December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

totally secure email?
by khijol!erc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Howdy! I'm trying to totally secure email as soon as it comes into a site, before it hits me mailbox. I don't have root access, though. :( What I've tried is to do a "|pgp -feat ecarp|rmail erc%khijol(a)apple.com", but pgp just produces empty files! If I execute it by hand, it works. Anyone know either (1) why it isn't working wnd how to fix it, or (2) suggect a better alternative? For political reasons, my email must be encrypted as soon as it hits the site before it gets dropped in my mailbox, or the sysadmin will read it (snoopy bugger) and find out I'm looking for a job elsewhere. Thanks for all your help!! - -- Ed Carp, N7EKG/VE3 ecarp(a)netcom.com, Ed.Carp(a)linux.org "What's the sense of trying hard to find your dreams without someone to share it with, tell me, what does it mean?" -- Whitney Houston, "Run To You" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLgMnySS9AwzY9LDxAQF81AP9FIZnm0r0BoIl85dQgbedwpoSIEjlhoUJ jTM/bXiNW07udBzmsS6Egb2HeuNOy4Hai+sw52rk4IhuBYVhi+z6OooQVLnsu5Qo arxcfaqGEfW7peg45FcyAO2MEuJURIsjk26bKsUR+RRHm7y2BqnKKq7NnqZjDWAe YNk8YOUQK/Y= =IyWZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: totally secure email?
by Jonathan Rochkind 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> For political reasons, my email must be encrypted as soon as it hits > the site before it gets dropped in my mailbox, or the sysadmi n will > read it (snoopy bugger) and find out I'm looking for a job elsewhere. Get teh unix program "procmail", source available on any comp.sources.misc archive, or, probably, at ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de /pub/unix/procmail.tar.Z. This program lets you do things like sort your mail into different mailboxes as soon as it comes in. It's also really easy to use it as a hook for other programs or shell scripts to operate on mail as soon as it comes in. It shouldn't be very hard to do what you want, but there are a couple of things to be aware of here: 1) Your sysadmin can assuredly get around this too if he wants, and get at your mail even before procmail does. As a general rule of thumb, the sysadmin can do anything. But getting aroudn this would definitely be more dificult then simply reading your /spool/mail file. 2) You obviously don't want to leave your private key in your unix account, as the sysadmin could just use it to decrypt all your mail and read it. Obvious of course, but sometimes it's easy to overlook the obvious. Of course the best solution would be to have your correspondents send you PGP encrypted mail, but I guess the best solution isn't always available.

6 9

Re: Another Cellular Victim
by Tommy the Tourist 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >They report that he was tracked via his cellphone use. What this country > >needs is a good anonymous cellphone net. > Really. And what's more: when the Colombian drug lord was located > via his cellular use, the story was that the NSA had to bring special > equipment into the country to do the tracking. That doesn't wash here. > It looks like at least some switches in Amerika are already equipped > to read out locations for individual phones. They probably don't even > have to wait for you to make a call - they can call you, or even use > the phone's automatic pings. No NSA equipment needed. A simple scanner and some software can be used to track which cell you are in. They didn't have to triangulate OJ's position or anything, they only needed to know which cell he was in, and the direction he was traveling. The rest is simple. (you can find such software on hack/phreak BBSes already. The only personal information needed is the telephone # of the cell phone) ------------ To respond to the sender of this message, send mail to remailer(a)soda.berkeley.edu, starting your message with the following 7 lines: :: Response-Key: ideaclipper ====Encrypted-Sender-Begin==== MI@```$YS^P;+]AB?X9TW6\8WR:.P&2'N\0Q?\$?[X!7/,SN6`JBJ$D//!Z"Z FS)`S)G0<=-J!/44-Q$^WK"37[MUZNKYYE)[BS7ZNSJSP<LH*RSD` ====Encrypted-Sender-End====

1 0

Re: DSS
by nobody＠rebma.rebma.mn.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dan Harmon wrote: >What do they know that we do not? Makes you wonder about all of PKP's >claims. Has PKP ever sued anyone over their patents or have they just >threatened? Very curious. They have just threatened.

1 0

Re: O(f(x))
by Jonathan Rochkind 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> The way *I* learned it was like this: g(x) = o(f(x)) means that > g(x)/f(x) -> 0 (as x goes to some specified limit) g(x) = O(f(x)) > means that |g(x)/f(x)| is bounded (as x goes to some limit) > > In other words: a function that is o(f(x)) is of lower order than > f(x), while a function that is O(f(x)) is of no higher order than > f(x). Well, close anyway. Okay, here's straight out of my Discrete math textbook: "A useful way to check whether f [is a member of] O(g), is to look at the limit: Lim(as n->infinity) (f(n)/g(n)) In other words, we look at the _asymptotic_ behavior of f and g. If this limit exists (in practice it usually does) and is a finite number (possibly 0), we can conclude taht f [is a member of] O(g). If this limit is infinity, then f [is not a member of] O9g). For example, 7n**3 + 100n -3 [is a member of] O(n**3), because the limit of the ratio of these functions, as n->infinity, is the finite number 7. In fact, if the limit is a _nonzero_ number, as in this case, then O(f)=O(g). Okay, end of the quote. What all this stuff is used for is just comparing the running time of different algorithms. If you've got an algorithm whose running time varies with size of input n, according to the function 7n**3 + 100n -3, then this is _basically_ the same as if it varied according to n**3. Now, according to the definition of "big -oh notation ", which is what this is called, we could also say that function was an element of O(n**4), or O(n**20), or even O(3**n). So what big-oh notation really means is that function f is basically the same as, or better then, function g. But in practice we pick the "quickest" simple function g. So we call the functions (5n**4 + 4) (32n**4 +43n) and (n**4 +n**3 +n**2) elements of O(n**4). Which means that algorithms whose running times were described by those functions are all about the same speed, and are all about the same speed as n**4 too. Furthermore, any function which is O(n**k) for any k, is called _polynomial_. A polynomial algorithm is slow. Better is one which is an element of O(n log(n)), or even O(n), which is called _linear_. There ends the lesson. :)

