December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Prime number tests
by nobody＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, there is one prime number test which NEVER fails, and that is that (n-1)!+1 mod n is zero for all primes, and non-zero for all non-primes. ;-)

1 0

Re: CyberPsyOps and Media
by schirado＠lab.cc.wmich.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is it really fucking necessary to write long, involved essays expounding on the exact reasons one is placing someone in thier killfile? Not only is it unnecssary, it's extremely rude.

1 0

Re: Prime number tests
by Peter Murphy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Would you be able to show me a reference? Peter Murphy <pkm(a)maths.uq.oz.au>

1 0

MATH: number theory
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- All right, more people have joined the number theory fun! Somebody other than myself posted: > Well, there is one prime number test which NEVER fails, and that is > that (n-1)!+1 mod n is zero for all primes, and non-zero for all > non-primes. ;-) To which Peter Murphy asks: > Would you be able to show me a reference? I can, and I'm sure the original poster can as well. Any book on number theory should have Wilson's theorem; the second theorem isn't too difficult to prove. The first part of the above statement is a direct result of Wilson's theorem, which I posted in an earlier statement. A recap: Wilson's theorem: for any prime p, (p-1)! = -1 mod p ==> (p-1)! + 1 = 0 mod p See "Elementary Number Theory and its Applications" page 185. As a consequence of Wilson's theorem: for a composite number n, (n-1)! = 0 mod n, except for n = 4 (for n = 4 you get 2) ==> (n-1)! + 1 != 0 mod n For a proof, see "Number Theory and its History" page 261. Hm. hope nobody is getting confused between the factorial notation and C language "not equals" operator. More extensive bibliographic information is available (authors, publishers, etc.) if you want. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLatmAIOA7OpLWtYzAQFGLAQAlFv9mBD1+T4S8QB7zb+KZlhUtsIzEFH5 CvNw45V1kzbEMp4ydopbcyI9AmkODMZZdaW+lexUPJANqMCf7irb9bG0Jom//711 mvPEZmyVSMTBz33eAA6RSu+mQaaL7Ek1BE64iDXCJFkSyUy2x18Q9+APQ29AaMpH NG6FIbO/Ex8= =FjqL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

NBC News Tomorrow
by Jeff Davis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Brokaw's producer just interviewed me via email and will call in the AM. Good night to watch NBC News tomorrow. The woman in LA I talked to tonight got a hell of an education. When she thanked me for it, I told her it was part of my job to educate as an EFF member, and I credited cypherpunks with a lot of my education. Don't give up yet. When the American public finds out they got fucked out of their right to privacy 4 Feburary and nobody even bothered to ask them about it, I think they're going to be really PISSED. -- PGP PUBLIC KEY via finger! JAFEFFM Speaking & Thinking For Myself! * eagle(a)deeptht.armory.com email info(a)eff.org * *** O U T L A W S On The E L E C T R O N I C F R O N T I E R **** ***** Committed to Free Public Internet Access for World Peace *****

2 1

Another reason for anonymity
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The first defamation suit involving the Usenet is described in a post that apparently first appeared in misc.legal.moderated, and then cross-posted into comp.org.eff.talk and alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk. (I won't include it here, though I've ended up writing enough about it that I should've just forwarded the whole thing to Cypherpunks!) It involves a professor denied tenure (and dismissed) at the University of Western Australia. Dept. of Archaeology, or similar. The defendant made some comments last summer about the incompetence of this professor (an ex-American, by the way), his habit of holding "Puppy parties" with a local boy named "Puppy" as the chief entertainment, his drinking exploits, and so on. I read the attacking post and thought it somewhat more extreme than most Usenet comments. But not by much. (And certainly comparable to the various posts Detweiler made calling various people sodomites, spies, terrorists, and so on.) Anyway, the attacked professor (no longer at UWA, for the tenure reasons cited above) filed a suit, the defendant chose not to show up for the trial, and the judge recently issued his decision: AU$40,000 to the defendent, plus 8% annual interest to have begun September 1993. Read the article to see what may be coming, in spades. Of course, our legal minds here on Cypherpunks may be able to tell us how likely such cases are to go this way in America. I can't say. More reasons for anonymity, if one truly believes free speech should be just that, unencumbered by charges of "defamation" and "damage." In the Australian case, either the professor is "upstanding" (think of Richard Feynman, for example), in which case the charges would just bounce off (while I'm no Feynman, in any sense, those "sodomite" charges of Detweiler I just shrugged off) or there's some substance to the charges (i.e., he was a dissipated, pedophilic lech, who neglected his research). Draw your own conclusions. Anonymity has its problems, but it also allows discourse to be somewhat isolated from the idiosyncrasies of the law. And of course, in my view, it it completely kosher (I wanted to say "exculpatory," as I fell into the rhythm of legal lingo, but I'd probably be misusing the word terribly) for anonymous forums to basically say: "This is a forum that allows anonymity and pseudonymous speech. If this offends you, stay out. If you want to file a lawsuit based on some insult you hear in this forum, good luck and fat chance of winning!" But then I'm a free speech radical. (What about shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater? Let those who see there's no fire beat the shit out of the twerp who shouted "Fire!" Seems fair to me.) --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 3

US Constitution online
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jeff Davis <eagle(a)deeptht.armory.com>: > For one thing, I suggest that everyone have a refferance with the > Constitution with in arms reach of their terminals. Or *on* their terminals: ftp://wiretap.spies.com/Gov/World/usa.con The same directory contains constitutions and charters of many countries, from Chian to Slovakia, as well as the covenant of the Hamas, and the Magna Carta. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh "What is civilisation rishab(a)doe.ernet.in, rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in but a ribonucleic Voicemail +91 11 3760335; Vox/Fax/Data 6853410 hangover?" H-34C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

