December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

INFOBAHN PANEL SEES WORLD THROUGH [..] BLINDERS
by jim＠bilbo.suite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'd like to correct a misunderstanding. In the original "INFOBAHN PANEL SEES WORLD..." post I said that the ILA report was included in a fax from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). First, I was not an original recipient of the fax. I obtained the fax (and ILA report) via a forwarded e-mail message so I can't say for sure that the original CSIS fax included the copyrighted ILA report. I originally thought the ILA report was part of the fax. I now suspect the ILA report was not sent with the CSIS fax but instead was placed in the forwarded e-mail message by one of the multiple forwarders. Just felt like clearing that up. Nobody at CSIS is demanding an apology or anything like that. Ok. Onward. The reason I posted the ILA report: I fear that the desire to minimize electronic copyright violations will give corporations an incentive to work with government to devise methods to "control" the content of the Infobahn. Now, I don't believe they could ever completely succeed at controlling the content of the Infobahn, but I do believe they sure as hell will try. Do you really think the politicians of the world will just sit back and say "Well, we really can't prevent electronic copyright violations, so we wont even try"? More likely they will try many different things. I'm hoping the ILA report will prompt a discussion of the possible approaches the government may take to control the content of the Infobahn, and the side affects of said approaches. Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

1 0

(None)
by Jeff Gostin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

gtoal(a)an-teallach.com (Graham Toal) writes: > He has no legal comeback (ha, there's an interesting irony about the > author of the world's leading piece of guerilla software...) and the > most he can do is apply peer pressure to get the guy to back down. OTOH, we owe it to him to respect his opinion. If he didn't have the guts to create the tool, this conversation would be moot. I say that we should respect his wishes, and not bastardize PGP, if only not to discourage other people to write "risky" software --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 +---------------------------------------------------------+

3 3

Re: ID card from hell
by kentborg＠world.std.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

frissell(a)panix.com writes: >"You can buy heroin in maximum security prisons." What a bizarre world! I have no interest in buying heroin and don't expect to go to prison anytime soon, yet this is somehow the nicest realization I have had in a long time. Thank you, Duncan. -kb, the Kent who insists upon having hope -- Kent Borg +1 (617) 776-6899 kentborg(a)world.std.com kentborg(a)aol.com Proud to claim 32:00 hours of TV viewing so far in 1994!

1 0

Re: Key length security (calculations!)
by rjc＠gnu.ai.mit.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

James Donald writes: > Timothy C. May writes > > ... if P = NP, then fast factoring > > methods may be found (fast = polynomial in length). > > In the highly unlikely event that P = NP then we have also solved, as > an almost trivial special case, the problems of true artificial > intelligence, artificial consciousness, and artificial perception, > and the failure of one particular form of crypto will not be noticed > in the midst of such radical changes. When was AI proved NP? AFAIK, definitions of intelligence and consciousness aren't even generally agreed on. Consciousness especially. Any citations on this claim? The only place I've heard this before was your claim on the Extropians list last year that AI required solving NP problems (and that a good answer would not work), therefore classical computers couldn't do it, but quantum computers could, and therefore the mind is based on quantum mechanics and AI won't work.

2 1

Re: Probabilistic Encryption
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

: > How secure do you guys think Probabilistic encryption using a BBS generator : > is? It looks like its every bit as good for key exchanges as RSA and somewhat : > better because of its speed. : The technique you mention is not one I've heard of. What is a BBS : generator? Could you please explain? BBS is Blum-Blum-Shub, a cryptographically strong RNG I believe. (Haven't looked at it personally). How he plans using this in some way to get the effect of an RSA public key system I have no idea. I hope we're not about to get the usual kiddy PRNG exor encryption lecture. Some of the things the guy said suggested maybe he does know what he's talking about, but his writing style isn't inspiring. Clue for the guy: other people haven't the foggiest idea about what has been going round in your head for the last year. Try to give some context and set the scene in more general terms before you dive into conjectures. Otherwise you risk sounding slightly detached from reality, as in the expression "So what color's the sky in _your_ world, then?"... It may well be you've something useful to say, but if you don't say it in the text one or two postings, you're in danger of slipping into my mental kill-file mode where I gloss over your postings without reading them properly. I suspect others read cpunks mail in a similar fashion. G

