December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

speeding detected by civilians
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hate to start another endless thread on speeding limits, but this is an interesting privacy anecdote... hope this hasn't been posted here. === From: "Steven M. Horvath" <horvath(a)comm.mot.com> Subject: Speeder's Beware of Vernon Hills, IL. To: snet-l <snet-l(a)world.std.com> - - -------- FYI------------------FYI--------------------FYI----------------- Vernon Hills, IL. Vernon Hills, Illinois, a Chicago suburb, has passed legislation allowing citizens to check out radar guns from the local police department to catch speeders in their community. The radar guns are combined with cameras in order to instantaneously capture the car, license number, and the rate of speed. The citizens can check out the units for a week at a time. The police have stated that they, at this time, will use the data to issue warning letters to the violaters. - ------- End of Forwarded Message ------- End of Forwarded Message

5 4

RE: Fight, or Roll Over?
by Pat Farrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message Thu, 13 Jul 1995 02:41:12 -0800, cman(a)communities.com (Douglas Barnes) writes: > Since the Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995 might as well > be called the "Anti-Cypherpunk Act of 1995", I'm surprised to see > Tim throw in the towel already, when the bill hasn't even made it > through committee yet. OK, lets start some traditional politics. Anyone know what commitee has jurisdiction? Then the next step is who is on the commitee? Then which cypherpunks are constituents of the commitee members? At least some on the list write software for a living, or run ISPs and this could effect their livelihood. Talk economic impact, not buzzwords like "freedom" and apple pie. Pat Pat Farrell Grad Student http://www.isse.gmu.edu/students/pfarrell Info. Systems & Software Engineering, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA PGP key available on homepage #include <standard.disclaimer>

1 0

Re: Suing/Reputations (was: Root Causes)
by merriman＠arn.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thus did FrogFarm (?? :-) bespake: ... <legal cites excised> ... This sounds like what I was thinking of. Dave Merriman This is a test (3 UUE lines) of the unconstitutional ITAR - 1/713th of the PGP executable. See below for getting YOUR chunk! ------------------ PGP.ZIP Part [015/713] ------------------- M=$<(&L`#*IPP",(G6(,,S,`P](<2RWU96XCW86/JBYV8A\D8@X'HB_9H#&\X MX'PCUB.,13B"X8`R?^J-:UB.M_`U\>[#)BS&5$0C,Y#^1CS>1`\T1QTXX6!3 M8H,),S$8G>&.WP(8IRA`-M['+`Q%&_C"">5-F%LX@<_Q$;*P'',Q$Z/AA[8M ------------------------------------------------------------- for next chunk to export --> http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/export/

1 0

OTP server..
by Doug Hughes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How about WWW one time pad servers? You browse to your favorite OTP server, which has a random number generator running in the background. You tell it to give you a block of X bytes, and mail it to persons 1, 2, 3, ... N. These people then use this OTP for encrypting a document. It wouldn't be illegal because you aren't encoding any data and distributing it.. You're generating raw data. You wouldn't have to distribute any crypto software, you just xor your data file with the number of bytes that you were sent in the mail from the OTP server.. Enough of these things would be REALLY tough to monitor.. Plus, you could connect 8 different times and just pick one of the sets.. Or you could just use a portion of the set that you and the receiving party agreed upon. Or, instead of using email, you could have a application/x-otp browser that would collect the OTP that the server sent out to you over HTTP. (this would be really hard to differentiate from other data if the server was doing other things at the same time). Thoughts? Doug Hughes Engineering Network Services doug(a)eng.auburn.edu Auburn University

2 2

Root Causes
by merriman＠arn.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- While I respect the ideas and opinions submitted by the majority of the members of this list, I wonder if perhaps we're failing to deal with the _root_ problem of such things as the CDA, Clipper, DTA, etc. Specifically, I wonder if it wouldn't be a better approach to *prevent* such measures from ever being proposed in the first place. (pause to adjust nomex undies and titanium body armor :-) Is there any precedence or possibility of either filing civil or criminal charges against a Government official for their _official_ actions? Something that will not only make for some Serious Press, but hit them from an unexpected angle? (close hatch on bunker :-) It would seem that things such as the CDA, etc, are patent violations of the Bill of Rights. As such, wouldn't the Congressrodent(s) proposing such measures be violating our civil rights, and thus be criminally liable? Aren't Congressrodents supposed to take an Oath of Office that involves upholding the Constitution? Alternatively, could a civil suit be filed for invasion of privacy or somesuch? Or perhaps the previously mentioned violation of civil rights (a la Rodney King)? How many laws, etc, can we invoke? I mean, most congresscritters don't craft laws on their own, so the involvement of their staff would constitute conspiracy, as well, wouldn't it? I'd think that if a few of the <insert favorite expletive here> were sued and/or tried, it would sure make the rest of them consider the full implications of any laws they might consider proposing. Too, it might accidentally ripple through all of the Government, and settle down some of the beaurocrats that aren't subject to voters. IANAL, of course, so I'll leave it up to those on the list who are to express more informed opinions; still, it _seems_ like a possible course of action..... Dave Merriman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMAWqT8VrTvyYOzAZAQFPiwQAluzkD3H+AcUFr7qNhf84I7Y3FNB27Lxc jQQ5UQnYgvQpHhlExJGmxDjebbOgbOik5Xu2KoQYbdutc/LBWHN6OzfLWim9jWwq C1nKEnDUo1jKQ+LcsV0/TGrwKPUYVnOhswZPydn50xnKF3KuW17RnXFeYJi+DTdZ D3YtxRa2shc= =JiVo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- This is a test (3 UUE lines) of the unconstitutional ITAR - 1/713th of the PGP executable. See below for getting YOUR chunk! ------------------ PGP.ZIP Part [015/713] ------------------- M=$<(&L`#*IPP",(G6(,,S,`P](<2RWU96XCW86/JBYV8A\D8@X'HB_9H#&\X MX'PCUB.,13B"X8`R?^J-:UB.M_`U\>[#)BS&5$0C,Y#^1CS>1`\T1QTXX6!3 M8H,),S$8G>&.WP(8IRA`-M['+`Q%&_C"">5-F%LX@<_Q$;*P'',Q$Z/AA[8M ------------------------------------------------------------- for next chunk to export --> http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/export/