1 0

Andy Grove on Clipper
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In between the helocopter coverage of OJ, which looked like outtakes from "Speed" in slo-mo, I happened to catch a repeat showing of the "Larry King Live" discussion with Al Gore, Andy Grove, the head of the FCC, and a journalist. The transcript was posted here, so I won't try to check on the details. Just my impressions, having worked with Grove. I say impressions because its important we understand how views come to be held, how strongly they are held, whether they can be changed, etc. In the case of Grove's comment that Clipper is just an extension into the digital real of existing wiretap "rights," I think I can see why he has this view--I don't agree with it, of course, but his view is probably the dominant view. Something we need to understand. To wit, * If asked whether digital transmission should "exempt" someone from wiretaps, most people would say "No, of course not." (There are subtle issues here, of course. More on this later.) * If asked a different question, about whether users should be compelled to use a government encryption and key escrow system, the answer for most Americans is different: "No, of course not." (Actually, same answer, different question.) If I were trying to convince Grove of the "Cypherpunks position," I would of course make these arguments about mandatory escrow, about the parallels to "diary escrow" (after all, cops can search papers with search warrants, so doesn't this mean that the digital age needs "diary and papers escrow"?) and other such travesties. I think it might take an hour of discussion, but eventually a light bulb would go off in his head and he'd see that the price paid with these "escrow" systems--especially if _mandatory_, as most of think is the real agenda--is simply too high for a nominally free society to put up with. (I had these hour-long debates with Grove, Moore, and Barrett when I was at Intel, and sometimes I won. Often I lost. I won't be having any opportunities to argue the Clipper issue with them, of course.) I'm citing this because it helps to explain the dichotomous reaction to Clipper. If the question about Clipper is phrased as an issue of privacy, do Americans have the right to keep conversations private, etc., then the answer is overwhelmingly (80%, as in Time-CNN poll) pro-privacy. If, however, the question is phrased in terms of "legitimate law enforcement needs" and whether suspected terrorists and pedophiles have a sacred right to use "fortress-like crypto," then I suspect the answer will shift in the other direction rather dramatically. With egg all over their face on Clipper, I see the Administration now launching a new campaign, a campaign being led by Donn Parker, Dorothy Denning, Andy Grove, and others. In this campaign, the second approach mentioned above will be dominant: a focus on pedophiles who "encrypt their list of victims," a focus on "terrorists who form virtual networks around the world," and a focus on "money launderers who use crypto anarchy to spread their poison." Their is little chance that we Cypherpunks will get the opportunity to make our case in the public...the hour it might take me to convince Grove, as an example, is about 59 minutes more than the "sound bite" any of us will be given. Is it hopeless? For public relations, probably yes. Fortunately, the power of strong crypto lies in its use. The leverage effect. As Phil Karn put it: "Don't get mad, get even. Write code." --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."

4 4

OJ`S CELL PHONE
by bmorris＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >From the L.A. Times Sunday 6/19 Fugitive Relied On And Was Undone By Cellular Phone ... Law enforcement officials subpoenaed the company ( AirTouch Cellular ) for assistance in tracking down O J Simpson. Technicians began monitoring calls made to and from the white Bronco. ... Even if an eyewitness had not spotted the vehicle, such monitoring would have made Simpson's capture inevitable. ... Technicians in the tracking station can, if necessary, track a particular call back to the cell site from which it originates. But the monitoring can not be done unless the phone is in use. [ Is that true? ] * RM 1.4 B0037 *

9 9

(None)
by Jeff Gostin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dan Harmon <harmon(a)tenet.edu> writes: > What do they know that we do not? Makes you wonder about all of PKP's > claims. Has PKP ever sued anyone over their patents or have they just > threatened? Very curious. They know that they have deep pockets. AT&T has some of the deepest pockets in the country, and could out-money PKP/RSA in yesterday's heartbeat. PKP fights little guys... that's all they've HAD to fight, so far. Now that they have a real opponent, who can meet (and surpass) their level of gameplaying, it'll be interesting to see what happens. --Jeff -- ====== ====== +----------------jgostin(a)eternal.pha.pa.us----------------+ == == | The new, improved, environmentally safe, bigger, better,| == == -= | faster, hypo-allergenic, AND politically correct .sig. | ==== ====== | Now with a new fresh lemon scent! | PGP Key Available +---------------------------------------------------------+

2 1

ANOTHER CELLULAR VIC
by bmorris＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com KK> Bear in mind that OJ himself placed a call to 911. You sort of expect KK> to lose some of your privacy when you do that. Actually OJ called his ex-wifes condo, her father answered, OJ said he was coming over to kill himself, the father ran out yelling "Call 911". But yes, I would want my cell phone number to appear on the 911 dispatchers screen too. * RM 1.4 B0037 *

2 1

(NONE)
by bmorris＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com CC> Alas, the full quote runs "Under the rule of men entirely great, the CC> pen is mightier than the sword". Pen wielders tend to omit that awkwa CC> preface. Perhaps a better ( and more optimistic ) way to put it would be "All the armies on earth can not stop an idea whose time has come". * RM 1.4 B0037 *

1 0