December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: cryptography eliminates lawyers?
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:05 AM 9/7/95 -0400, Duncan Frissell wrote: > Well, if crypto reduces the role of government in human affairs, it will > reduce work for lawyers. Telecoms will certainly break the professional > monopoly of lawyers (and other professionals). The functional equivalent of lawyers will still have a role. When an escrow agent allocates large chunks of money in some fashion, and somebody says X was bad, and X says that Y was bad, and the reputations are worth real money, we will need a public examination to determine what really happened. And if governments collapse entirely, and we get full bore anarchy, lawyers will have even more work because instead of a few reputations being worth large sums of cash, everyones reputation will be worth life and limb. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Re: Notes from NIS&T Key Escrow Export conference.
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>The last issue in the session was that the length of the key, 64-bits, >was defined in criteria #1. There was no discussion at the conference on >this criteria. It seems that the NIS&T and NSA folks believe that this is a >closed topic. The folks in the session did not agree. They felt that 64-bits >was not enough. I hope this gets to you before the conference is over. I would REALLY like to hear the government response to the question: "If keys are escrowed, what purpose does a 64 bit limit serve?" Secondarily, I observe that this apparently precludes the use of OTP. Peter Trei ptrei(a)acm.org

1 0

Tim coins another phrase? / Re: Suing gun makers?
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > If they won, then the courthouse in which this happened should be McVeighed. Kind of has a 'ring' to it...or is that a 'boom?'

1 0

Re: fast modular reduction (proof?)
by danisch＠ira.uka.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > In the following pseudocode, B is the radix in which the numbers are > represented (2^32 for a 32-bit machine), n is the length of modulus in > blocks, U is B^(n+1) mod the modulus, X is the number to be reduced, k+1 > is the length of X, and Y is the result. > > 1. Y = X > 2. For i from k down to n+1, repeat steps 3 and 4 > 3. Y = Y - Y[i] * B^i + Y[i] * U * B^(i-n-1) > 4. If Y >= B^i, then Y = Y - B^i + U * B^(i-n-1) To do a proof I rewrite the algorithm: n = len(modulus) // modulus < B^n Y = X // obviously Y = X mod modulus K = B ^ (n+1) - U // U = B ^ (n+1) mod modulus, // therefore K = 0 mod modulus // furthermore K > 0 for (i=len(Y)-1 ; i>n ; i--) { F = B ^ (i-n-1) * K // F > 0 // F = 0 mod modulus Y -= Y[i] * F // Y shrinking, but // Y still the same mod modulus if ( Y >= B^i ) Y -= F // again shrinking, // still the same mod modulus } This shows that Y was shrinking, but is still equal to X mod modulus. To see whether Y really shrinks enough: Y = sum(i=0..len(Y)-1) Y[i] * B^i In the step Y = Y - Y[i] * B^i the highest block of Y is deleted (what could be done fast by reducing the length of Y). Now Y < B^i Afterwards the same value mod modulus is added to keep Y constant: Y = Y + Y[i] * U * B^(i-n-1). Y[i]<B -> Y[i]+1 <= B U < modulus < B^n , therefore U < B^n -> (Y[i]+1) * U < B * B^n = B^(n+1) -> Y[i] * U < B^(n+1) - U -> Y[i] * U * B^ (i-n-1 ) < F Therefore after doing the addition Y < B^i + F Check of the last step: 0 <= U < B^n therefore B^n < B^(n+1) - U <= B^(n+1) Therefore in every loop B^(i-1) < F <= B^i -> Y-F < B^i Partial Correctness: Y = X [ Y = X mod Y < B^len(X) ] K = B ^ (n+1) - U [ K = 0 mod B^n < K <= B^(n+1) ] for (i=len(X)-1 ; i>n ; i--) { [ Y = X mod , Y < B^(i+1) ] F = B ^ (i-n-1) * K [ F = 0 mod , B^(i-1) < F <= B^i ] [ 0 <= Y[i] < B ] [ Y[i] * F = 0 mod , 0 <= Y[i] * F < B^(i+1) ] [ Y >= Y[i] * B^i -> Y >= Y[i] * F ] Y -= Y[i] * F [ Y = X mod , Y < B^i + F (reason see above) , Y >= 0 ] if ( Y >= B^i ) Y -= F // again shrinking, // still the same mod modulus [ Y = X mod , Y >= 0 , Y < B^i ] } Last i was n+1, therefore Y = X mod , Y >= 0 , Y < B^(n+1) This is not enough, Y < B^n is requested. The loop can't be done once more because i-n-1 would become negative. k+1 was the length of X, and n the length of the modulus. You walk down from k to n+1 . In every loop you remove one block of the number. This means you have to do len(X)-len(modulus) loops. In the pseudocode you do only len(X)-len(modulus)-1 loops. One loop seems to be missing. This may be a result of confusion whether your Y starts with Y[0] or Y[1]. I do understand the algorithm as: n = len(modulus) U = B^n mod modulus K = B^n - U // = 0 mod modulus, 0 < K < B^n Y = X for(i=len(X)-1 ; i>= n ; i--) // squeeze Block i in Number Y { // Y < B ^ (i+1) F = B ^ ( i-n ) * K // F = 0 mod modulus Y -= Y[i] * F // subtract Y[i] * B^i, now Y < B ^ i // add the equivalent Y[i] * B^(i-n)*U <= F // now Y < B^i + F if ( Y >= B[i] ) Y -= F // now Y < B^i } Last i was n, therefore Y < B^n , Y = X mod modulus , but perhaps still Y >= modulus. Ok, algorithm understood and agreed (after modifying the loop counter). Any more agreements or disagreements? Hadmut -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBME8QImc1jG5vDiNxAQFREgQAiMWfgy3bZtPckCNToAvKP7A+JevlnrqG wJT6/111656nAZHDF5Htr2vwPEmiR522IvPKMG2MnOanMIRn2bgBYG3GECA3zlDo ZnXNT1OXdtZzv848WPryLVjSJrrVTX/PUN9d6LaTqLBP5pZXwAYkO5kLU6/WP6yL tF+fniXDZvk= =Ev0S -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Force Ratios
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Wednesday night's ABC magazine program on Ruby Ridge was a great example of what TV can be but so rarely is. Lots of chopper shots of Ruby Ridge. Lots of hand held camera recreations and interviews with the Weavers and the sniper (face obscured because he has something to hide), etc. But the most interesting thing that this emphasized for me was the sort of modern information warfare issues as highlighted in the recent Economist Survey. Info war is war by other means (a little shooting, communications, publicity, and litigation) and look what happened at Ruby Ridge. The Feds deployed 400 "troopies", some armored personnel carriers, copters, executive jets, Hummers, and other hardware. On the other side were 3 adults and 4 children with some 14 personal weapons. The result. One Fed and two Weavers dead. A $3.1 million legal settlement, and continuing problems for the Feds. That smells like a bad defeat to me. They couldn't even kill 7 people with a 57 to 1 force ratio. In addition, the operation and the various investigations must have cost the Feds millions more. (What *do* the Fibbies have to pay for those Ninja Hoods?) And they lost. That suggests that the ability of The Great Enemy to overcome the sort of directed human activity of the frictionless markets we are building will be quite limited. DCF "Your Honor, the Defense will rest without calling any witnesses. No witnesses we could put on the stand could do as good a job setting forth the Defense case as the Government's witnesses have already done." -- Gerry Spence at the conclusion of the Government's case in US vs. Weaver.

