December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Children and the Net
by kkirksey＠world.std.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> On Sun, 31 Jul 1994, Mike Duvos wrote: > >> > Had it not been for the fact that having children covered with >> > scars, welts, and bruises is not considered child abuse in the >> > state of Texas, all the children would have been removed from the >> > compound prior to the raid, and only the adults would have been >> > toasted. > >> Puh-leeze! There has been little to no evidence of ANY abuse of the >> Branch Davidian children. The only thing we know is that Koresh liked his >> mates young but that doesn't mean the rest of hte children were abused >> and, of course, Koresh's kink is quite normal in quite a few places. Are >> you forgetting that the BDs were investigated for child abuse and cleared >> earlier? > >These facts were well documented. Child welfare workers visited the >compound and examined the children. Signs of previous physical >punishment were noted as well as a room devoted to that purpose and ^^^^^^^^^^ >the appropriate paraphernalia. We were talking about physical ABUSE, not physical PUNISHMENT. There is a difference, unless of course you're one of those people that believe that they're one in the same and that parents shouldn't be allowed to physically discipline their children in any manner whatsoever. When I was a child, we had a room devoted to the physical discipline of us children: my parents bedroom. And in that room, specifially the closet, my father kept the appropriate paraphenalia: belts. Do you believe my parents should have been arrested for "child abuse"? I don't. The fact stands that there was no evidence that the children in the compound were ABUSED. The Texas department of child welfare cleared Koresh of all such charges. If you have any documentation to the contrary, I would certainly be interested in seeing it. I don't want to see evidence of PUNISHMENT, only ABUSE. Ken ============================================================================= Ken Kirksey kkirksey(a)world.std.com Mac Guru & Developer - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." - Abraham Lincoln -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLj7FhusZNYlu+zuBAQGENgP/V6G/gCuFJ40+AeY0rs++AB73260q9jzk iLScYWfPwQ0JyMd3XJ9K4GW0eVaiV+LmWbAIFXj0FdBOVmzAnpFtw2zWTZep4UMO awrUFsp0UioGi3web3q2cfgxi3Z5YQiaZQN6rvpAeECsXyi+mutG8dQ8HdYgNY1N TRiTwsf+5pk= =86cK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Art Gallery on internet needs PGP signatures
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Arsen Ray A. wrote: > Now the question I have is what if the forgery is done so well, would it > fool the scanner and pass the signature? ie: What if you take a picture > of the painting or part or whatever using high resolution film, etc. > Would it pass the signature? I don't know (but I'll make some speculative/engineering guesses), as I never saw the system...like I said, I heard a verbal description of it some years back (from Jim Omura, of Cylink, now famous for suing RSADSI). First, photo-reproduced art is almost never confused with the real thing. Surface texture, brush strokes, light at different angles, etc. Second, I could imagine the scanner system using light at two or more angles specifically to provide better protection against forgeries. (In the intended main applicaiton, that of detecting machine part forgeries, the pattern of natural scratches and abrasions, and grains/regions in the metal, would be essentially impossible to mechanically reproduce. Not completely impossible, but very difficult, and hence not cost-effective.) Anyone interested in pursuing this may be find out if Light Signatures still exists. Omura may know, and someone at RSADSI probably would have records of their licensing arrangements. --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

RE: Uniforms, Authority, and 'System X'
by nobody＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Berzerk <berzerk(a)xmission.xmission.com> wrote: > Funny, most the people I know here that procalim this the loudest are > LEFT wing people talking right wing mormons. > ^^^^^^^ > Berzerk. Did you intend to say "morons" or "Mormons"? <g> --- Diogenes -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLj8Z3+Rsd2rRFQ1JAQHb3wP8DT9tnoskwHnfGFA2kFxU3A/JEPUWpWcD zGcqVm2nJXxYfWMUT5B3XNL9mlMr0kuiL/+WLEtRnpqmc3ia3pE7VHAfa/rJW9Kq kV1F8KrVLt3r5OH/Hldmj0obfA035FLYejJXlSB9hGHBCnMYmFto2VWhyyye7Ca7 qCtyUST5PJM= =mBp5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: How do I choose constants suitable for Diffe-Hellman?
by Matthew Ghio 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

0x7CF5048D wrote: > How do I choose constants suitable for Diffe-Hellman? > According to _Applied Cryptography_ n should be prime, > also (n-1)/2 should also be prime. g should be a primitive > root of unity mod n. n should be 512 or 1024 bits long. > Are there any other requirements? > > How can I choose such numbers? Are such numbers published > anywhere? Yes, Phil Karn posted a list of such numbers to the list last May, and the program used to generate them. Since some people have expressed their distaste for large files re-posted/forwarded to the list, I won't send it, but you can get it from ftp cs.cmu.edu: /afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr12/mg5n/public/Karn.DH.generator

2 1

Steganography
by Andrew Brown 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Great, I just lost 18 hours worth of messages. If anyone replied to this thread in that time I'd really appreciate a repost, thanks. - Andy