State------>Market Actor
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Yet another data point for tracking the conversion of governments to market actors from last week's Economist: On March 24th at the behest of the Mexican government, the SEC ordered US securities markets to suspend trading in the shares of Mexican companies after the recent political assasination. The NYSE complied. The NASDAQ refused. Shares started trading with a one-hour delay. "With finance globalized, governments can seldom block the operation of markets. Nor should they try to. Few would now suggest closing the foreign-exchange markets, as in the 1960s. In a 24-hour global market, traders and investors could simply shift their business elsewhere." DCF "We'd better hope that strong cypto, cheap telecoms and free markets can provide the organizing basis for a workable society because it is clear that coercion as an organizing principle ain't what it used to be." --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165

1 0

response to tmp
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- tmp offers some thoughts on a "position" paper by Hal Finney: >> The level of anarchy will inevitably increase as larger numbers of >> people acquire net access. > it seems to me that the cypherpunks already have a name for the kind > of anarchy that can happen when somebody uses pseudonyms to harass and > cause trouble. that word is `detweiler'. do you really know what I don't think Hal is implying all the new people that acquire net access will harass and cause trouble. > hal argues below that `you already know nothing about the people you > interact with on the net' and that `anonymous remailers introduce no > more problems than are already present on the net'. these seem to me > to be flawed arguments. here's why. > [story about going to a party] > 1. [do we really want an online environment where identity is as > transitory as a nym on IRC?] > 2. [it seems that identity is intrinsic] > 3. [anonymous remailers] But see, you are taking things to extremes. Anonimity has its purposes; in some situtations it is valuable, in others it isn't. I should be able to be anonymous if I so desire. 1. Do you want a real life where identity is permanent and accessible to everybody? Where you carry an assortment of cards totally indexing your life and all activities, so in case you meet new people they can quickly be brought up on the sum total of your existence? 2. Identity is instrinsic. How true; by the way, what is yours? I find it incongruous for you to be railing against anonymity and privacy when you yourself hide behind them. 3. Anonymous remailers are just PARTS of a solution; the rest involves digital signatures and reputation systems. I say anonymity is valuable, and to this end, anonymous remailers are valuable. Part of the reason I am loathe to get involved in a detailed discussion with you is that I suspect you are like David Sternlight or Larry Detweiler ** of course, not that I am implying you are either of these people but I have found in the past the both have a tendency to ignore various questions they find "inconvenient" for example, I once cited several instances of real life cases of pseudonymous activity (whatever Mr. Detweiler called them) and another that demonstrates the value of anonymity. Mr. Detweiler swept these under the rug and by and large ignored them! Of course, since I am not implying you are Mr. Detweiler, after all, he is of a philosophical camp in which anonymity and identity hiding is bad. He certainly wouldn't rejoin this list under a name any other that his real one. Thus I conclude you aren't familiar with my previous examples. > but is it the case that all cypherpunks can say they have never > tried to censor anyone by notes to sysadmins, i.e. of detweiler? I think you are confusing censorship with association. Just because I no longer wish to read Mr. Detweiler's rants and raves, and report activity such as various threats to his sysadmin, doesn't mean censorship. > the cypherpunk vision seems to split the world into two groups: > those people i trust (my friends) and everyone else (whom i completely > distrust with intense paranoia). this is a very xenophobic and > chauvinistic philosophy at heart. You need to get off your extreme analogies. For certain interactions, dividing the world into "trusted" and "non trusted" partitions is necessary; for others, it isn't. I don't see the cypherpunks vision as dividing everything into the extreme case. > for example, it seems to me you cypherpunks have a very important > agenda, but you seem to be extremists. the important goal is `defining Hah, you should examine some of your opinions, I find them just as extreme in the other direction. Always citing the worst case scenario, the extreme position, etc. > so what the cypherpunks might consider is a less extremist > elucidation of what `privacy' means. for example, cypherpunks, what > information should a bank be allowed to have on you when you go in to > request a loan? what should companies be allowed to do with credit > histories, and what rights does the individual have to influence them? I agree with this summary, these are concerns all of us have (privacy, etc.) > if you continue to insist that `nobody should know who i am' i fear > you will be bypassed by more sophisticated groups that have a less > polarized view of issues of identity and privacy. and it will The point of anonymity is to allow you to express these "unpopular" views without fear of reprisal. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLawB7oOA7OpLWtYzAQGkbQP/V8pFmSgppjJHp4ZiyXa8H9dabadJZjEz qYpkTjiQtEbxZJOSPKFbIvBeqFDVSXIpIFmP8HIUJny/Q3Gv5dK7GLTmPzBDGjpl sIwEartietpwjdl0H7s5AOfMSMrD+UKwpvsW5gqAXuR1ec0fBdICS9oKCdZDQeFO y0z3RZuvrF0= =Nef2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Clipper Chips in video descramblers
by Dave Banisar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There was also a recent news item that they were being investigated for anti-trust actions. Sounds like a pretty good incentive to me.... -dave > Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 14:51:19 -0400 (EDT) > From: Joe Thomas <jthomas> > Subject: Re: Clipper Chips in video descramblers > To: David Koontz <koontzd(a)lrcs.loral.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > In-Reply-To: <9404121822.AA28517(a)io.lrcs.loral.com> > Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9404121422.A8147-0100000(a)access1.digex.net> Mime- > Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Precedence: bulk > > On Tue, 12 Apr 1994, David Koontz wrote: > > > Recently someone posted reference to GI (General Instruments) getting > > authority to use Clipper chips in descramblers. One wonders about > > motivation on their part. > > Maybe they were "suitably incentivized..." > > Joe >

1 0