December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: That Steamy Aura
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

That's not funny, Sandy. (but I'll keep it in mind, whenever I think about you) ~ Blanc

1 0

Re: On the crime bill and remailers
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:38 PM 9/19/94 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >Some lawyer, can't do stat. intrepretation to save his/her life. > >As I pointed out before, the requirement for INVESTIGATION is reasonably >appearing to have intent. The statuatory offense itself includes NO >REFERENCE to intent. > >The scienter requirement here is "gloss on the surface" of the kind >intended to win votes from on the fencers. Ah. I see. Then this stuff on my face is egg, no? Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone Shipwright Development Corporation who eats too little and sees Heaven and 44 Farquhar Street someone who drinks too much and sees Boston, MA 02331 USA snakes." -- Bertrand Russell (617) 323-7923

1 0

Copyright enforcement through crypto
by sdw＠lig.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'd like to explore the technical problems of enforcing copyright restrictions through encryption and custom viewing software. What I have in mind is a viewer, say a spin off of Mosaic, that has a general purpose decryption engine that could be programmed with an algorythm as part of the document download process. The goal I have in mind is to make possible one time, or limited time viewing of a downloaded document The document would be encrypted with the selected method and keyed with a timestamp. The client would need access to a timeserver and a session key, etc. to decrypt as close as possible to the display hardware. This could be prototyped as a user process, but securely implemented as an extension to X, MS-Windows, etc. I haven't worked out all the problems, but see quite a few already. Obviously, the goal would be to get really good copyright material on the net, like first run movies, when we have the bandwidth. Just wondering what minimum collection of hardware, software, and infrastructure would be needed. Of course, this is related to the pay-per-use software paradigm (vs. current unlimited license). sdw -- Stephen D. Williams Local Internet Gateway Co.; SDW Systems 510 503-9227APager LIG dev./sales Internet: sdw(a)lig.net In Bay Area Aug94-Feb95!!! OO R&D Source Dist. By Horse: 2464 Rosina Dr., Miamisburg, OH 45342-6430 Internet Consulting ICBM: 39 38 34N 84 17 12W home, 37 58 41N 122 01 48W work Newbie Notice: I speak for LIGCo., CCI, myself, and no one else, regardless of where it is convenient to post from or thru.

4 4

Public key/3DES datastream software over WAN Bastions
by sdw＠lig.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone produced software (preferably Unix based) that provides a public key authenticated, DES/3DES encrypted datastream over WAN firewalls/bastions? A typical use would be to connect transaction feeds between two data centers in a secure, automated way over Internet. I can't see anything conceptually difficult with it, and it seems the PGP library could be used to create simple Unix daemons. sdw -- Stephen D. Williams Local Internet Gateway Co.; SDW Systems 510 503-9227APager LIG dev./sales Internet: sdw(a)lig.net In Bay Area Aug94-Feb95!!! OO R&D Source Dist. By Horse: 2464 Rosina Dr., Miamisburg, OH 45342-6430 Internet Consulting ICBM: 39 38 34N 84 17 12W home, 37 58 41N 122 01 48W work Newbie Notice: I speak for LIGCo., CCI, myself, and no one else, regardless of where it is convenient to post from or thru.

2 1

_American_Survival_ mag article
by Stanton McCandlish 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Oct. issue of _American_Survival_ has an article called "Clipper Inside". Dunno anything else about it, might be good, might suck rocks. -- <A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/mech.html"> Stanton McCandlish </A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org"> mech(a)eff.org </A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/"> Electronic Frontier Fndtn. </A><P> Online Activist

1 0

Re: Such a Sweetie Pie
by merriman＠metronet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Sandy: > > It was nothing. > [What a Nice Guy (tm)] > > @ @ @ @ > @ @ > @ ~ ~ @ > . * * . > . \/ . > . . . . > . . . . . . > . . > . . . >Blanc >(please, no more!) > > Will you two cool it? You're getting my monitor fogged up :-) (or at least take it off the C'punks list - you're scaring my cats :-) Dave Merriman - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Finger merriman(a)metronet.com for PGP/RIPEM public keys and fingerprints. Unencrypted Email may be ignored without notice to sender. PGP preferred. Remember: It is not enough to _obey_ Big Brother; you must also learn to *love* Big Brother.