6 6

Re: LD tentacle?
by Rich Salz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: jbass(a)dmsd.com (John L. Bass) He is a long-long-time Unix hacker. Designed the first file-locking stuff (flock?) and gave it away to the Unix community. Last I heard was working on high-performance filesystems. /r$

1 0

MYS_fit
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

7-14-95. NYPaper Page Oner, longish: "2 Groups of Physicists Produce Matter That Einstein Postulated." By chilling a cloud of atoms to a temperature barely above absolute zero, scientists at a Colorado laboratory have at last created a bizarre type of matter that had eluded experimenters ever since its potential existence was postulated by Albert Einstein 70 years ago. The creation of this Bose-Einstein condensate -- named for Einstein, and the Indian theorist Satyendra Nath Bose -- was hailed yesterday as the basis of a new field of research expected to explain some fundamental mysteries of atomic physics. A Texas group later produced similar results. The achievement should allow physicists to peer directly into the realm of the ultrasmall. MYS_fit [This was also reported in The Economist of July 1.]

1 0

Legislation question...
by Phil Fraering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I may be a bit behind the times, but I have a question about the "ban crypto-anarchy" legislation as well as the Exon amendment: Isn't legislation in this country supposed to start in the House and _then_ move to the Senate for approval? Why are all of these bills going in the opposite direction? Phil

4 3

Re: Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995 (fwd)
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:53 PM 7/13/95 -0400, Ray Arachelian wrote: >> Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to introduce the >> Anti-electronic Racketeering Act of 1995. This bill makes important changes >> to RICO and criminalizes deliberately using computer technology to engage in >> criminal activity. I believe this bill is a reasonable, measured and strong >> response to a growing problem. According to the computer emergency and >> response team at Carnegie-Mellon University, during 1994, about 40,000 >> computer users were attacked. Virus hacker, the FBI's national computer >> crime squad has investigated over 200 cases since 1991. So, computer crime is >> clearly on the rise. > >Eh, what do "virus hackers" have to do with encryption, why is it these >morons justify the destruction of encryption by mentioning hackers and >viruses? You're parsing the title wrong. It's an act to support racketeering through opposition to electronic communications. What viruses have to do with encryption is that encryption makes it easier to prevent viruses, and Senator Grassley wants to stop that. And the term "strong" was used in its correct engineering meaning, as in "It's a vessel of fertilizer which is very strong and promotes growth". >> Mr. President, I suppose that some of this is just natural. Whenever man >> develops a new technology, that technology will be abused by some. And that >> is why I have introduced this bill. Yup. Quite so. >> Computer fraud accounts for the loss of millions of dollars per year. And >> often times, there is little that can be done about this because the computer >> used to commit the crimes is located overseas. So, under my bill, overseas >> computer users who employ their computers to commit fraud in the United >> States would be fully subject to the Federal criminal laws. Hey, Julf, we've got your number! And we're making sure nobody's got any encryption to prevent fraud with. >> Mr. President, this brave new world of electronic communications and global >> computer networks holds much promise. But like almost anything, there is the >> potential for abuse and harm. That is why I urge my colleagues to support >> this bill and that is why I urge industry to support this bill. As above. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, Freelance Information Architect, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com

2 1

The end of public key cryptography as we know it?
by Doug Hughes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An article posted on sci.crypt stated that quantum factoring is real and that an article was posted in this month's Science magazine. The author of the post says this would make factoring a 10 bit number the same time as factoring a 100000000 bit number. A wonder how long it is before every major government in the world has one of these. Makes RSA's future kind of moot doesn't it?? I definitely have to read this article, but I thought I'd post it here for those that weren't aware or that hadn't heard. I wonder how long it will take before they can figure out how to do this for other computationally intensinve problems like N-th roots. (To make Diffie Hellman moot as well). It's beginning to seem that mathematically challenging algorithms aren't going to be that challenging for long. I have no details other than what is posted here. Perhaps somebody could post a better synopsis than what was in sci.crypt? (I plan on reading it for myself anyway, which I imagine most other people here will be doing as soon as they can) Doug Hughes Engineering Network Services doug(a)eng.auburn.edu Auburn University

3 2