calendar clock. Every minute, it encrypts the date and time with my key and displays 6 digits of the result. It has a keypad for entering a PIN which is then added (without carry) to the 6-digit result and that is displayed instead, if I've entered the PIN, for the next 5 minutes. This saves half the protocol (by sync of calendar clocks). - Carl

1 0

Re: Politics on the List?
by dmandl＠lehman.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: sommerfeld(a)orchard.medford.ma.us (Bill Sommerfeld) > > But the vast majority of the 500+ folks on this List are either not > writing crypto code, or are keeping silent about it. > > There are undoubtedly a fair number of the latter; probably better > than 50% of the cypherpunks subscribers I know around here (including > myself) get paid to (among other things) work on software related to > network security through cryptography. I've always had problems with the slogan "Cypherpunks write code." It's a cute pun (if it was intended that way), but I think too many cypherpunks are techie-snobs. Writing code is all well and good, even crucial, but there are plenty of other things that can and should be done to further cypherpunk goals. Many many people have found out about cypherpunk developments through sympathetic articles in Wired, the Village Voice, etc. I've done long interviews with Tim May and Phil Zimmerman on my radio show. (And Perry Metzger and I are going to be giving a talk on crypto anarchy here in NYC in January. This is being sponsored by a local anarchist group. More details on this later.) Everything helps. I was moved to invite Tim May to be on my show last year not because of any beautiful code he'd written, but because I was inspired by some of his political/theoretical writing. You don't have to write cypherpunk code to be a cypherpunk. You don't even have to write code at all. There are plenty of other things to do that are just as important and just as exciting. P.S.: I'm not being defensive. I write code for a living, just not cypherpunk code (yet). --Dave.

1 0

Bandwidth limitations
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <9311121650.AA03375(a)snark.lehman.com> pmetzger(a)lehman.com writes: > The human genome fits nicely in 1GB. Mere Gigabit networks could allow > you to send your whole genome in seconds -- and fiber can do many > orders of magnitude better than that. > > A complete MRI scan can be sent on a gigabit network in mere moments, > too, and again, fiber can do far better than that. > > If you can send a thousand video signals down your fiber at once, > sending complete plans for a factory to build Fords, and the complete > plans for the cars, will likely take a wink of an eye. Perry, I did understand your remark; I don't think you got the point of mine; give me a fiber and a computer fast enough to use it and sufficient disk space, and trust me, I'll find something to fill it with. Capacity increases to fill the available bandwidth/disk space/ whatever. Just because you don't have the imagination to think of how we'll use an essentially new medium in the future, don't write it off already. Here's one suggestion that is quite sensible given vast resources: instead of linear TV, we have parallel TV. I don't mean dial-on-demand download a program - I mean every single program ever made and every single movie ever made are broadcast down fiber simultaneously; - you want to see the 59th episode of Star Trek, you switch to the 59th episode of Star Trek channel, where it's going round and round as fast as it can be transmitted. Now, you do the sums. How much fiber does *that* need? (When you've done that one, add on the volume of transmitting a high-res scan of every page of every book in the world...) This may seem like an outrageous or stupid application *at the moment*, but I guess the guy at Manchester in the 50's who thought his computer would be enough to satisfy the needs of all our Universities over here would have thought that using the entire resources of his 64K giant machine to play Pacman on was totally insane, yet only 30 years later the same power was available in hand-held toys costing $20. G -- Personal mail to gtoal(a)gtoal.com (I read it in the evenings) Business mail to gtoal(a)an-teallach.com (Be careful with the spelling!) Faxes to An Teallach Limited: +44 31 662 4678 Voice: +44 31 668 1550 x212

1 0

Re: Privacy, Property, Cryptography (long)
by doug＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)eff.org> said: >This quotation needs to be debugged a little bit. The actual quotation [...] >as against the government, the right to be let alone--the most [...] >(Note in particular that it's "let," not "left.") It's always nice to get quotations down correctly, but surely the original "let" translates in today's speech to "left"? If not, I'd like to hear about the difference. Doug

2 1

Re: Bandwidth limitations
by Clark Reynard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perry writes: [Elegant refutation of all examples I give in original article.] Point taken. Obviously, I took a few elementary examples, which are quite achievable even today. Perhaps some true bandwidth stretchers: Complete maps of all the known universe, with spectrographic assays, gravitational information, particle densities, motion/vector analysis of areas of high matter concentration, spin and orbital velocity graphs, etc. being zipped back and forth between relay satellites, earthbound observatories, and individuals needing such information. Complete records of all genomes of all humans born after this becomes standard. Copyright information, and rights transfers for all living humans; what portions of the genome are for sale, or if replication is prohibited. Perhaps black market genes will be hid, steganographically, in horrendously large files which appear to be garden variety vr porn. Voiceprints and retina scans for all living and dead human beings. Increasingly-detailed weather maps, down to the molecular level. Of course, what actually will happen will probably be stranger. When we had parchment, we had very narrow bandwidth, with very little to transmit.. Today, we have wide bandwidth, but a lot more ways to use it. I'm sure someone will find a way to use vast chunks of it; until we need come to a new standard. ---- Robert W. F. Clark PGP Key Available Upon Request rclark(a)nyx.cs.du.edu clark(a)metal.psu.edu

1 0