December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: phone calls from hell
by Alan Horowitz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I almost hate to start a thread about something that will inevitably implode into a middle-east-politics flamefest, but this reminds me of the time the newswires reported that 10% of Israel's population had attended that peace rally in Tel-Aviv. Was it right after the Sabra-Shatilla massacre? Anyway, the followup news (which of course never made the news) was that it would not be physically possible for a third of that many people to all be in that place (Kikar Square?) all at once. The original numbers were published by the Israeli "peace camp", who would have liked for there to be that many people there. 100,000 people at a funeral? I don't doubt that there were 100,000 people who would have liked to be there, but I am skeptical that there's enough vehicles in Gaza to assemble 100,000 people to a funeral within a few hours. It doesn't matter does it? Everyone is willing to lie when they write press releases; newspapers are willing to not check ridiculous claims (if the claim comports with the publisher's outlook); and setting the record straight doesn't help sell advertising, publishers really care how lazy journalists are. I saw a great interview with the man who invented the phrase "ethnic cleansing" - a PR-agency guy in Boston under contract to the Bosnian Government. He openly stated, that he doesn't get paid to write the truth into press releases; he's paid to get his client's press releases into opinion-molder's fax machines FIRST. The first press release always wins. He also openly stated that he didn't know and didn't care if the Bosnian-Serb militias were operating concentration camps or not; the important thing was to fax the story to the American Jewish groups; he knew that the very *word* concentration camp would catch their eye and push them into agitating against the Serbs. He specifically stated, that he was so proud of his cleverness, because the Croatian President (foe of the Serbs) has a book under his belt ("Wastelands of Historical Reality") that is packed full of some very hot anti-Semetism. Alan Horowitz alanh(a)infi.net

1 0

The LOGIC of Navigator 2.0 ?
by James M. Cobb 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Friend, 01 07 96 the business news agency Bloomberg reports: Netscape Communications Corp. said it will release in two weeks a new version of its popular browsing software, de- signed to keep the Internet software company ahead of rival Microsoft Corp. ... The [new] browser can use programs that are stored on cen- tral computers on the Internet, making a personal computer's operating system less important. And thereby making GOVERNMENT LOGIC more important? Cordially, Jim NOTE: The newsstory's headline? NETSCAPE WILL RELEASE AN UPDATED INTERNET BROWSER IN TWO WEEKS. Its dateline? MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. (Jan 7, 1996 4:16 p.m. EST). Its Nando News online filename? biz7_1087.html

1 0

Re: e$ payee anonymity (Was: e$: Come aaaannnndddd Get it!)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:35 PM 1/7/96 -0500, you wrote: >Still working through my 10MB cpunks mail backlog; this one's from >November 17, 1995: > >jim bell writes [msg #0]: >> It seems to me that this should be possible, within limits, if the potential >> payee could generate a "blinded" note to be delivered to the payer by >> anonymous means. The payer could get the note certified by the bank, >> possibly given an extra "blind" if necessary (is this possible? Desirable? >> Why not?) and then the resulting still-blinded but certified note is posted >> (in encrypted form, I supposed) to the 'net so that only the payee can >> decrypt and unblind it. > >I wrote: ># This sounds like a version of "Hey, I'll pay you $10, if you give me a ten ># dollar bill first." As I understand your protocol, Bob gives Alice an enote, ># then Alice gives Bob an enote. >[...] > >jim bell writes [msg #1]: >> It sounds like you understand even less about the details of digital cash >> than I do. >> >> First, read the August 1992 issue of Scientific American, the article by >> David Chaum. He explains, with a certain amount of detail, how blinded >> digital cash operates. To become validated and worth money, it first has to >> be electronically "written," blinded, and then signed by the bank. Then it >> is unblinded, at which point it can be spent. >> >> What I was saying is that the notes would be written by the payee, then >> blinded by the payee, given to the payer, and then signed by the payer's >> bank. At this point, they are worth money, and they are then returned to >> the payee, >[...] > >Aha, thanks for the elaboration. I was confused by your use of the term >"note" to describe something that isn't in fact worth money, when you said >"the potential payee could generate a "blinded" note to be delivered to the >payer". It also helps that I haven't read much of the ecash(tm :) protocol >details :} > >Futplex <futplex(a)pseudonym.com> I'm quoting the whole thing since it's so old. As I assume you are aware, the reason I'm so interested in full payee/full payer anonymity for digital cash is that my idea, "Assassination Politics", requires it: It is necessary to be able to reward a completely unknown person by a completely unknown person, in such a way that nobody can rat out the other person. Even the presence of an intermediary (trusted) organization would be unnecessary if it were possible to GUARANTEE the offer of payment to the payee. As the idea is currently structured, the central organization collects the money, reports the donations, and makes the (continuing) publicized offer. It publicizes enough information to prove to the average citizen that it is dealing fairly with all concerned. Obviously, communication with the donors/guessors must be minimized/secured also, in such a way as to make detection of these people extremely difficult and ideally impossible.

