December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Radiation Detectors from Aware Electronics
by sharborth＠hai-net.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

So what does this have to do with this mailing list?? Skip ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Radiation Detectors from Aware Electronics Author: perry(a)piermont.com at internet Date: 02-11-95 23:45 There have been several requests for information on the company that makes the radiation detectors with RS232 interfaces that I mentioned. Here is how to reach them: Aware Electronics P.O. Box 4299 Wilmington, DE 19807 Phone (800) 729-5397 (302) 655-3800 Perry

3 3

Re: FBI Wants to Wiretap One of Every 100 Phones in Urban Areas
by clarkm＠cnct.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> On Fri, 3 Nov 1995 clarkm(a)cnct.kom wrote: > > > Thanks for this item! Two little excerpts jump out at me. > > Gee, I hope they didn't spook you too badly when they jumped out at you > like that. I can tell you're a little jumpy. Hi Rich! Thx for changing my domain, I'm sure it fooled SAIC. > > So what is it? 1,154 wiretaps? Or 20,000? > > Easy: both. 1,154 wiretaps, and 20K to 25K intercepts, which includes both > wiretaps and other interceptions, i.e., recording which phone numbers you > call but not actually listening to the conversations. > > Get out of Dodge. You get out of Dodge. 1,154 electronic surveillance orders, about 7,000 pen registers & trap/trace plus 500 FISA warrants, all 1993 if memory serves. Figures as supplied to EPIC, and from memory. > By whom is the FBI being sued? What is the case number? Who are the > lawyers? What are their Bar numbers? How many times have they been > disciplined for bringing frivolous suits? EPIC. Quick!! Fire up your index! > > What's so special about the year 2002? > > Obviously, it is two elections from now, when the UN will invade the US > to impose the rule of the Anti-Christ. > > Oops, I wasn't supposed to say that. But now that you have... Check out the wiretap stats and FOIA responses at http://www.epic.org and come back & quibble some more. .---. .----------- * :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: / \ __ / ------ * clark.matthews(a)paranet.org / / \(..)/ ----- * :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ////// ' \/ ` ---- * //// / // : : --- * PERMISSION TO \\/ / * / /` '--* COPY / REPOST \*/ * //..\\ x-x-UU----UUx-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x '//||\\` N E M O..M E..I M P U N E..L A C E S S I T x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

2 1

Re: Re: Chaum's cash: backup?
by Jiri Baum 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello Marcel van der Peijl, > From: "Marcel van der Peijl" <bigmac(a)digicash.com> > Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 14:10:58 +0100 Sorry about taking so long to reply... I'll quote more than usual to make up for it. > > > I could give a hint: your random state initializer is not the too-often > > > used srand( time( NULL ) ) but user-chosen during installation. > > This sounds great... Will the bank be running crack against the proto-coins > > it gets? (Say, at the behest of a LEA?) > It is not the bank's intention to screw the clients, but mostly the > other way around. I was referring to the claim that the system is payer-anonymous. Thinking of it again now, what's to stop Eve the eavesdropper from spying on the proto-coins, running crack against it, and then (later) eavesdropping on the bank-signed coins and unblinding/depositing them before Alice/Bob does? (No, being encrypted by the bank's public key is not enough.) > If the bank wants to screw the clients the easiest > way is to change their account balance. Remember, you trust them with > your money. That's why they're a bank. Yes, but is the bank really interested in protecting privacy? > > Is there any way for the user to re-initialize the random state? > > > Write that initializer down and you can re-generate all coins. > > ... > > That's going to be one hell of a valuable piece of paper. > > (Certainly to your enemies/prosecutors - it reveals the blinding factors > > for every coin you ever spent.) > You may choose to burn it or change random state and have no > recoverability. What do you value more? Your privacy or your money? > Each user will have too choose. a) It would be nice if the protocol didn't require this choice. b) This choice should be made explicit to the user. c) As I noted above, wouldn't it also strongly reduce security? See you! Jiri - -- <jirib(a)cs.monash.edu.au> <jiri(a)melb.dialix.oz.au> PGP 463A14D5 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i iQCVAwUBMJnEeCxV6mvvBgf5AQF2BwP/XdMn6ktMGjToDltqo014kT1i3Z/GGXPr HPW1gBN3RT3Ba9F2Ac+24IVVFqauo1sT+Ecc872UrlQzoF8S524oZfhjh3IW5xRF mpZX48tnQn5nJE/U4XgvcuQ6yw5JOhc2eEVPs2PnKT+RdUogNb9UDAXOKn6+EILc nqosNXK+aMU= =geHb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: FBI Wants to Wiretap One of Every 100 Phones in Urban Areas
by carolann＠censored.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This story broke on ABC radio news 26 hours ago. It is still running as lead story. Love Always, Carol Anne...still amazed it's lead story -- Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann(a)censored.org 206.42.112.96 My Homepage The Cyberdoc *********************************************************************** ------------------ PGP.ZIP Part [017/713] ------------------- M8H,),S$8G>&.WP(8IRA`-M['+`Q%&_C"">5-F%LX@<_Q$;*P'',Q$Z/AA[8M MF=O0H+*%(-S%&>S%+FS&<LS%3(Q&#W1"<]2%`H^;,]^1C$'HBN8PX$4SYAU^ MPGD<Q0ZLA0D+,`MCT!LA**4M[-JPAK9F?40!AJ,CW"'%DR#:'9?Q)3[%<DQ` ------------------------------------------------------------- for next chunk to export --> http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/export/