4 3

Announcement: PGS v0.99d
by ER CRAMER 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Ok, I know that v0.99c was just released a week ago... But hey, We had some spare time before our hollidays so we fixed some stuff and here is the result: PGS v0.99d. This version will be able to read the keysize of all keys. And gives a nice statement in the information window that we CAN'T build the fingerprint of keys that have been generated using a non-default exponent size. So, no trash fingerprints anymore I hope... Because v0.99c was just released a week ago I kept the 099c.new file in the archive so you can still check out what's new there... PGS v0.99d can be found right now at: wuarchive.wustl.edu (128.252.135.4):/pub/msdos_uploads/pgs/pgs099d.zip And at the beginning of next week at: oak.oakland.edu (141.210.10.117):/SimTel/security/pgs099d.zip - -- ... If you outlaw Privacy, only Outlaws will have Privacy! Eelco Cramer <crame001(a)hio.tem.nhl.nl> ------ - -------------------------------------------------- - -- ... If you outlaw Privacy, only Outlaws will have Privacy! Eelco Cramer <crame001(a)hio.tem.nhl.nl> ------ - -------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLiZgwYDAdPKe9hHLAQHymAP+Ieil7M7It18ItDYUI/odC3eU45HB3Tnk F8c7KlhTvaTCmHeeeVglm6CvFq40M1rCdBgDhB3LVLLGbCg2SKEVcJDextWw1aLN DoEiu05Kxkk17AE0Txo2Lp6DqyIrMmnYoyHvqCLEsU/h7heVADZhepKeV89zf+qQ x84ZTQ1m8d0= =sAKM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: PGP bastardization
by nobody＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> You may be correct in that Phil Zimmermann has no legal > recourse, but I counldn't say for sure. I am more concerned > with the ethical issues. What have you called your new > super-duper pgp? If you make it abundantly clear that it is > *your* hack of pgp, and not supported in any way by RSA, MIT, or > prz, I personally wouldn't have a problem with it. Isn't it ironic, though, that Phil Zimmerman was the victim of a similar accusation by PKP/RSA -- "pirating" code? IMHO, that's also who the person who released this new version really needs to worry about. If they modified PGP 2.3a code, then they're in the same boat as PRZ if they distribute it. The GPL only covers PRZ's (and Colin Plumb's) code, not the RSA routines. Also, I wonder whether the RSAREF license on 2.6 is valid for modified versions? Geeez! If it's just the name, then call this newest version "TAP" for "Totally Awesome Privacy", or something similar. Just so the "look and feel" are the same. Nothing would stop the end user from renaming it from TAP.EXE to PGP.EXE, of course... <g> I can sympathize with PRZ in wanting to protect his "baby" from the hackings of "unwashed Philistines" or whatever, but had he taken that attitude regarding the original RSA code, PGP might never have come about.

2 1

Re: Key length security (calculations!)
by frissell＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:28 AM 7/15/94 EDT, solman(a)MIT.EDU wrote: >The bottom line is that NSA has demonstrated that they can outperform >academia without public reviews of their method (LEAFs aside for the >moment [government agencies are after all required to do several stupid >things each year]) > That is, they were able to out-perform the private sector when there was no economic value in cryptography so no one (save them) had any incentive to practice it. Since crypto gained enormous economic value (for compression and general bit manipulation as well as system security) they are unlikely to be able to keep up. Note the Market vs the Feds in electronics. They tend to buy most of their stuff from us these days. DCF

1 0

Re: National ID cards are just the driver's licenses on the Information
by frissell＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:00 PM 7/14/94 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >The following is worth mentioning: market forces will eventually >destroy virtually all controls. However, as the Soviet Union showed, >millions of people can be made miserable or killed in the meanwhile. >Perry > Actually, in the G-7 countries, the rulers are in a more exposed and vulnerable position than the ruled. They are juicy opposition targets, while we can slip (and SLIP) through the cracks. They can't. They must by their nature be exposed. DCF "The Market *is* the river." -- New Taoism for a New Age

2 1

Where do Extropians live?
by D.C. Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'd appreciate a pointer to the extropians-request address (email or post at your discretion). TIA. =D.C. Williams dcwill(a)ee.unr.edu

2 1