1 0

The World's Fastest Crypto Teacher
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Alexis wrote: > Is there anybody that can tutor me how to hack, crack, phrank, and > cryptomography ( i'm not sure i speel that last part correctly. > I would like to get some help, please email me back ASAP thank you so > very much Alexis, I would be happy to teach you everything I know about cryptography. ...uuhhh... There, that didn't take long. Any questions? TruthMonger

1 0

Re: ECPA (Was: University logging mail to anon.penet.fi)
by liberty＠gate.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "Josh M. Osborne" <stripes(a)va.pubnix.com> writes: <snip> >Even if we were in a more libertarian society you run the risk of >being boycotted by potential customers (of corse the analagy breaks >down somewhat, in a very libertarian society oyu might be able to >run a profatable ISP selling to the very nich market of people who >want to threten, harass, or generally make a nuicence of themselves). > As the list's designated "very libertarian" advocate, I must object. Here is what you must sign to become a member of the Libertarian Party: "I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." Libertarian Pledge required for membership. <signature>___________________________. To "to threten, harass, or generally make a nuicence"[SIC] of himself, one must violate this pledge, and there would no-doubt still be legal results. This points up the difference between libertaria (not utopia) and anarchy. Anything _DOESN'T_ go in libertaria. If you see a victim, there's almost certainly a crime, and if someone chose to threaten, harass, etc. me, I would want it so. Of course, there are exceptions. For example: If I join a mailing list which sometimes "harasses" me due to insufficient spell-checking/proof-reading of certain posts, there might still be the common-law defense that Jim Ray "came to the nuisance," and therefore I am still not due any compensation.<g> I can always unsubscribe, and some people probably wish I would. ;) [NOTE: IANAL!] JMR <snip> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh iQCVAwUBME8RWm1lp8bpvW01AQHXVgP9GsUelVcy4BFo/qt+Gm2JqdaHOlGUAvnP eFWXXT7hhzuC5Lz7vdBOb7itNGVahOVmDWPZxAbGJd/sJtd7YAfn4I8uMCiFieXZ dG7atBLLB66tBcsLYq/gXABHg2Z+MMojTf8A5XXCdqCJl4KoeaVckOEnKjR6uoCE Q9WrJiykH8Y= =xdDV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Regards, Jim Ray "As sensitive and broad-minded humans, we must never allow ourselves to be in any way judgmental of the religious practices of other people, even when these people clearly are raving space loons." -- Dave Barry ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PGP key Fingerprint 51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE 53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 Key id. # E9BD6D35 James M. Ray <liberty(a)gate.net> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Support Phil! email zldf(a)clark.net or see http://www.netresponse.com/zldf ________________________________________________________________________