1 0

Transcript of Bernstein hearing is now available
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We received the transcript of October 20's oral hearing from the court stenographer. It's up on the EFF Web site at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Bernstein_v_DoS/Legal/951020_hearing.tra… This is from Dan Bernstein's case, which is trying to get the crypto export laws invalidated as unconstitutional. This particular hearing is about the government's motion to throw the case out of court because the courts don't have jurisdiction to decide the issue. Some of it is deep legalese, and some of it is quite readable. There's still no news from the judge on what her decision is, or when she will decide. John Gilmore

3 2

Hit-and-Run Anonymous Posts (Re: "Dr." Fred)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:22 AM 11/1/95, Dr. Frederick B. Cohen wrote: (quoting an anonymous poster) >> The difference, of course, is that its almost impossible >> to have sympathy for Dr. Fred. His hustle is for a hell >> of a lot more than subsistence. He was also never actually >> a master of his field, a fact that becomes increasingly >> obvious as our exposure to him goes on. Now he's reduced >> himself to trying to collect someone else's winnings. > >Sour grapes, and from an anonymous poster too. Oooo - I'm insulted. > >I have been thinking about the issues of anonymity for some time, and I >have been convinced for some time that you can't have both integrity and >anonymity. I thought there might be ways to accomplish this, but the >cypherpunks have convinced me it isn't true. Show some integrity and >tell us who you are. I've also found that anonymous persons are usually the most prone to hit-and-run attacks and flames. I usually only briefly scan anonymous posts and then delete them. Some people hide behind anonymity to launch scurrilous attacks. Best to just ignore them, in my opinion. Exceptions are the cases when an anonymous source has something "sensitive" to contribute, such as the release of the putative MD4 code, and the like. And there have of course been thoughtful anonymous essays. Anonymity is under some assault today. I think it important not to throw out the very basic advantages of allowing anonymity just because some abuse occurs. (The issue is not that "allowing" it is good, but that "banning" it would require drastic and draconian enforcement measures.) Pseudonyms are another matter entirely. Some are classy (Pr0duct Cypher, Black Unicorn, Lucky Green), some are oafish (S Boxx), some are ephemeral. Persistence of the identity, as when backed by digital signatures, is important. (Though not essential, yet.) --Tim May Views here are not the views of my Internet Service Provider or Government. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

