December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: LPC for speech (fwd)
by loki＠nately.UCSD.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

:Forwarded message: :>From jp12745(a)coewl.cen.uiuc.edu Fri Dec 10 14:46:07 1993 :From: Jeffrey Wayne Porter <jp12745(a)coewl.cen.uiuc.edu> :Message-Id: <199312102045.AA16812(a)eehpx21.cen.uiuc.edu> :Subject: LPC for speech :To: jerry(a)terminus.dell.com (Jeremy Porter) :Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 14:45:49 -0600 (CST) :X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] :Content-Type: text :Content-Length: 948 : :Did you know that using LPC (linear predictive coding) on speech can :near-telephone quality at only 8 k BITs/second? With a signficant :decrease in quality (but still very understandable... probably better :than radio) you can get the rate down to 2kbps. If you don't mind :sounding like a speak&spell, you can go to 600bps or less. : : :Using LPC, you could send real-time voice over the :internet. It would even work (maybe just barely) over a SLIP :connection. According to my professor, LPC can be implemented :in a simple DSP chip, so I figure a 486 ought to be able to :handle it, too. Sound like an interesting (granted maybe not :too useful) project? It would be a way of providing secure :voice communications -- LPC code the speech, encrypt the data :stream, transmit via v.32bis modem, etc. :-- :-------------------------------------------------------------------- :Jeff Porter :jporter@uiuc.edu TA: ECE 290..."ph Jeff Porter" for office hours : : :-- :Jeremy Porter ------------- Systems Engineering -------- :Dell Computer Corp. ------ jerry(a)terminus.us.dell.com ---- :--- 70 4F BD AE 6D E9 D2 66 48 18 8B E7 64 7F 59 8F --- :Support your Second Amendment rights to encryption technology. : I am working on this very thing. We will be using LPC encoding for compression, IDEA for encryption, and DH key exchange for key handling. We plan to use something better than DH ASAP (something less vulnerable to man in the middle attacks). We plan to use 14.4kbps transmission speed. Lance

2 1

Improved DH system.
by loki＠nately.UCSD.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have been told that there is a new improved version of DH key exchange, which is authenticated. Could someone give me the reference, and/or tell me what it is all about?........ Diffie?? I was not clear on what it is that I am working on. We are trying to build a cheep secure phone for the masses (read brainless). We are looking for black box brainless operation. I will provide more info about the project on request. ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell who does not speak for CASS/UCSD loki(a)nately.ucsd.edu PGP 2.3 key available by finger or server. "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ----------------------------------------------------------

1 0

ALERT: FBI's Wiretap Bill is Back!
by Stanton McCandlish 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Digital Telephony Threat Returns According to FBI Dir. Louis Freeh, the development of sophisticated digital telecom and networking technology threatens the ability of the Feds to wiretap. In a Dec. 8 speech at Washington's National Press Club, Freeh annouced a renewal of the FBI's 'Digital Telephony' legislation scheme: the return of the controverial 'Wiretap Bill'. The bill is strongly opposed by organizations and individuals concerned about privacy, as well as the telecommunications and computing industries at large. The FBI's 'need' for this legislative action is under review by the Administration as part of it's examination of security and encryption issues. The reappearance of this Bureau effort contradicts statements by Special Agent Barry Smith of the FBI's Congressional Affairs Office, who stated less than a month ago that the 'Wiretap Bill' had been tabled. According to classified documents released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the FBI and the Electronic Communications Service Provider Committee or ECSPC (an ad hoc industry working group, which formed in March), are attempting to decide if technical solutions can be found to satisify law enforcement. According to a Nynex representative co-chairing the group, Kenneth Raymond, no solution has yet been found, but that FBI has yet to prove any solution is needed at all. Raymond likened Freeh's tactics to "yelling out the window" - an attention-getting move that needs some sort of clarifying followup. Though the ECSPC claims to be attempting to evaluate the problem and to solve it "in some reasonable way that is consistent with cost and demand", Raymond indicated that the group considers one 'solution' to be building wiretap access into future telecom hardware - like the Clipper chip backdoor, but a 'feature' of all switch specifications for phone and data lines. This news was just received, and a more detailed analysis and statement from EFF will follow soon. -- Stanton McCandlish mech(a)eff.org 1:109/1103 EFF Online Activist & SysOp O P E N P L A T F O R M C R Y P T O P O L I C Y O N L I N E R I G H T S N E T W O R K I N G V I R T U A L C U L T U R E I N F O : M E M B E R S H I P @ E F F . O R G

1 0

Re: value of privacy?
by baumbach＠atmel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> example, it doesn't _hurt_ me to get targeted junk mail, but I find it > unsettling that direct marketers know enough about me to send the 'right' > mail. I see it this way; 'they' make decisions about me and initiate a > relationship with me without my knowledge or consent. The relationship is > artificial and uneven; 'they' know more about me than I know about 'them'. An idea that I have never used, but was suggested to me by my father, goes like this: RING RING me: Hello ??: Mr. Peter Baumbach, I am calling from ICK inc. to offer you .. me: Excuse me, but I am busy right now. Could you give me your name and home phone number, and I will call you back later? ??: Huh? I can't give you my home number, that's private. me: But you know my name and number. This hardly seems fair.

