December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: GUT and NP
by Ray Cromwell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bezerk's original comment makes two assumptions. 1) continuum phenomena are real and space is not merely quantized at a level which is undetectable by experiment (just because physics models it as a continuum doesn't mean it is so) 2) all of this precision actually makes a difference For instance, at the level of brain chemistry, who cares about quantum precision when thermal noises will swamp it anyway? (the Penrose argument even goes as far as assuming quantum gravity, a force pitifully weak, as a signficant factor) One of the reasons digital manipulation became popular was because analog data was too prone to error. Why will a quantum computer, which seems even more sensitive to external perturbation, be any different? And regardless of whether quantum computers work or not, they are still algorithmic if they can be simulated (however slowly) by a turing machine. It's a rigorous mathematical definition. Claiming otherwise uses algorithm in a manner different than was intended. It's like the way Ludwig Plutonium solves all those famous problems in sci.math by assuming different definitions of primality, etc. Quantum computers might be faster than classical computers, but non-algorithmic, I don't think so.

4 7

RE: What can one do for remail operators? (fwd)
by David Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > I think the single most important thing we could do for remailer operators > would be to figure out how to make the remailers *truly* *anonymous*. That > is, we need a net.hack of some sort that allows remailers to send their > messages in a way that leaves no trace whatsoever of the original poster > *and* leaves no trace of the remailer itself. > > Net.veterans will perhaps recall a thread I started a while back along > these lines... this is a technical problem, and I have the utmost > confidence that the skills to solve this problem are around here somewhere. > If I may make a humble suggestion, I would suggest that this problem is > more immediate and pressing than many of the issues currently being > debated. > One option might be for the remailer to forward messages giving a false ID/address - essentially, lying about who they are and where they live :-) That would seem to take care of the outbound traffic; how to deal with the inbound traffic is an exercise left for the reader ;-) Dave Merriman

1 0

Latency vs. Reordering
by Jeff Gostin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hughes(a)ah.com (Eric Hughes) writes: > For the Nth time, it's not latency, it's reordering which is important. True. For small numbers of files re-ordering is important. On the large scale, latency serves both purposes. I tend to think of these things on the large scale, which is the reason I pointed things that way. --jeff

2 1

RE: Questions about Microsoft and Software Key Escrow
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Responding to msg by Jacob.Levy(a)Eng.Sun.COM (Jacob Levy) on Thu, 28 Jul 7:53 AM > >Blanc > >I respect your feelings on the matter and your ability >to think clearly and with great foresight also :-), >but for this list it would probably be much more >useful if we got some _OFFICIAL_ answer from Microsoft >instead of your "I believe, I cannot think, can't >see", etc. etc. You're obviously a concerned >individual but you equally obviously don't claim to >speak for Microsoft. > >--JYL Would it not be fair to ask that all the parties earlier listed by Tim -- Microsoft, Sun, Apple, IBM and others -- be asked for an official statement of their positions on SKE? Even so, will this produce credible statements? What if confidentiality or secrecy agreements are already in place? Disinformation needs cryptanalysis, no? John

1 0

Re: DES Vulnerable, Why?
by koontzd＠lrcs.loral.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>My question: if triple-DES is so damn tough to break, what is wrong with DES? > Triple-DES is a trivial variation on DES. Brute Force Key Search ala' Weiner.

1 0

Dallas Morning News article?
by Phil Karn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've heard that an article appeared in the Dallas Morning News, apparently yesterday (wednesday) on the absurdity of crypto export controls. I understand that I was quoted in reference to my CJ requests for Bruce Schneier's book and floppy disk (which is not surprising since the writer interviewed me last week). Does anybody have a copy of this article? I have no easy way of getting a copy. Phil

1 0

"Just say NYET to NYET"
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I appreciate Nathan's openness and honesty about the inherent biases that affect his life. In numerous dealings with the religious right I've found that hard to come by. I also appreciate the fact that he is a strong believer in privacy, although privacy, in his view, seems to be something restricted to adults. Censorship is an attempt to apply Paternal/Maternal authority outside the family unit. A place IMHO it does not belong. I see the internet somewhat differently though, I see it as another world, that just happens to be accessable from our own, kind of like America was about 500 years ago. The only difference is that it was previously uninhabited. I like it the way it is! Now like the other world I occupy, here comes the religious right, who aren't content to live there own lives, there going to tell me how to live mine. (for my own good of course!) No way Dude....... I've fought your kind before, and knew it was only a matter of time before I'd have to fight you here. I for one am ready. I thought Hal Finney had an excellent suggestion, why not form your own private family values or whatever access provider, you could censor to your hearts content! That would save ya'll from having to move to Singapore or some other La-La land. Just another unwashed, uneducated, heathen, savage, heretic.... Brian Williams Extropian Cypherpatriot "Cryptocosmology: Sufficently advanced communication is indistinguishable from noise." --Steve Witham "Have you ever had your phones tapped by the government? YOU WILL and the company that'll bring it to you.... AT&T" --James Speth