1 0

Re: The Terrorists are coming!
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <Pine.3.87.9408021916.A3618-0100000(a)raven.csrv.uidaho.edu> CatAshleigh writes: > > > first of all the only "muslim" (NOT ARAB, NO ARABS HAVE NUKES, the only > > > > How do you know? > > > that's common knowlage, when Iraq got close to developing them, Israel > bombed them. In this case, "common knowledge" = "not true". > > Ahem. Uzbekistan is Muslim, and is also the third or fourth largest > > nuclear power, and also is in a part of the world where there is a > > long tradition of ... how do I say it gently ... greasing the palm. > > the 5 largest nuclear powers are 1) USA 2) Russia 3) china 4) India > 5) Israel (believed to have about 100 warheads) Uzbekistan has several ICBM sites. Some of the ICBMs are MIRVed, with maybe 10 warheads each. I think that Uzbekistan may outclass China. I have never heard claims that India had more than 100 warheads. The Ukraine also has many ICBMs and I would assume outranks India and Israel. I also believe that France outclasses both India and Israel. And Britain has nuclear submarines carrying thermonuclear weapons, tactical weapons carried by fighter/bombers, etc. What is your authority for this ranking?? > > A large part of the former USSR was Muslim and there were strategic and > > tactical nuclear weapons scattered all over the place (tactical weapons > > are used as mines, fired from artillery pieces, carried by short range > > missiles, and dropped from fighter bombers). If none of these is > > unaccounted for, it is a genuine miracle. > > It was my understanding that only the USA was incompetent enough to develop > "tactical" nuclear weapons where any grunt can drop them and KABLEWY. I DEFINED the term "tactical". I mentioned no grunts. The Soviets certainly had tactical nuclear weapons of every type that I mentioned, and more (nuclear torpedoes, for example). Their plans for the invasion of Europe have been published. These plans included the heavy use of tactical nuclear weapons in every theater. Their strategic weapons would have been used on America. > > Also, there has been quite a lot of press coverage here in the UK of > > the defector from Saudi Arabia who claims that (a) the Saudis backed both > > the Iraqi and the Pakistani nuclear programs and (b) the Saudis at > > least have some nuclear materials. > > The "defector" is an idiot, I saw him interviewed on TV, his IQ seemed to be fairly high. 130+ ? > saudies were too busy building infrastructure > to waist money backing other people's weapons development. But ... no one disputes the claim that the Saudis backed weapons development in Iraq; the Saudis freely admit it. They deny only the reports about nasty (nuclear, chemical, and biological) weapons. > The Saudies backed Iraq because they were fighting Iran and saudies > aren't too fond of Shi'a. And in the next line you admit it yourself. > It might also be noted that the USA is similarly > guilty. By this point, you've lost track of what you are saying. The USA is similarly guilty of funding Iraqi development of nuclear weapons?? [I made a reference to the atomic bombing of Japan] > I'm glad that you mentioned that though, lets remember that it was the > USA who was the "terroist" who bombed the civilians at Nagasaki and > Heroshima (terrorist as defined in the dictionary) My dictionary does not define the term 'terrorist' that way. The Japanese started the war with the US by bombing Pearl Harbor, the US ended it by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was a nasty war on all sides. Any soldier knows that the best way to win is to induce terror in your opponent. But the term 'terrorist' is not used for soldiers engaged in open warfare. It normally refers to those who make clandestine attacks with the purpose of inducing terror in civilians. If you hijack an airliner, you are a terrorist. If you firebomb Dresden, what you have done may be sickening, but you are not a terrorist. You are a soldier in a brutal war. Most wars of any length get brutal. The style of argument used here is very 1984. Words are used in abnormal ways, people are demonized (Israel, America), contradictions are stated in the same sentence, vilification replaces logic. And also, comments were asked to be sent by email, and then edited before being replied to in public. Not good. -- Jim Dixon

