December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Judge blocks French ISPs from connecting to revisionist sites
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:07 PM 3/18/96 +0100, Anonymous wrote: > I was surprised - the authors of these [revisionist] sites come across > as very sane and open-minded, not the foaming at the mouth bigoted > types that others lead us to believe. > > Anyone who seriously calls him(her)self open-minded should give these > sites a go - they certainly got me thinking. The pernicious effects of censorship: When you actually meet monsters, and see that they do not have horns and a tail, you falsely imagine that they are not monsters. You will read: "So and so went to site of the alleged extermination centers, and he saw X, Y, and Z, and this shows there are holes in the extermination story. Simple lie. Whenever I write about Cuba, leftists write: "I went to Cuba, and I saw such and such so and so". Well I went to Cuba, and I know that they lie barefaced, therefore I assume the same is true of the flatly conflicting tales concerning the holocaust. Those who defend totalitarianism, regardless of the brand name of totalitarianism, simply lie. It is as uncomplicated as that. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

2 1

Re: M$ CryptoAPI Question
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:02 AM 3/18/96 -0800, you wrote: > >If the good guys can find a way to plug an unapproved international >strong-crypto module into the CryptoAPI, then the bad guys can find a way >plug in a no-crypto virus or trojan horse. > You want to prove: (A) IF you CAN plug in an unapproved module THEN you CAN plug in a trojan/virus. That doesn't mean, however, that: (B) IF you can't plug in an unapproved module THEN you can't plug in a trojan/virus. The subversion mechanisms would just not use the standard API. So what have you really proved if you can prove (A)? >-rich(a)c2.org > http://www.c2.org/hackmsoft/ and other cool stuff > >

1 0

Free Flight
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The latest Wired and last week's news reports covered the FAA decision to sloooowly move from the current Positive Control ATC system to one called Free Flight in which aircraft pick there own routes and separation is maintained by GPS, computers, and telecommunications. Collision avoidance telecoms as opposed to collision avoidance radar. Every plane knows where it is in 4 dimensions (don't forget time) and knows its performance capabilities. They communicate with each other and the ground to keep away from each other. The question is why? Why abandon a central command and control system with defined airways and checkpoints, orders and acknowledgements? Is this some sinister triumph by free market ideology creeping into the ATC system as it did into New Zealand's Labour Government of the 1980s or even into the Chinese Commies brains? Not quite. It is simple. The system was breaking down already even before the 40-50% traffic growth projected over the next few years. Even if the FAA weren't totally incompetent as a computer buyer, a centralized system suffers from real congestion problems as growth occurs. Trying to cram more traffic down fixed routes is a real problem. Likewise finding enough commanders to seize and hold the high points of the ATCS. The change has been proposed because the system would collapse without it. Freedom is their only chance. Note the same effect in the future as trade, travel, data flows, etc. double and redouble. At some point on the growth curve, free flight becomes the only possibility. DCF "What *was* Vince Foster doing on November 22, 1963"?

1 0

Your Majordomo request results
by Majordomo＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- Your request of Majordomo was: >>>> subscribe cypherpunks **** Address already subscribed to cypherpunks Your request of Majordomo was: >>>> end END OF COMMANDS

1 0

Re: Judge blocks French ISPs from connecting to revisionist sites
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [Various holocaust revisionist crap deleted] Don't worry, it will very soon become impossible to block access to anything on the Web. I have a long record of opposing the holocaust revisionists. I have never attempted to prevent them putting their views forward. It is better to expose them and their lies. Winston Smith, Faust and co disappeared after we proved that they were the creations of one Dan Gannon. Attempting to cut off access and the conceit that the truth needs to be legislated merely plays into the facists hands. Any attempt to cut of service can be circumvented simply by connecting to a cache. Hensa in the UK (www.hensa.co.uk ?) run a very large one. There are also many caches run by US universities although for obvious reasons it is preferable for the French to go through a European one. And please, no more anonymous posts trying to persuade us that there is anything worth reading at these hate sites. The literary style is familiar enough that nobody should be fooled. Phill - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMU2UhSoZzwIn1bdtAQFuqAGAxBfCOiZ1LKPIXLdE7OAJnabXlv1rxShW bW7DwF16+4rjLdm9ZahdS/X0NAMS1Oum =ySHM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: IPG - newest release of the ABC Encryption Algorithms (fwd)
by Mike McNally 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

IPG Sales wrote: > Obviously, you meet our requirements for the release of the IPG ABC > Encryption algorithms. We need no further information from you. though we > would appreciate your telephone num and snail mail address. On the other hand, the "algorithm" as presented is so hopelessly obfuscated by the strange terminology and loose descriptions used to present it that there's no way I (or anybody else) could seriously evaluate it. Either publish an algorithm in some accepted format (a real C program, or even Knuth notation) or cut back your expectations for public analysis. ______c_____________________________________________________________________ Mike M Nally * Tiv^H^H^H IBM * Austin TX * pain is inevitable m5(a)tivoli.com * m101(a)io.com * <URL:http://www.io.com/~m101> * suffering is optional