1 0

Re: "Re: NSA says strong crypto to china??
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:47 AM 1/7/96 -0800, Raph Levien <raph(a)c2.org> wrote: > My best guess is that we're seeing a distortion of this >interchange. If I were a Chinese dissident, I wouldn't want to use >GAK, for three reasons: using US-lackey encryption is certainly not >going to get you into any _less_ trouble than using independent >encryption, if you used GAK you'd be working as a US spy whether you >wanted to be or not, and finally, who says the Chinese can't decrypt >it, especially with the rapid growth of television. And, four, there's no guarantee the US keymasters won't burn you to the Chinese government, if it seems useful in preserving "stability"... #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, Pager/Voicemail 1-408-787-1281 # # "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" used to mean us watching # the government, not the other way around....

1 0

Re: phone calls from hell
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

8 Jan 1996 Jerusalem, (Reuter) - The head of Israel's Shin Bet resigned Monday just three days after the killing of a wanted Palestinian bombmaker recovered some of the damage the secret service suffered from the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. The man, identified by his initial "kaf," remains in office until a successor is appointed, Israel Radio said. His predecessor, Yaacov Peri, is now president of one of Israel's two cellular telephone networks. -- 8 Jan 1996 Jerusalem (AP) -- The booby-trapped cellular phone that killed an Islamic militant was delivered by a longtime informer for Israel who was paid $1 million for helping, media reports said Monday. A fugitive for three years, Ayyash was hiding in the home of Osama Hamad, his friend from college days. Hamad said he warned Ayyash in the summer that his uncle, Kamal Hamad, may be an informer for Israel. Hamad said his uncle gave him a cellular phone so he could be found easily. A day before Ayyash was killed, his uncle asked for the cellular phone, took it and returned it later, requesting that it be kept on at all times, Hamad said. Israel's security services apparently deceived Kamal Hamad, telling him they had planted a bug in the phone, rather than explosives, the radio said. Media reports said that the explosion was set off by remote control when Ayyash answered a call to him. It is not known how the identity of Ayyash was ascertained. --

1 0

Re: phone calls from hell
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:03 PM 1/8/96 -0600, you wrote: >jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> said: > > >jb> Sorta gives new meaning to the term "_Terminate_ and Stay Resident" >jb> program, doesn't it?!? > > Wouldn't that be "Stay Resident and Terminate" or "Stay and >Terminate Resident"? > >jb> (Or "end of file.") "end of life"?