censored with Perry
by gjeffers＠socketis.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Enzo Michelangeli writes: >In any case, before Perry (rightly) send us stern reminders of the scarce >crypto relevance of this thread, let's take it out of Cypherpunks and, >if someone is interested, let's continue by e-mail. Perry is again narrowly defining allowable speech on Cypherpunks. Encryption becomes a trivial topic if its best medium is taken by the States. Perry is still in his "only encryption algorithms in C is a proper topic for Cypherpunks" mode. This is a direction that if followed would take the vitality and relevance out of the Cypherpunks list. Perry does a disservice for Cypherpunks. Since when did Cypherpunks become the mailing list fit for Perry? Perry makes a big deal out of "nobody speaks for Perry" yet on Cypherpunks he has decided that he sets the parameters for allowed speech. When did Perry come to own the list? Where did he get this "authority" to tell other Cypherpunks to shut up? As Perry often presumptiously and rudely reminds C'punks that their speech is not tolerable, we must also take the time and trouble to occasionally tell Perry to shove his opinions up his ass. Gary Jeffers

4 3

Re: censored? corrected [Steve Pizzo cited in The Spotlight]
by Jay Campbell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Is it? This is the _one_ thing in the article (is that term >giving it too much legitimacy?) that I whought was barely true. Whoever >controls the root level DNS servers effectively controls the Internet. >I postulated a couple of months ago about how the US Govt might attempt >to censor the rest of the world: "Remove lurid.porno.site.other-country >from your DNS system within 72 hours or we will remove references to >your DNS servers from the root level servers.". (I also speculated that >if the US Govt tried doing this, that an 'underground' DNS system would >form almost immediately.) [off topic] It almost did when InterNIC announced it's recent (and abrupt) new pricing structure for domain names. All it would take is an additional entry in {dns}/root.cache - even a small company with decent VC (and multiple geographic locations, preferably) could have pulled this off and made a decent chunk of change underselling InterNIC; with a slight shift in the way things are done, the model could have been opened up into a competitive market with price and (GASP!) customer service/response time wars. [FADE IN: Look, Jim! I submitted my domain through Campbell.NET 30 seconds ago and it's already live .. That's nothing, Terry, ...] Yet another 'axiom' that turns out to be nothing more than convention. -- Jay Campbell edge(a)got.net - Operations Manager -=-=-=-=-=-=- Sense Networking, Santa Cruz Node Jay(a)Campbell.net got.net? PGP MIT KeyID 0xACAE1A89 "On the Information Superhighway, I'm the guy behind you in this morning's traffic jam leaning on his horn."

1 0

Re: alt.anonymous.messages considered harmful
by Jay Campbell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Those who do get the message, can not notice a cancel attack; those >who don't, would have to carefully search for suspicious Supersedes: >lines and monitor the control newsgroup. A denial of service attack by >manipulated Path: header cannot be detected by the victim. cancels aren't the only monster .. we have a vigilante up the pipe somewhere deleting a chunk of every post set in certain alt.binaries.* groups without a cancel - they're simply not passing along a piece of every set. this is irritating (as an ISP) since it should be an individual site's responsibility (if not the user emselve's), hence the term 'vigilante' as opposed to 'concerned administrator'. the fix is to get multiple feeds, of course, but everyone in the area happens to be fed through this branch .. but i digress. -- Jay Campbell edge(a)got.net - Operations Manager -=-=-=-=-=-=- Sense Networking, Santa Cruz Node Jay(a)Campbell.net got.net? PGP MIT KeyID 0xACAE1A89 "On the Information Superhighway, I'm the guy behind you in this morning's traffic jam leaning on his horn."

1 0

Re: FBI seeks huge wiretapping system
by Jay Campbell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I was being facetious. The point is that the government has no >inherent right to tap our phones -- indeed, it didn't do so for nearly >the first 200 years of our existance, and we did just fine -- better, >in fact. It is a well-known fact that it was common practice for NSA operatives to masquerade as Injuns in the 1800's and waylay Pony Express riders in order to intercept communications between targeted parties. This practice lost popularity towards the end of the century with the advent of boxed cereal, and with it the Lone Ranger Decoder Ring, since the operatives were too underfunded to afford anything more than oatmeal. [ducks] -- Jay Campbell edge(a)got.net - Operations Manager -=-=-=-=-=-=- Sense Networking, Santa Cruz Node Jay(a)Campbell.net got.net? PGP MIT KeyID 0xACAE1A89 "On the Information Superhighway, I'm the guy behind you in this morning's traffic jam leaning on his horn."

1 0