December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: True random numbers
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:13 PM 2/17/96, maruishi(a)netcom.com wrote: >I think you are probably right when you say that it is not truely random. >I don't think I thought about it very much, but this method does produce >a kind of a pseudo random numbers. Yes, it produces a "kind" of pseudo random number...the problem is determining which "kind" it is and whether it is sufficient for the planned use. The Netscape RNG also produced a "kind" of pseudo random number generator...but it was insufficient, as events showed. > But I think it would be really hard to simulate this method because >if you send data to a network way out there in Europe then all the >machines in between can cause the tranmission to slow down or spend up >depending on the type of lines nad CPU load etc... If by "simulation" you mean "prediction," I agree. I agree that predicting the next bit in a sequence might be hard. (But "hard" is a slippery term, and the history of crypto is littered with the corpses of systems that seemed to be hard but weren't.) However, even predicting the next bit with 50.0001% accuracy might be sufficient to reduce the work factor in an attack by many orders of magnitude. And some attacks might rely on the overall statistics of the bits, not just the ability to predict the nth bit. Again, there's a huge literature on this. --Tim May Boycott espionage-enabled software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Some thoughts on the Chinese Net
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:00 PM 2/15/96, Carl Ellison wrote: >At 12:31 2/15/96, Jon Lasser wrote: >>How would packets coming into the country be marked / passed on? > >Presumably, you'd need a Chinese-approved identity key in order to get >packets into the country. Chinese web surfers are tracked by a special "cookie," a la the Netscape cookie, but with special features. The "Chinese fortune cookie." (The crypto block managers open your cookies and tell you your fortune.) Packets are laundered, of course, in a Chinese packet laundry. Fat Fong say man who write in code get run over by tank. --Tim May [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the Communications Decency Act] And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why don't you boys just come on in and fuck them right here in my house - I'll just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said. "Dad's getting old. I say we should fuck him." So the two daughters got him drunk and screwed him all that night. Sure enough, Dad got them pregnant....Onan really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant while his brother got all the credit, so he pulled out before he came....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals, unless God tells you to. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular Translation, TCM, 1996]

1 0

Re: Credit cards - Privacy - Unique Situation
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Rick Tait wrote: > > Being a British guy recently moved to the USA, I may be in a unique > situation in being able to protect my privacy, and I was wondering if > fellow cypherpunks may be able to give me some hints in being to > "protect" myself... > > Since my SSN is barely a month old, since I don't yet have a credit card > over here, since I won't (yet?) be in many of those beloved databases, what > steps can I take to "hide" myself before it's too late? Too all intents and > purposes, I have metamorphed from a newborn US baby into an adult, > overnight. Thus I have an SSN, I pay tax (etc), but I'm not on anyone's > direct mailing lists.[..] Depends on how much you're in British databases. I imagine that when those who desire to track your movements feel the need they'll check with UK and European sources. A lot of the databases are already linked up and shared. An acquaintance from the UK who came here several years ago was able to use his debit card in local ATMs, for instance. - --- [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 iQBFAwUBMSZdiSoZzwIn1bdtAQERMQF+KW+TYNLJA5GO1VLxonngp0bEHx80OVOn Y3+dr1f/did4h1VkFsyqpy0a3ZI7hnEe =KF7W -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Spin Control Alert (LI Newsday, 2/12/96)
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"declan+(a)CMU.EDU" "Declan B. McCullagh" 15-FEB-1996 01:33:25.17 >Since you don't understand the way Federal criminal charges work, >there's no reason I should take your argument seriously. (Hint: The >*U.S. Attorney*, or an AUSA, files charges, not you, me, or a random >"athiest.") How about a lawsuit by the atheist against the site? Since the CDA claims that such material is harmful, and tries to make it illegal, such a lawsuit would appear to have grounds - especially if the atheist has a child that is "surfing the Net." Now, they're unlikely to _win_, but the atheist can cost them some money _and_ make the CDA look stupid. If I were in the American Atheist Foundation or some such, I'd do such a lawsuit against a Christian Right organization that had supported the CDA. Of course, the selective enforcement will be a good argument in favor of the law being unconstitutional. Crypto relevance? Criminal laws aren't the only things that a crypto-anarchial system will make less effective. Civil lawsuits (under things like libel) also will be. I'd call this a good change. -Allen

2 1

Re: A Cyberspace Independence Refutation
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jamesd(a)echeque.com said: > >j> 1. President Clinton declared CDA unconstitutional and directed >j> the Justice department to refrain from enforcing it. At 01:57 PM 2/16/96 -0600, Sten Drescher wrote: > Then why is the Justice Department defending it? Sorry: My error. As you pointed out he ruled *part* of the CDA unconstitutional -- a part that no one expected to be enforced anyway --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