1 0

How to find a primitive root of unity, for Diffe-Hellman?
by 7CF5048D＠nowhere 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >How do I choose constants suitable for Diffe-Hellman? >According to _Applied Cryptography_ n should be prime, >also (n-1)/2 should also be prime. g should be a primitive >root of unity mod n. n should be 512 or 1024 bits long. >Are there any other requirements? > >How can I choose such numbers? Are such numbers published >anywhere? > Ok let me take a stab at finding g assuming n has been choosen to meet the above requirements. (I hope my math is still good.) Let Zn be the field defined by the prime n. Let G be the multiplicitive group defined in Zn. So |G| = n-1. Now n is large so 1 is not equal to -1 in Zn. Let N be { 1, -1} in G. It is a subgroup. Zn is abielian so it is Normal. We can consider the canoical map: G ---> G/N The order of G/N will be (n - 1)/2 which we are assuming to be prime. G/N is a cyclic group with no non trivial subgroups. Every element not = 1 is a generator. Pulling back to G we find that if g is not a root of unity, then the other member of its co-set = -g is! So take any g and raise to (n-1)/2 power. The result will be equal to 1 or -1. g raised to any lower power will not be equal to 1 or -1. Since (n-1)/2 is a large prime, it is odd. So if g to the (n-1)/2 is = to 1, then - -g to the (n-1)/2 = -1. So we can find a g which raised to the order (n-1)/2 power is = to -1. So g to the (n-1) power is =1 and g is a primitive root of unity. Have I made any errors? Did I get it right? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLmt8dw2Gnhl89QSNAQHzmAP9GUGAmFcbgMyWxKtrzEvQYJS33FXGoGmr w4rXblv14lkwJX32hpoRKmicm3bdND2OPGgmM4EefGYggj+iCI+NU+l6II+MxhjY C4Rk3Xjn59H81FhNdfcNqOU9AirjwMBSqKzYtNCfbedB6HuQDCTeLSU5pjI5PSEQ wvFP7F3i5rY= =0r8J -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Clobbered my mail. Anyone have archives?
by mlshew＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Apologes for the bandwidth, but I just destroyed 2 weeks worth of cypherpunks, extropians, and general semantics mail. (Everything from July 20 to August 3.) Would someone with archives please contact me? Thanks. Mark Shewmaker mlshew(a)netcom.com Helpful household tip for the day: When adding files to archives, it is wise to use "lha a ...", instead of "lha m ..."

1 0

Reputations/Credentials
by cwalton＠earthlink.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:17 PM 9/4/94 -0700, James A. Donald wrote: >The objective is to go to a system where good conduct is >enforced by the non material and unquantifiable value of >reputations, rather than a system where good >conduct is enforced by coercion. > >Credentials are not reputations. Any attempt to make reputations >more precise, objective, and knowable, will turn them into >credentials, which are incapable of achieving the desired >effect. I'm afraid I don't understand what you guys are talking about. My wife and I bought a car on Saturday. We drove it away, based on what the dealer's computer printedout from his TRW inquiry. My personal credit (tied to my Social Security Number)is terrible. My wife's is pristine. We used hers. (Is this "transference of reputation? Could *I* use a couple different SSNs for different "reputations"?) They asked about how much $$$ she makes, how long we've lived in our house and looked at the record of payments on other loans. They took a copy of her driver's license (credentials?) and TRW calculated a "risk factor" for us. It was a specific number, between 1-1000. This sounds like a reputation kept by a third party (escrow agent?) to me. My actions (good conduct) will be based on (enforced?) by the non material and semi-quantifiable value of the TRW credit report, not coercion (I want more stuff in the future). TRW seems like a "reputation reporting agency". I can take a copy of that print out into another bank and get another loan if I wanted. Is that a "credential"? What's the difference? and what are the implications of the difference? Give me a better model to illustrate what you think would be better or worse. Drug dealers only need cash and a gun to make transactions while they keep totally anonymous. Futures traders need a credit line and a government registered agent to work through and have *no* privacy, but more money than I'll ever make. >By calling a credential a reputation, we imply that it automatically >has value. Of course it does not. But this is like saying that a credit card has no value. While this is technically true, in reality, where I live, I can turn that credit card into food, gas, stereos and computers. If I don't pay my bill at the end of the month, they won't give me anymore stuff. Reputations *and* credentials both have nothing to do with the value, worth or character of a person, but I don't think the car dealer cares if I kick my dog, only if I pay my bills. PS- I lost the note about Sandy's Privacy Seminar. Did I miss it? ***************************************** Conrad Walton cwalton(a)earthlink.net ***************************************** Without JOY there can be no STRENGTH. Without STRENGTH, all other virtures are worthless. Edward Abbey

3 2

Re: Egalitarianism vs. Strong Cryptography
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <9408031040.AA25684@ininx> "John E. Kreznar" writes: > In Message-Id: <199407312314.QAA16264(a)netcom4.netcom.com>, Mike Duvos > wrote: > > > No personal attack intended. I am a strong supporter of > > egalitarian societies with strong social safety nets, and think > > that youth emancipation will likely be the next big civil rights > > movement in this country. I am also willing to pay high taxes in > > order to feel secure that all citizen-units are suitably housed, [etc] > > Yet in the present message he observes that > > > The lesson to be learned here is that societies based on a > > diffuse "Web of Trust" organization are far less dangerous than > > those based on a powerful centralized authority. [etc] > > Mike Duvos, how I wish I had the time to try to understand how you > reconcile these seemingly incompatible sentiments! Look closely. He says that (a) he likes strong, centralized societies but (b) they are dangerous. Sometimes you like dangerous things. > ... As a proponent > of ``high taxes'', how can you also favor strong cryptography? Do you > doubt that expropriating ``high taxes'' from your neighbor will be made > more difficult in a world with strong cryptography? Personally I am very much against high taxes, but once again there is no real contradiction in these viewpoints. You will need the high taxes to pay for all the tax inspectors trained in cryptography. > In view of the > natural diversity among people, how can you achieve an ``egalitarian > society'' without someone who says ``Do What We Say Or We'll Kill > You!''? You can't, unless you are willing to kill everyone with any spirit. But you can vote him down. -- Jim Dixon

1 0