December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Rights are on the CP agenda
by Phil G. Fraering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Perry, I would suggest that you leave the list if you don't like it. Your >only contributions have been snide little flames, anyway. >tw Hmm, werner(a)mc.ab.com. Tim Werner. Let me fire up nn... Okay, setting for ten days... (1st offence)... Plonk!

1 0

Re. FBI & CIA
by Brad Dolan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)access.digex.net> >Subject: Re: CIA & FBI, a marriage made in ___? >To: 71431.2564(a)CompuServe.COM (Bradley W. Dolan) >Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 22:06:25 -0400 (ADT) > >> >> >> Does it concern anybody besides me that the CIA [with a bunch of >> underemployed manpower] is jumping into bed with the FBI [whose >> spokesman recently testified to Congress that they didn't have >> enough manpower to enforce the Crime Bill on us]? > > >Yes it bothers me, but not for the reasons that you think. > >First, be careful about characterizing the change as the CIA >jumping in bed with the FBI. What is really happening is that >the FBI is taking over some of the counterintelligence functions >of the CIA. [...] > >Believe me, the CIA is more upset about it than >you are. They are hardly "jumping into bed" with anyone. Bent over a >chair is more like it. O.K., so it's rape. They're still in bed together. And I don't think I'm going to like the progeny. >The usurpation of CIA's CI functions bothers me because of the doctrinal >distinction, not because it empowers the FBI. Both aspects bother me. Further empowerment of the FBI bothers me more. >> >> Does it make anybody nervous besides me that this is occurring >> at the same time that the 2ond and 4th amendments are being >> dispensed with? While the Clipper chip and digital telephony >> bill are being foisted on us? > >Yes it makes me nervous, but not for the reasons you think. > >See below. > >> Is there a trend here? > >Yes. I'm not sure if my version is close to yours, however. > Opposite side of the same coin, I think. You worry (correctly) that a politicized intelligence/law enforcement establishment won't be very good at intelligence/law enforcement. I worry that it may become good at something else. > >The trend is to use the intelligence and federal law enforcement agencies >for domestic politics. The NSA to promote the economic regulation of the >crypto market. The FBI to further the executive's domestic survell. >technology agenda, and put out the crime fire at home. The CIA to >demonstrate, via a parade of horrors, how bad the problem is, and be the fall >guy for the FBI. [...] >This is a perversion. I discussed this before on the list and in usenet. >Using the NSA as a public relations tool to the degree you see today is >an idea that only the intelli-clueless Clinton would think of. >Intelligence and law enforcement are not the President's personal program >advocates. >It detracts from real business and it destroys the >credibility of the agencies in the eyes of the public. Yes >This makes it hard for real business to be addressed. Yes >I have the greatest respect for the office of the Presidency, however. If I keep an image of Washington or Jefferson firmly fixed in mind, I can maintain just a shred of respect. >-uni- (Dark) bd

1 0

Re: Gee...
by Phil G. Fraering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Gee, how about getting arrested for exporting munitions? That'll happen with the book'o'barcodes too, and you can't use an anonymous remailer for that. Phil

1 0

Re: Milgram & Authority
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Duncan Frissell Privacy 101 - < daily affirmation from DF deleted > --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165 ......................................................... What does "WinQwk 2.0b#1165" stand for? Blanc

1 0

Publishing code books
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > Someone in Cypherpunks has a novel solution: print code in the most > easily OCRable font---I think the suggestion was that OCR-A and OCR-B, > or somesuch, are optimized for this (one would think so from the > names, but I had thought they had something to do with the magnetic > ink printing on checks...). > > I'm sure Schneier would be entertain the idea of a special > "exportable" version of his code in which purchasers paid the $30 he > charges and received a loose-leaf book of very neatly and precisely > printed code, ready for easy OCRing. I think that it's a great idea for enterprising cypherpunk publishers to print "exportable versions of restricted code." There should be a good market, whether or not code is OCR-able. There may be a lot of unavailable code that could be worth typing. As a matter of fact, any plain font OCRs very well. The costs of such publishing would be very low, and I for one wouldn't mind paying >$50 for such 'code books'. Phil Karn <karn(a)qualcomm.com> wrote: > Oh come on, all this talk about OCR makes it sound like nobody would ever > be willing to just type in the code by hand. It only need be done once, > and the task could easily be divided up for a group. The listings for any > particular cipher just aren't that long. But the listings for a library of ciphers are. Besides OCRs are quite good nowadays, you don't really have to print in an OCR font. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in Voicemail +91 11 3760335; Vox/Fax/Data 6853410 H-34C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA The National Short-Sleeved Shirt Association says: Support your right to bare arms! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 3