2 1

Re: Sweden's Social Democrats Sterilize the Inferior
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh wrote: > >From: David Boaz <dboaz(a)cato.org> > >Subject: Social Democrats Sterilize the Inferior > >By JIM HEINTZ > >.c The Associated Press > >The program stemmed from the pursuit of eugenics, a once-popular movement to > >improve humanity by controlling genetic factors in reproduction. AB wrote: >The problem is that from a purely scientific evolutionary point of >view, the human race is surely regressing, the masses of negative >evolutionary pressures are certainly pushing this way. > >The sterilizations targeted a wide range of people: those of mixed race; > >unmarried mothers with several children; people judged to be habitual > >criminals; even a boy considered ''sexually precocious.'' > >''Grounds for recommending sterilization: unmistakable Gypsy features, > >psychopathy, vagabond life,'' reads one document cited by Dagens Nyheter. AB wrote: >Welfare cases in the UK are encouraged to have children by the way the >system is structured. A single mother is the highest priority case, >with pretty much guaranteed 16 years of preferential treatment, higher >payouts, higher on housing priority lists, and so on. Female >divorcees with children often get more money, better accomodation, and >more extra fringe benefit handouts than they would ever have married. >Welfare is better than the minimum wage earners lot by a significant >amount. It seems to me that today's society, like Nazi society, is heavily involved in influencing the evolutionary direction of "humanity by controlling genetic factors in reproduction." However, as Adam points out, society currently weights it's eugenics program in favor of those whose survival and/or level of subsistence is based on the incomes earned by other people who are more fitted for survival. > >The issue of forced sterilization stands to be even more troublesome, because > >it was conducted under the ostensibly benign gaze of the Social Democrats - > >that party that built Sweden's welfare state and proclaimed it a paragon of > >enlightened government. And today we have a forced child-bearing program based on rewarding those who bear children with survival support that they would not otherwise receive. Even when the individual has a desire to change their position in life, they usually get little support for that. Instead, we make it much easier to just pop a little-one in the oven and say goodbye to all of your survival woes. > >Not only did eugenics foresee an improved human race, it also was appealing > >to Social Democrats, who were beginning to see that Sweden's welfare state > >would be costly and wanted to limit the number of people who would have to be > >supported, the newspaper said. AB wrote: >The problem is what can you do about it? Well I guess you could >negatively structure the welfare hand out system to discourage them. >You could scrap the welfare system. They already offer free birth >control advice to teenagers and hand out condoms free without >questions etc. Free abortions? The problems are *known* problems which remain unsolved--the question is, "Why?". AB wrote: >The real problem is that the pervasive bleeding heart >socialist/communist welfare system mentality will ensure that you'll >never manage it. That, indeed, is half of the problem. The other side of the coin is that the capitalist/fascist earned income and/or welfare system is now just as dependent on maintaining the status-quo. As is the law enforcement/judicial/prison system of justice. It used to be the occasional war which sustained a robust economy. Now it is a 'constant' war which helps to sustain the economy. The War on Drugs. How many people in this country owe their jobs to drug addicts. A damn large number, but do drug addicts get any thanks for boosting employment (and TV's)? >"The children" is a war cry which will ensure the continuance of state >funded negative evolutionary pressures. Praise the Lord! I think much of the country is beginning to realize that we are now in a Catch-22 situation where "solving" societies problems will "cause" a great many problems in itself. Solve the drug problem tomorrow, and we will have doctors, lawyers, policemen and social workers out begging in the streets to feed their families. Solve the welfare problem tomorrow, and we will have riots in the streets by those on 'both' sides of the issue, no matter what the nature of the changes. {e.g. - I can give everyone on welfare, in the whole world, a good paying job in Inuvik, starting tomorrow. So now we can begin the violent, bloody debate on "forced relocation."