1 0

I ONLY SHOOT BLANCS
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, In response to my candle comment, Blanc wrote: That's not funny, Sandy. (but I'll keep it in mind, whenever I think about you) Well, I still think it was funny, but now I *AM* embarrassed. (Blanc, wipe that smug expression off your face, this instant!) S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Such a Sweetie Pie
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy: It was nothing. [What a Nice Guy (tm)] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ~ ~ @ . * * . . \/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Blanc (please, no more!)

1 0

Re: art encryption...
by Pierre Uszynski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Lile Elam <lile(a)art.net> > > [...] a way an artist can insure a viewer that the art > they are viewing is really that of the artist, the artist can *sign* their > art with their private key and others can check it with their public key. The problem is that's pretty much all that can be done so far: The viewer can *verfify* that the copy is a full un-molested copy of what the artist released, or for physical works, maybe that the object being scanned *is* the original object (maybe). But for pictures released in bitmap form, and then lossily compressed, cropped, scaled, dithered, and whatnot, the (ahem) authenticity of the copy can't be checked anymore. At least not if the signature was, for example, a signed message digest as has been mentioned. Message digests, in the form we now know them, do not resist lossy compression and such injury. That's what they are designed for. So, in particular, a magazine can still take a signed copy of a picture, creatively modify it slightly, and print it claiming this is original work by somebody else. In this case, the printing process itself is most likely enough to dispell any hope of recomputing the same message digest. Handling this case relies back on conventional evidence and juries. Other formats such as CAD drawings, text, and pictures in primitive forms (such as Postscript), and source and binary code, are susceptible to more: It is possible to hide some identifying info in them. But they also are susceptible to mechanical modification (lossless in terms of the "artwork", but lossy in terms of the steganography.) For example, by rewriting "for the same functionality" mechanically or manually. For a mechanical translation, the plaintiff may now have to identify which mechanical process was used before, maybe, having a case again (in addition of conventional legal wranglings). What would be ideal in all these cases is a steganographic process that would map to the whole as much as to the parts. Fractal steganography. In the case of architectural drawings, a signature of the original architects would be embedded in small sets of dimensions, in small sets of proportions, in ways the CAD language is used, in the background details of artwork, in the text included in drawings as well as in CAD files comments and variable names... etc... In summary in sufficiently numerous and different places that mechanical modification, or even extensive manual rework could still forget some instances of the signature. The signature still has to be specific enough to identify certainly the author, as opposed to being attributable to random luck (as in DNA matching). This means this signature requires a rather large number of bits (fewer if the signatures are registered precisely and provably before the works are released), but still enough bits that it is not so easy to hide many of them (depending on the medium: rather hard in text, rather easy in complex pictures.) The signature becomes part of the picture, it is not an afterthought anymore. Fractal message digests, whose verifiability would degrade gracefully as the original is more and more mutilated, would serve the same purpose for verification (you could check that a decompressed, cropped part of a picture is really from the artist who fractally signed the whole.) Conceivably it would be the same if the part was printed in weird colors or something: "some" of it still "is" from the same artist. But, for legal issues, how would that be different from copyright registration? Doesn't copyright registration rely on the same principle: a set of jurors will determine what the chance is that this is the same work or not. This just provides tools to fortify a court case. Enough ramblings :-) I'll stop now, Pierre pierre(a)shell.portal.com

1 0

Nice little privacy threat...
by L. Todd Masco 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just a little tidbit for the privacy-paranoid among us. I live in NYC, while my father, H. L. Masco, MD, lives in Florida. My dad's never lived in NYC, and I've never forwarded mail from his address to mine... in fact, I haven't forwarded anything from his address since before I left Pittsburgh. I just got a mailing from Harry & David that included a pre-printed list of folks from "my" last year's orders so I could repeat order this year. They were my father's orders from last year. Masco isn't that common a surname, so I have to wonder how often this is going to happen to people with more common surnames. -- L. Todd Masco | "A man would simply have to be as mad as a hatter, to try and cactus(a)bb.com | change the world with a plastic platter." - Todd Rundgren

1 0