Re: Gee...
by juola＠bruno.cs.colorado.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Gee, how about getting arrested for exporting munitions? That'll happen with the book'o'barcodes too, and you can't use an anonymous remailer for that. I believe that's the question under discussion -- whether or not a book'o'barcodes would pass under the ITAR regulations. Given that the book itself passes (has already passed), what changes would need to be made so that the book could still be exported but be much easier to enter into a machine than having to retype the whole thing. Patrick

1 0

Liberating Schneier's Code?
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In typical Cypherpunks fashion, we are beating this one to death! (How else can we keep our message traffic high enough to keep using the Cypherpunks list as a plaintext channel to carry messages stego'ed in the right-hand margins?) - some want the source code printed in OCRable form - some just want it typed in by volunteers and then distributed - and others are expecting the Karns case to get the export situation resolved soon enough anyway Need I point out that the source code already exists in machine-readable form on the $30 disketter Schneier is selling? All it takes is for someone to order it, then put the code on an ftp site. Outside the U.S. And there are of course _many_ ways to get such a diskette outside the U.S. "This post is for disussion purposes only and is not to be construed as an inducement to infringe the property rights of Schneier or his publisher or to violate the ITAR, COCOM, or Sales to Pinko Nations Laws." (had to put this in) Yes, this solution "violates" Schneier's "property rights," but so do the main alternatives above that folks are discussing. (And I'm not being sarcastic here in my quotes around "violates" and "property rights." There are complicated issues here. Bruce Schneier himself said he wanted to include the disk with every copy or at least have an ftp site, so I don't think money is the main issue. And he's presumably selling quite a few copies of the book, anyway.) Independent of the Schneier book, I do think there needs to be a code repository of useful code. Mark Riordan has some at his RIPEM site, there's the RSAREF code that RSADSI makes available, and several other code ftp sites I've seen (and which I've collected for the Cypherpunks FAQ I'm getting closer to releasing). --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."

1 0

Mirrors...
by Peter Wayner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was just at a talk at the Space Telescope Institute that described a telescope that would be suspended from a balloon over the South Pole. There was no one mirror. It was a composite of 10 smaller mirrors that were layed out over a grid. They did all sorts of studies on the harmonics. It was not clear to me, though, that the array could be folded up. I'm sure that they needed very careful alignment. -Peter

1 0

Re: Liberating Schneier's Code?
by Peter Wayner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In re Schneier's property rights: ` He didn't write most of it. The stuff I donated to the collection is freely distributable (but not public domain). I suspect that someone else could put together their own collection.

2 1

Re: DId you ever think...
by jpp＠markv.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: uri(a)watson.ibm.com > Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 09:10:16 -0500 (EDT) > > Wrong again. There was no "proto-DES". From Lucifer to DES took a > few years and significant redesign, but NSA didn't help (however > they sure as hell wanted to keep updated on what was going on, so > we were telling them [or rather - the team who designed it,'cause > I joined later on :-]). Are you saying that IBM developed DES entierly on their own? This doesn't fit my model at all. But, I'm not afraid to be wrong. > > Learn something new every day... > > Please do! (:-) Gladly! Please tell (learn) me: what was the history of the development of DES. How were DES, IBM, NSA, NIST (then NBS), and FIPS related? Wasn't there some concern on IBM's part about liability -- Thus the us Governments participation, including the 'secret' changes to DES? > > Since about 1977 I wondered what the 'rediscovered > > crypto techniques' were. > > Will you bet your ass it was the only technique in consideration? Why would I do that? j'

1 0