December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Message pools _are_ in use today!
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:27 PM 7/3/96, Andrew Loewenstern wrote: >Deranged Mutant writes: >> Uploading can be gotten around by using anonymous remailers >> and mail-to-news gateways... although someone can tell if you >> send mail to anonymous mailers. > >Not if you run your own remailer! Agreed. And if a remailer chain is long enough, the "someone can tell if you send mail to anonymous mailers" is meaningless. (In an ideally crypto-anarchic world, millions of messages are being sent to anonymous remailers, and it is worth nothing to know that Subject A sent a message to an anonymous remailer.) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Wanted: NNTP posting access for remailers
by loki＠infonex.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I would be willing to give you permission to use news.infonex.net. I will set it up for you tomorrow. -Lance At 5:46 PM 7/3/96, lcs Remailer Administrator wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Would anyone out there be willing to give NNTP posting or transfer >privileges to anon.lcs.mit.edu? > >Because of recent spams through mail2news(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu, I may >loose my news posting privileges to the news server I have been using. >Though I try to resolve all complaints I receive, other complaints >have been sent to other postmasters in the domain, who don't seem to >want to hear about these problems. > >If you run a news server and would like to help people posting >anonymous messages, please consider allowing posts from >mail2news(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu. Ideally you would also be in a position >to receive mail at some of the relevant postmaster aliases in your >domain, and would not mind forwarding misdirected complaints to me so >that I can deal with them. Alternatively, if you are willing to give >me "IHAVE" priviliges, I can possibly set things up with an initial >"Path:" header that guarantees most complaints will go directly to me. > >Thanks, >- -mix-admin(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: 2.6.2 >Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface > >iQCVAwUBMdsT70TBtHVi58fRAQHQ0QP/U3Jn7sL9+k3aUr+qw4WdDxef/lIeu3xO >BwdO8zlNPavJgbxuunR81n011jGy80l7qnc+DpvtuEEQqszLMcMO/4zHw/VfVOY8 >08nxE8+IkF/FE66vJdnU7O3I1mIjtbF8ixcm9FOwqoehSLJB40tXy6wu6KV663TQ >fmy/Gz5XDe8= >=Gp4D >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki(a)obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. Mixmaster, the next generation remailer, is now available! http://www.obscura.com/~loki/Welcome.html or FTP to obscura.com "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ----------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Message pools _are_ in use today!
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:25 PM 7/3/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >Someone mentioned the Ku-band dishes that are used by PageSat (or whatever >it is now called....). My DSS system, which is technically a Ku-band >receiver, has a digital i/o connector of some sort on the back, and it is >rumored that this will someday be available for PageSat-like uses. (I have >a feeling this may be years off, for admin reasons if not technical >reasons.) As I understand it, the DSS broadcast (unlike older C-band units) consists of a single digital stream which contains the highly compressed (MPEG?) data representing all channels. Being compressed, the data rate needed per channel varies with the scene and the rate it changes. Even if you add up a large number of these statistically-varying channels, you'll still get a fairly wide variation in the needed bit rate per second. The system must have a substantial amount of headroom to protect against occasional times when many channels need a lot of bits, headroom that is mostly not being used, most of the time. If this is correct, then most of this headroom should be available to piggybacked data traffic on a "space-available" basis. Probably tens of megabits per second. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: What remains to be done.
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> > A. Methods to run secure websites on insecure servers. > [...] > A software solution which permits local decryption makes traffic analysis > less useful, presents the opportunity to use front end and disposable www > pages on domestic ISPs while imposing no liability on the ISP itself, and > opens several more effective traffic analysis deterants. I don't quite understand what is being proposed here. If the information on the web site is encrypted, who is supposed to be able to decrypt it? Just one person, or some select group of people? My concern is the difficulty of keeping keys secret if they are made available to more than one or two people. Once the keys are known to those who would oppose the publication of the information they can go to the ISP just as easily as if the information were not encrypted, and get them to take it down if it is illegal. It would seem that an equally effective method would be to use no encryption, but just a secret URL, one which is not linked to from elsewhere - an "island in the net", so to speak (apologies to Bruce Sterling). Hal

3 2

PGP
by kyleb＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, Does anyone have the latest version of PGP for Windows and/or DOS If so please reply directly, since I am not yet on C'Punks. Thanks, KyleB(a)juno.com

1 0

Re: The Net and Terrorism
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 3 Jul 96 at 14:48, jim bell wrote: [..] > But as I've pointed out elsewhere, there's a big difference between "We're > gonna do this!" and "Someday we may have to do this." My impression is > that the government has tried to completely erase the dividing line > between these two concepts. As far as the government is concerned, "gonna do this" and "may have to do this" is the same, since the "this" is illegal. There is no dividing line. I suspect that since they (alegedly) had specific targets planned it leaned closer to the "gonna do this". From the minimal discussion in the media I have read, it appeared to be another 'revenge for waco and ruby ridge' action rather than a 'defense of civil liberties from a potential totalitarian government' action. (I'm rather skeptical as to how blowing up a specific IRS office would be effective were the government to change into a totalitarian regime.) Rob. --- No-frills sig. Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help" Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com (root@magneto) AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.