CyberManicheans (was Re: CyberAngels)
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"declan+(a)CMU.EDU" or someone using that identity has written: I fear the so-called "CyberAngels" more than I do the Feds. At least with their brand of jackboots, there can be accountability. The CyberAngels are more like CyberCads, CyberFrauds, or CyberCriminals. Cyber-vigilantes? Odd that their home page has a blue-ribbon. They don't seem to understand what the hell they are doing... it's not a requirement that ISPs require online presence to be verifiable anyway. Even if you're ISP operator knows who you are, it doesn't follow that it's definitely YOUR presence in a usenet post or on IRC. There's plenty of semi-anonymity on the net without using things like remailers or "decense" protocols or DC-Nets. Under their logic, we should all have little bar codes implanted in our skulls and checked at every street crossing and doorway. There's also a difference between rudeness and criminal activity. Anonymity isn't a cause of crime. It's icing on the cake, and criminals will find a variety of other ways around validated User-ID at the ISP level anyway.... which lulls one to a false sense of security, since once you're got a legitimate-appearing ID for your ISP, you can do quickie hit-and-run "cybercrimes" and fall off the face of the earth anyway. There's just so much an ISP or even a clerk at a department store can do to verify your identity. One store I know doesn't accept checks from Post Boxes, believing that they are all-too-often used for fraud... but a street address from a fly-by-night mail box rental is undetectable by them. The Cyber Angels are just as clueless as the authors of the CDA. Cheers, [***CENSORED***]

1 0

Re: China -- the fragile glimmer of freedom
by liberty＠gate.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [Warning! This post is not primarily about "writing code." Instead, it's about cypherpunks "spreading crypto."] Tim May [& usually I agree with him] wrote: >At 12:10 AM 2/16/96, Bryce wrote: >... <snip> >>Perhaps you think that the compliant Chinese person is >>satisfied with his or her role as lackey of his government? >>Or is it that we and the Asians inhabit such different >>worlds that we will have to make do without each other's >>help? > >Well, where are the posts from outraged Cypherpunks living in the People's >Republic of China? Obviously, there aren't any. (Being an outraged cypherpunk in the PRC would no-doubt be harmful to the outraged cypherpunk's health.) >Some countries are so far gone, so deep in the muck of statism, that >nothing their governments do is very surprising. Ranting about how bad >things are in some country is not very meaningful. Supplying them with >tools is more meaningful. However, given that I know of no list members >living in the PRC, nor even any in soon-to-be-assimilated Hong Kong, I'm >not sure what the point is. I think that the goal here is to try to generate just one small group of cypherpunks in Hong Kong, who plan to stay on after the occupation. They will necessarily be very brave people, but IMO brave people _are_ there. I won't say bravery of that sort is common, but there are many people in China, and we all remember the guy who stood there in front of the tank...IMO remailer technology transfers will be _at least_ as important to this [admittedly ambitious] goal as direct crypto transfers are, as traffic-analysis is _VERY useful_ to the surveilance state. When the "remailer-in-a-box" is finished by a friend of mine "Real Soon Now" (tm) I hope that the directions to it are translated and that it is widely distributed [legally, of course]. ;) >I don't know about others, but I think the focus should be on the folks who >are salvageable, not the billion or so Chinese or the hundreds of millions >of Islamic women awaiting their clitorectomies and bowing toward Mecca for >guidance. Tim, you're giving up too quickly on most of the rest of the planet. As long as repression ever works somewhere, statists will attempt to (selectively) use annoying examples of how "orderly" it makes life. It's a one-way ratchet: When a moron bombs a building here, the US politicians cancel a repeal of the "assault weapons" ban. When some moron plants a bomb in London (or Paris) their politicians' reaction is not exactly the reverse... >Fact is that 90%+ of all list members are in the United States, and 97%+ >are in the so-called "Western world." We have a chance to deploy strong >crypto, the residents of Nepal and Singapore do not. I think that these statistics are likely correct, but I think it's not important, and we can't just give up this easily...We already know that China will be swallowing Hong Kong, a haven of capitalism, and IMHO we should work to make this process as "interesting" as possible. Anonymity is likely to upset the Chinese authorities as much as it upset the CO$. I know nobody in Hong Kong who will be staying, but I'm sure that some people on this list do, and Hong Kong is likely to be a better place for us to "infiltrate" than Beijing. Time is short, but if the fax machine gave us Tienanmen(sp?) I am optimistic about e-mail. Singapore residents (at least, those with a hankering for chewing-gum) might feel they have a reason to help us, if we simply try to be polite when we ask for help in putting together a good-looking Trojan Horse. JMR [who is even now preparing for the flames.] <snip> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Regards, Jim Ray <liberty(a)gate.net> Boycott espionage-enabled software! "If I had to summarize [Republican candidate Morry] Taylor's campaign message, I'd boil it down to two basic points: 1. The problem with this country is that the government is run by lawyers. 2. And these are *stupid* lawyers." -- Dave Barry 2/17/96 _______________________________________________________________________ PGP key Fingerprint 51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE 53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 Public Key id. # E9BD6D35 http://www.shopmiami.com/prs/jimray IANAL _______________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh. iQCVAwUBMSZoUG1lp8bpvW01AQGsrAP/QdUrjiSoZ5avWu7MvdNDS5BMhv/WJecR MTbgwrAbrKa9TTw+kFifzdiMeJtldmwSyhAvskshfLHWtAl/RjWm7+Et6NcJeeZV nDoAljQNmU+xDM0jPGSu4PvkxNxndqbd3TiDOkfYtjLO16T+yA31j16RPiqjnG4C YWbM6iCvTJw= =Sq8a -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