1 0

Re: (fwd) Possible compromise of anon.penet.fi
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: barnett(a)convex.com (Paul Barnett) > Newsgroups: alt.privacy .... > Someone has been collecting email addresses, apparently from postings > to Usenet, and forging them to anonymous postings through > anon.penet.fi to alt.test. ...... > My condolences to those people that have been caught in this net. > This is one of the most despicable forms of net.terrorism that I have > encountered. It's an interesting weakness, and at least as serious as the naXXXXX / anXXXXX problem that reveals your identity if you send email to another anonym. The one anonym I've used on anon.penet.fi is already known to at least one other person (to whom I'd sent mail about the fact that they'd included their .signature in an anonymous article :-) I disagree with the "despicable" opinion, though it's certainly a serious problem and it would certainly have been nicer if the cracker had done only a limited number as a demonstration (maybe this counts; I don't know.) BUt if our tools have technical weaknesses, it's *much* nicer to find out from a non-police-agency cracker than to learn about it when they start knocking on your door. It sounds like there's a need to separate the email and news-posting parts of the anon.penet.fi software, or go to stronger anon-reply methods like the one on the newer cypherpunks remailers. Bill # Bill Stewart AT&T Global Information Solutions, aka NCR Corp # 6870 Koll Center Parkway, Pleasanton CA, 94566 Phone 1-510-484-6204 fax-6399 # email bill.stewart(a)pleasantonca.ncr.com billstewart(a)attmail.com # ViaCrypt PGP Key IDs 384/C2AFCD 1024/9D6465

2 1

What can one do for remail operators?
by Tommy the Tourist 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am interested in doing something to support the remailer operators that put their necks on the line for us cypherpunks. I have noticed people like Detweiler (dunno who he is) who are basically awed by the fact that a remailer crashes when you send your VM swap file through it, or people using it to do "nanny-nanny-boo-boo, you can't catch me, so pween off" messages, et al. I would like to something in support of these people who are noble enough to keep things running even when EVERYONE it seems is out to get them. If I knew any around here, they would get a free beer, and if the operator of Soda's remailer or Julf was in my area, they would get the whole keg ;). ------------ To respond to the sender of this message, send mail to remailer(a)soda.berkeley.edu, starting your message with the following 8 lines: :: Response-Key: ideaclipper ====Encrypted-Sender-Begin==== MI@```%A_^P;+]AB?X=];G11ZU97K(ZZQ%(8AU>834+"Y)5E3KUBX2/<MQ>'( MBT+==!$N]6_?T:4C:5,Q,BAM)?]<+`\GIHV&$_?,,`(NIK"[)^,Y)\9:_QL[ #\H'B ====Encrypted-Sender-End====

2 1

Remailers
by greg＠ideath.goldenbear.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Phillipe Nave writes: > I think the single most important thing we could do for remailer operators > would be to figure out how to make the remailers *truly* *anonymous*. That > is, we need a net.hack of some sort that allows remailers to send their > messages in a way that leaves no trace whatsoever of the original poster > *and* leaves no trace of the remailer itself. Er, if we knew how to do that, we wouldn't need remailers. :) What we do need are more remailers that aren't subject to political pressure or likely to be killed because someone writes to 'Postmaster'. Accordingly, I'm pleased to announce the deployment of my own remailer - 'remailer(a)ideath.goldenbear.com'. I can't say that the arrangement that gets me my news/mail feed is entirely without politics, but the sysadmin above me is, I believe, also pro-privacy and pro-remailer. The remailer is not intended for use for extortion, harassment, fraud, defamation, or spamming the net. There are no content filters installed but if I learn of use which involves the above I will take whatever steps I think necessary to eliminate non-acceptable uses. The software is Chael Hall's remailer system - PGP encrypted messages are not yet supported (unless there's a new version I don't know of). Sometimes I talk to my feed site with TCP/IP, sometimes with UUCP. This means that messages may get between 0 and 24 hours of delay; I know of no way to predict the length of the delay. Detweiler, you may not use my remailer nor any of my computer systems in any way at any time, under any name. If anyone's got his physical address I'd like to get it so that I may send him a copy of my "no permission" message, registered mail. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.5 iQCVAgUBLjfvI33YhjZY3fMNAQFoKwP+K7jUCa5vAhWIPcPz/nzpILi3AbfOZ5Lr 0H6KRJfpX8lvmmO8FNJlbXweQPLhm14It90vlwbuCJd9wfLgiRkZmPs99IgoX1CB iW4Wby+pdusExj+nNmyFA8zKKRTO4Eq5ahddqMtI7dBHmfZ/F/abjnmYXUmkarKe EdvZlqBCcIs= =+GnC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0