1 0

Re: value of privacy?
by Dave Hart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I use a variation on the below whenever I get a telemarketer calling -- but instead of asking for the home number, I just ask for their number, meaning work number. Amazingly, it's very effective. Apparently outbound telemarketers often don't want to get inbound phone calls. ---------- | From: <netmail!baumbach(a)atmel.com> | | An idea that I have never used, but was suggested to me by my father, goes | like this: | | RING RING | | me: Hello | | ??: Mr. Peter Baumbach, I am calling from ICK inc. to offer you .. | | me: Excuse me, but I am busy right now. Could you give me your name and | home phone number, and I will call you back later? | | ??: Huh? I can't give you my home number, that's private. | | me: But you know my name and number. This hardly seems fair. | |

1 0

LPC for speech (fwd)
by jerry＠terminus.dell.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message:

3 2

Re: ALERT: FBI's Wiretap Bill is Back!
by Brock N. Meeks 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Geez, Stanton, if you're going to rip off my story, you might want to give me some credit... or isn't EFF's self-proclaimed "Online Activist and Sysop" into proper journalistic practices of attributing where he gets his information. Just to clear things up, Stanton's message is a poorly rewritten copy of an article I wrote for _Communications Daily_ that ran on Dec. 9. The comments by FBI agent Barry Smith and Ken Raymond were made to me during one-on-one interviews, not open press conferences. There's no way you could have these quotes or this information Stanton unless you first read my story. Next time try giving credit where it's due... Or steal your information from someone not on the Net. Brock Meeks Reporter Communications Daily

1 0

Re: Improved DH system.
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Unfortunately, you can't really do a brainless black box phone with security that's much better than Diffie-Hellman (The "send half the key at a time" variant is somewhat better, but still can be tampered with.) The problem is that to do better security, you need some way to authenticate the Diffie-Hellman exchange. One way is to have a display on the phone which shows the data received, and read it to the other person (which is secure, but not brainless). Another way is to use digital signatures such as RSA on the Diffie-Hellman key parts, which requires some mechanism for users to create keys and distribute them securely, also non-brainless. One way to do this would be to use a central key-distribution server, perhaps based on phone serial number or telephone number or whatever, but that requires a lot of complexity, extra phone calls, etc.; this compromises a certain amount of security, though if it's implemented well enough to be non-spoofable, the major risks are the insecurity that comes from registration and the ability of people who compromise the keyserver (i.e. the government or keyserver-operator) to send incorrect public keys to wiretap victims allowing man-in-the-middle attacks. Another way that's not quite brainless would be to have public keys generated in the phone for signatures, and allow users who want to to exchange keys; you could build some relative of an automatic web of trust if you put enough memory in the phones, but then you'd have to provide memory management etc. which is distinctly not in the brainless category. Bill

1 0

Privacy as a Commodity
by Michael Edward Marotta 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

SOME OBSERVATIONS AND THOUGHTS ON PRIVACY AS A COMMODITY by Michael E. Marotta <mercury(a)well.sf.ca.us> About a year ago, maybe less, Kevin Kelly suggested that privacy is or could be a commodity. It was on The Well in the EFF Conference on another topic entirely. He just dropped this bomb. I suggested a Loompanics article and he said he didn't have time but that I was welcome to develop the idea. So I proposed "Privacy as a Commodity" to Computers Privacy and Freedom (CPF94) in Chicago. Frank Lloyd Wright said that privacy is the hallmark of civilization. He built his houses to ensure the privacy of the occupants. He pointed to the village as an environment without privacy. Today we say that we live in a global village. Therefore, the expectation of privacy is inappropriate. However, there is a lot of history between the first permanent settlement today's worldwide community. Merchant princes graced several ages. Metropolitan and cosmopolitan cities developed new patterns of interaction. Quite likely, the demand for privacy is relatively recent. There is a quote from Leonardo da Vinci: "When you are alone you are all your own." A brief look the pre-Socratics (ed., Honderich) reveals no discussions even remotely approaching "natural rights" from which privacy would be deduced or infered. Plato's "Republic" is well known. Tonight, discussing the ancient world with another numismatist, he pointed out that accumulations of wealth were virtually impossible before Roman Law. The Athenians (and others) would ostracize anyone simply for being personally successful and therefore a potential threat. Neither of us could identify the general who defeated the Persians and was rewarded with exile. In such an environment, a plea for privacy would be ludicrous or even lunatic. We have the saying in English: "A man's home is his castle." The Magna Carta (1215) had many provisions limiting the power of the crown and upholding the rights of free people (somewhat different for men than woman). Typical of them is this: "No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go or send against him, except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land." That sentiment continues today. However, force of arms is not the appropriate medium for securing your expectations of privacy. The Magna Carta limited the power of the state. It did not address problems of peer review and peer pressure. The best arrangements we have that work among equals are agoric. The marketplace depends on voluntary agreements for personal profit. The successful merchant doesn't argue religion with the client. ("Religion" of course includes art, politics, sports and anything else not proximate to supply, demand and price.) In this sense, privacy is inherent in the market. Today, however, we buy and sell information about people. If you buy a new automobile, you are a potential client for insurance, if not for a Caribbean vacation. Since the problem is agoric, the solution must be agoric: you will have to invest in objects or processes that show their return in increased privacy for you. It is possible that there is another set of solutions. There may be something beyond politics and the market. For instance, it is possible that a philosophical revolution will cause us to freely give information we now hide if we choose to merge with the Great All. No doubt still other paths exist. Be that as it may, for now, market solutions seem the best way to address problems in privacy.

3 2

Re: Improved DH system.
by loki＠nately.UCSD.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, you seem to have summerised our thoughts on the matter exactly. We are thinking about sticking a bunch of memory in the phone and keeping track of the last ,say 100, phones called and the public keys that they used. One could use the readback to certify the keys. Some sort of KCA could also be invoked. We are designing the system for easy upgrade and modification. Lance

1 0