1 0

DESCRIBE
by Leonardo Machado 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

undescribe cypherpunks(a)toad.com cyber(a)ronet.com.br

1 0

16B_uys
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

3-18-96. TWP: "FBI, CIA Try to Set Turf Rules as Bureau Branches Out." The growing FBI overseas contingent is establishing liaison relationships with foreign police and intelligence groups that already have relationships with CIA personnel. The FBI agents abroad also try to develop their own clandestine informants, sometimes recruiting individuals who work for the CIA or have been fired by it. At a gathering Feb. 3-4 in Davos, Switzerland, FBI Director Freeh met with six presidents, seven prime ministers and three foreign ministers. 16B_uys

1 0

NSA denies our 3DES license application
by Phil Karn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Last month, Qualcomm filed with the State Department an application to export my IP Security (ESP) code for KA9Q NOS to Singapore. Our stated purpose was to encrypt an Internet "tunnel" between Qualcomm's US facilities and our office in Singapore, which is staffed by two US citizens. We stated that the software would be used solely for this purpose and would not be transferred to anyone else. Our application indicated that the software in question supported both single and triple DES. On March 11, the Office of Defense Trade Controls returned our application stamped "RETURNED WITHOUT ACTION". The following form was attached: United States Department of State Bureau of Political-Military Affairs Office of Defense Trade Controls Washington, DC 20520-0602 MAR 11 1996 [stamped] IN REPLY REFER TO DTC CASE - 664149 The enclosed application has been voided and is being RETURNED WITHOUT ACTION for the reasons indicated below: _X_1. Submit a new application including all required background and documentation. Do not return the enclosed application. [25 other unchecked items omitted. These referred mainly to administrative problems like "you used the wrong form", "you didn't file enough copies of the supporting technical data", etc. _X_27. Please submit another license [sic] once your software has been modified so that it no longer contains triple DES. Please specify object code only on your license application. [signed] Darlene Staniszewski Licensing Officer (703) 875-5677 [end of form] So there you have it. NSA makes good on its threat to ANSI X9 that triple DES would not be exportable. This was a case where keeping strong crypto out of the hands of terrorists and unfriendly governments was clearly not at issue. It dealt strictly with the ability of a US corporation to defend its international operations against against industrial espionage. Or, perhaps more to the point, espionage by the NSA. Certainly seems like a good argument in favor of the Leahy bill to me. One mildly interesting thing about this form letter response is that item 27 appeared to be part of the standard form -- it wasn't typed into an "other" field of an existing form. Perhaps they added it to the word processing file for this one occasion. Or perhaps they deny triple DES exports so regularly that they now have a standard form item to deal with it. Phil Karn

1 0

Re: InfoWarCon V 1996: Call For Papers
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:29 AM 3/18/96 -0500, Mark Aldrich wrote: >I personally know Winn and several of the folks from NCSA. You're stuff >would be a FANTASTIC contribution, and I'm certain that it would be a >popular session. Yes, some of these folks are a bit "establishment," but >they go to these things looking for new ideas, new perspectives, etc. Well, I've forwarded the essay as is. If they really insist, I'd cut it down to a 1-2 page summary, but I suspect that if it catches their attention they won't mind reading the extra material. >You sound like a guy who can hold his own in a debate, so I imagine >you'll have no problems dealing with this crowd. They may "challenge" >your views, but you're not going to get attacked or anything. You're probably right, but some of the more perceptive ones may shit bricks when they discover what the stakes really are. The REALLY perceptive ones will know that it doesn't make any difference, whether or not they like the idea or me, it's on the way. >Don't read too much into this. Last year, we had Eric Bloodaxe (Chris G) >there, a host of, uh, shall we say "fringe" elements, and I think Eric >Hughes was there (?Eric? Sarah and I *think* we saw you there?), as well. >As far as an "agenda" other than the published one, I think you're probably >being overly concerned. It's actually a fun con and you'd be surprised >the number of people willing to actively listen to anyone they even think >might remotely be a "hacker." > >If you show up trying to "one up" folks, however, you may not get what you >want. It's more of a cooperative, interactive forum; Not a competition. It's not that I'm trying to "one up" them; it might happen automatically. Let me give you a real-life example: I first published the essay on FIDOnet, as well as list called "Digitaliberty," run by Bill Frezza. Frezza's list paradigm was to develop a way to enable the net to stay free in an unfree world; my idea had the prospect of not only making/keeping the net free, but also dragging the rest of the world into freedom whether it liked it or not. (As well as eliminating war, governments, and a few other minor details.) A few weeks after I started publicizing AP, the list went down for a few days and when it eventually returned, I was not among the subscribers and Frezza studiously ignored my inquiries. As you can well imagine, Frezza's original idea was good, it was merely too limited and was overtaken by progress. It would have been easier for him if he had opposed the fundamental concept of net freedom, or believed my position to be impractical or technically flawed. As it was, there was nothing he could do. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0