1 0

Re: NWLibs Re: Hammill 1987 speech
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:01 PM 1/7/96 -0800, you wrote: >Mr. Bell: > >if I were to summarize my arguments, they would be that governments >are the way that they are not so much because they attract certain >dysfunctional individuals, but rather because they are microcosms >and macrocosms of human psychology. the problems with government >that libertarians rant about are problems with human behavior. >the solution is not to get rid of governments-- this is confusing >cause and effect, symptom and cause. the solution is to work on >human behavior. when humans begin to think in a different, >positive way, their governing systems will automatically reflect the change. Gobbledygook. Blaming the problems of the system on the people involved. It is obvious that you are unwilling to admit that THE SYSTEM could, indeed, BE the problem. >my essay was designed to show the negative aspects of governments >that rabid libertarians are always endlessly ranting about are actually >embodied in the psychologies of those libertarians themselves. More gobbledygook. Blaming the problem on the observers of the problem. >therefore, >while I agree with the libertarian that there are many problems with >governments, I see no reason to believe that libertarians are proposing >a workable alternative, based on their own stark biases and prejudices. Still more gobbledygook. You don't mention WHICH "stark biases and prejudices," for instance. >in fact it seems quite obvious to me that their own "alternatives" are >either "vaporware" "Vaporware" is generally thought of as programs that have not yet been implemented. While it is true that much of what libertarians have proposed has not yet been implemented, blame for this lies strongly (and primarily) with NON-libertarians. >or would be far worse in practice than even the >dysfunctional systems we have in place today. You haven't established this, and haven't even attempted to. Your argumentation is weak and practically meaningless. >rabid libertarianism reminds me of Marxism: sounds great in theory, Lots of things "sound great in theory". That does not mean that everything that "sounds great in theory" will NOT be good in practice, if allowed to operate. This is ESPECIALLY true that much of libertarianism which "sounds great in theory" actually sounds PERFECTLY AWFUL to the statists who currently control things. > and >you might even convince large parts of the population or key people in >power to follow it. but does it truly present an implementable and workable >alternative? First, you tell us: What are your standards for this? Are you never going to admit that it's "workable" until it's actually working? In other words, when those opposing it have finally FAILED? where are the specifics? "Specific" what? >identifying problems with government is quite trivial. If you admit this is the case, this puts even more blame on those defending government's flaws (or failure to fix them.) >this is destructive >criticism, Please document this silly claim. You're saying identify problems with government is "destructive"? "Destructive" of what, pray tell?!? If it's "destructive" of a bad and corrcupt government, I'm HAPPY to hear it. This kind of "destructive" we need PLENTY more of! ?analogous to the guerilla warfare of words that rabid libertarians >love. but criticism is easy compared to construction of something that works. Oddly, the non-libertarians don't usually want to give libertarians the opportunity to take enough control to show that what they can do "works." Gee, I wonder why! Maybe they're afraid of incipient success. Privatization of previously publicly-provided services is strongly resisted. >when you focus your attempts on creating a system that embodies your >ideals instead of ranting at those that do not (and complaining that >you cannot because governments prevent you), you will make far more >progress in developing your ideas and convincing the world to follow you >than any number of essays can accomplish. More gobbledygook. >if libertarianism is truly workable, shouldn't it be workable on >small scales? It is, and does, work on small scales, WHEN ALLOWED. >what prevents individuals from actually starting it going >at a small scale and growing it? It's called, "government regulation," "taxes," and such. If you've been following the news recently, perhaps you've noticed that there are "peanut quotas" (to cite just one example) which legally prevent me from deciding to grow peanuts and sell them freely on the American market. ___THIS___ is just one of those things which "prevents individuals from actually starting it going at a small scale and growing it." Feeling a bit more foolish, Mr. Nuri?!? >that is the path that every government >and nation has taken since the beginning of time, why do you think you >should be exmempt? That's EXACTLY why libertarianism ISN'T being allowed to flourish. It eliminates control that others worked hard to achieve. >I don't see that any of your response to my essay detract from this >basic message so I'm going to pass on a detailed reply. Typical Nuri wimp-out.

1 0

Re: NSA says strong crypto to China?
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:05 PM 1/7/96 -0800, Rich Graves wrote: >The NSA is logically allied with other organizations of greater >repressiveness, inasmuch as it is not really in the interest of the NSA to >pursue absolute freedom anywhere. Certainly they have no desire for anyone >in the world to enjoy privacy. However, this logical symmetry does not >translate to practical collaboration. You think the NSA and the Chinese >government trust each other at all? They're spying on each other. They have common interests and conflicting interests. They have a common interest in repressing Chinese dissidents, to keep the world safe for National Security Agencies. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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: Horowitz "thread"
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Jan 08, 1996 17:41:10, 'Alan Horowitz <alanh(a)infi.net>' wrote: > >I almost hate to start a thread about something that will inevitably >implode into a middle-east-politics flamefest... > Then don't. --tallpaul

1 0

Re: get mix-installer. (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From adam(a)lighthouse.homeport.org Fri Jan 5 19:52:45 1996 > Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 20:55:25 -0500 > From: Adam Shostack <adam(a)lighthouse.homeport.org> > Message-Id: <199601060155.UAA21106(a)homeport.org> > To: ravage(a)ssz.com > Subject: Re: get mix-installer. > References: <199601060152.TAA04065(a)einstein.ssz.com> > In-Reply-To: <199601060152.TAA04065(a)einstein.ssz.com> > Precedence: junk > > I followed the request information per the original posting by Adam and received this in reply. This leads me to believe that Mr. Shostack is basicaly unwilling to fulfill his own promises. My advice, avoid like the plague. Caviat emptor.

5 5