CyberManicheans (was Re: CyberAngels)
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"declan+(a)CMU.EDU" or someone using that identity has written: I fear the so-called "CyberAngels" more than I do the Feds. At least with their brand of jackboots, there can be accountability. The CyberAngels are more like CyberCads, CyberFrauds, or CyberCriminals. Cyber-vigilantes? Odd that their home page has a blue-ribbon. They don't seem to understand what the hell they are doing... it's not a requirement that ISPs require online presence to be verifiable anyway. Even if you're ISP operator knows who you are, it doesn't follow that it's definitely YOUR presence in a usenet post or on IRC. There's plenty of semi-anonymity on the net without using things like remailers or "decense" protocols or DC-Nets. Under their logic, we should all have little bar codes implanted in our skulls and checked at every street crossing and doorway. There's also a difference between rudeness and criminal activity. Anonymity isn't a cause of crime. It's icing on the cake, and criminals will find a variety of other ways around validated User-ID at the ISP level anyway.... which lulls one to a false sense of security, since once you're got a legitimate-appearing ID for your ISP, you can do quickie hit-and-run "cybercrimes" and fall off the face of the earth anyway. There's just so much an ISP or even a clerk at a department store can do to verify your identity. One store I know doesn't accept checks from Post Boxes, believing that they are all-too-often used for fraud... but a street address from a fly-by-night mail box rental is undetectable by them. The Cyber Angels are just as clueless as the authors of the CDA. Cheers, [***CENSORED***]

1 0

Re: Libertarians and crypto and such
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Feb 16, 1996 23:06:27, 'Bruce Baugh <bruce(a)aracnet.com>' wrote: >At 12:43 AM 2/17/96 -0500, tallpaul wrote: > >>While the LP or its majority may not call for the things I've critiqued, >>certainly libertarians have. Nor, as far as I can recall, have LPers >>repeatedly posted to the cypherpunk list material that is on-the-surface at >>least significantly off-topic; libertarians have. And I responded. > >So you get the fun of attacking this straw man called "libertarians" without >any responsibility to identify any actual people it might include other than >a handful of folks that the vast majority of us think are kooks. And you've >also acquired the remarkable mental power, apparently, to discern who is or >is not an LP member based on their posts here. > Libertarians are not "straw men." They actually exist. I've seen them with my own eyes. If B. Baugh is upset that I have not mentioned any of the other libertarians (olf the cypherpunk list) that I have criticized, I would be happy to re-post to the list all of the related messages in other news groups on this topic listing their names. My "sent mail" archives contain a few thousand messages. (Aside to T.C. May: this is sarcasm and rhetorical hyperbole.) The vast majority of the libertarians on the cypherpunk list *might* think that the people I've criticized are "kooks" but I can find no evidence of this. I do note that some people who call themselves "libertarians" have so criticized the "kooks." The second point is, I think, either an error in logic. I have written nothing about my ability to tell what political party someone belongs or does not belong to. I infer that when someone tells me they are a member of the LP, CPUSA, SPUSA, etc. that they are, until evidence dictates another conclusion. If someone is a party member and decides not to make the material public, then they, not I, are responsible for any transient confusion that develops. But I do not demand or expect people to automatically list their party affiliation. I do note that the declared ability to "discern" unannounced party membership has historically been far more a rightwing then leftwing "ability" in the U.S.A. >Neat tricks. > >But until they're joined with a willingness to look at a wider range of >libertarian posts than the fragment that feeds your pet peeves, I reserve >the right to be impressed. Again, these seems to reflect your ability to reach conclusions about other people's behavior based on no evidence. I have read numerous posts by libertarians on the net; who has not! The issues I have responded to have usually centered on thigs like the mass killings of civilians, murder, and hatred of other people based on issues like race, ethnicity, nationality, and/or religion. You may consider these nothing more than my "pet peeves." This is your right. But in an era of increasing global hatred over such issues I do not think many would agree with your accessment of the relative weight of these issues. You need not be impressed; I was not posting to impress you. > >And yes, this is off-topic. So this is all I have to say about it. > I think then that you posted one message too many. --tallpaul

1 0

Patents suck
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jean-Francois Avon (JFA Technologies, QC, Canada) wrote: > Man's survival tool is his mind. > > Patents and copyright are establishing the ownership and protection > the result of the exercise of his survival tool. > > Therefore they are good. > > To try to eliminate them is equivalent to promote slavery. I take some disagreement with that. With patents, there is a problem of large companies owning them yet doing nothing with them except suing other companies or individuals. For example, look at arithmetic coding: there are many patents owned on it, yet a lot of software using this means of compression may be in violation of the patents... are the patent-owners publishing software or makingh efforts to license it widely? If anything, such patents are getting in the way of using many algorithms. Patents would be better if there was a good-faith attempt on the part of the holder to "use it or lose it". Somebody sitting on a patent and doing nothing with it deserves to lose it after a number of years.

1 0