} --------- >From http://www.hill.se/mag.htm (Re: Swedish Sterilization) Blackmail and threats: The Medical Board approved of the operation. Since physical force was prohibitied, the school management and the doctor used blackmail to make Astrid consent to sterilization. If she did not approve of this little operation, they threatened her, she would face life incarceration. Thousands of healthy, intelligent persons were submitted to the same treatment as Astrid was. The medical arguments were, however, a little different according to what sex the individuals belonged to. Boys ready for sterilization were rather described as unreliable, dishonest and mischievous. (irreverent cypherpunks!) There has not been a real settlement with the period of sterilization. The National Institute of Racialiology was never discontinued, but had its name changed into The Institution of Medical Geneticsnd was assimilated into Uppsala University in 1959. --------- I already knew a lot about the history of the eugenics movement, as well as its 'shift' to new organizations with the same old faces, and the same underlying ethics and rational behind them. I didn't learn about this on the ABC TV News, nor in Time Magazine, nor any of the 'mainstream' media. I learned about this on the types of websites which gave me information on the reptilian Nazi aliens from outer space, who live in underground bunkers throughout the world. This is also where I learned about Planned Parenthood and its successors being an offshoot of the Eugenics/Purification movement. And about the U.S.'s rich and politically elite of today owe much of their family's money to working closer with Hitler than any of the Death Camp guards. And about the U.S. gun laws being based on the Nazi gun laws of Hitler's era. To tell the truth, I have absolutely no interest in becoming a raving lunatic who believes in reptilian Nazi's from outer space living in underground bunkers beneath my home town, but the problem is that the rest of the information I am getting on the 'lunatic' sites is proving much more reliable than the information I received in my years of education within the public school system. The problem with lunatic sites is that too many of them are not afraid to supply facts and references from established, reliable sources, including government documents, while the corresponding government-backed versions of events involve "magic bullet"'s and John Does who appear and disappear like the Cheshire cat, at the government's convenience. The problem with mainstream news sites is when a story surfaces which lends credence to the wild-eyed claims of the 'lunatic' news sites, the story suddenly disappears, to be replaced with a story of a fireman saving a cute kitten from a tree. The problem with reading both the mainstream ~and~ the lunatic news sites is that a very disturbing picture develops. Portions of the 'free world' imprison more people than dictatorships, but for the "right" reasons, instead of the "wrong" reasons. Human-rights-defending liberals have sterilized many, many times the number of people that genetic-purification-monster Nazi's ever dreamed of, but for the "right" reasons, instead of the "wrong" reasons. Every evil that has ever been done under the sun (or the moon, for that matter) is still being done, but under the "right" name, using the "right" terminology, and for the "right" reasons. (The chief justification always seems to lie in a variation of 'renaming' the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse.) "Assassination Politics" is beginning to sound more and more like a valid electoral system. One dollar, one vote. Perhaps Jim Bell and Tim May can corroborate on a sequel, "Nuclear Assassination Politics." LonesomeOneryAndMeanMonger

1 0

Re: Another Son of Clipper discussion paper
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 16:36 9/5/95, Mike McNally wrote: >If the algorithm is public (and to stretch a point, if the executable >makes it onto somebody's hard disk, it's effectively public), I don't >really understand how the above can be made a realistic goal. Windows 95 is on a lot of people's hard drives. It is therefore public and available for every one's inspection. How many people do you know that have reverse engineered Windows 95. How many of those use a reverse engineered version. I'd venture it is zero out of zero. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

3 2

Cybersecurity
by Derek Roth-Biester 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >> "Cybersecurity" - an investigation into cryptography, the > >> Internet, civil rights, Phil Zimmermann, PGP (and should we be > >> permitted to use it?) and so forth. > >> [My wife] and I watched this program - she found it very informative - otherwise for me it wasn't anything new, other than to see Whitfield Diffie, Phil Zimmermann and some porn star Cyberella being interviewed about public/private key encryption. It was very much on the side of those seeking privacy, presenting the government (even in the UK they are looking at mandatory key escrow, but they haven't exactly told British subjects about it) as being underhand, sneaking around to find ways of removing the privacy of the individual. What they didn't say is that the debate is a moot point. The technology is out there and there ain't nothin' the guvmint can do about it. Derek

2 1