1 0

Lack of PGP sigs
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Another minor problem is when PGP-sigs are made using something other than MD5 as a hash algorithm, at least until certain modifications of PGP become 'standardized' until PGPlib is released. Rob. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3b Charset: cp850 Comment: SHA1 is used instead of MD5 for this signature iQEVAwUBMdvzjwTNlSxdPy6ZAQIbRwf8DFyAdkQemj6z8nGb8MAkg9Hi0t9AZgpT /7IaNy7x7+P1ahY5TRm0gZRaRr3A3scz4jCCP2IUbKnP/3SnVsvWH/GuH2EnGzQQ UhZODymDzaeWVhoQH0GNhDsAf3yLVyr6CQPWsP0aMDD4HBCFKDjr5ip9XsZRYCo1 P+7GbT+/oIRtztEFufguecIalfh275rT/FyDioblKxgyK+AX8hQ+3POzJgayPbc8 7AosgiFv9UGD4O4ComQyurZi/eFdn/x6NqrVKUVRK0KOWDVEYqAhDz45oP94//NQ ahE8viIm6irCu6PS+yf62RZvZafXLccHCBG2rUOm6gYEsB3XtuM/Vg== =SQBi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- No-frills sig. Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help" Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com (root@magneto) AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.

1 0

Computer-Aided Revolution
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've thought of an application for a "revolutionary" program for peaceful protest, but one that requires that a substantial number (1000) of people have access to computer time synchronized to 1 second, ideally 0.1 second. How good would a time sync over the net typically be? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

ecash thoughts
by Simon Spero 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1) Current ecash systems require live verification of coins, which will require banks to perform public key operations at around the 100K PKOP/s level, as well as all the headaches caused by the serial number lookup. Would anybody care to price up a system to handle this kind of traffic, assuming that coins can be given relatively short maximum lifetimes to keep the number of serial numbers in use within semi-reasonable limits. I'm wondering what the breakeven point is for only doing statistical sampling when verifying low value coins. 2) If ecash is used to create a new currency- i.e. the value of a unit of the ecash is not tied to any single existing currency, what should the value of one currency unit be set at? (let's call it a Turing) If the currency is run to be as anti inflationary as possible (e.g. backed by index-linked government securities), one Turing should buy the same amount of goods for a long long time, though relative prices may change. What value is likely to give the most convienient prices to the most goods? (e.g. +/- powers of two). 3) Not ecash, but still banking [noise] I'm currently visiting at my parents house in England, which for the past 18 years has had a really nice phone number. Unfortunately, BT split london into two area codes, and have reallocated the exchange number in the other one to citibank. Unfortunately, not many of their customers can quite cope with the concept of area-codes. Even more unfortunately, neither can BT or citibanks telcom group- we've had calls transferred from their switchboard straight through to us. Now, here comes the test for cp ingenuity - can you think of the best way to answer the phone to someone who things they've called a bank? Ones I've used so far, when I've been really pissed off are: Oh, I'm sorry - haven't you heard? They've filed for chapter 11. I'm from the Federal Reserve- I'm working with the recievers - can I possibly help you? [response was a disappointing "Good Heavens! Really?" ] and the simple, yet subtle Lovecraftian terror of: CitiBank, Nick Leeson speaking. [pause, giggle, must have a wrong number, click] Any more suggestions? Simon

2 1

Re: The Net and Terrorism
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:43 PM 7/4/96 +0000, Deranged Mutant wrote: >On 3 Jul 96 at 14:48, jim bell wrote: >[..] >> But as I've pointed out elsewhere, there's a big difference between "We're >> gonna do this!" and "Someday we may have to do this." My impression is >> that the government has tried to completely erase the dividing line >> between these two concepts. > >As far as the government is concerned, "gonna do this" and "may have >to do this" is the same, since the "this" is illegal. There is no >dividing line. A couple of decades ago, a relative of mine was in the Army Reserve. Every summer, they went on exercises, and in one particular exercise (this is probably true of all of them, as well), they invented some sort of fictional scenario in which America was bordered by two fictional countries, the one to the south was called "Taco Land" and the one to the north was called "Big Tree Land." I complimented him on the Army's ability to hide the meanings of these fictions so well! B^) Naturally, the Reserve went out and set up camp, etc, and did everything an army was supposed to do under such exercises. So why were they allowed to do this, while ordinary citizens weren't? Now, you may respond, "Hey, they're the Army, that's their job and they're allowed!" Maybe. But then again, as "ordinary citizens" we have a job to do as well. And part of that job may involve ensuring that if the government stops being limited to the strictures of the Constitution, they can take it down and replace it with something better. (See Declaration of Independence, for example.) Frankly, nothing of what I've heard that this Arizona group did ought to be illegal. I interpret the 2nd amendment ("arms") to include the dictionary meaning, "objects used as weapons," so I don't see any legitimate restriction of explosives. As for scouting, practicing, and making possible-but-not-certain plans, I see nothing wrong with this either. (Remember, the Army has plenty of plans, too... few of which ever are carried out.) >I suspect that since they (alegedly) had specific targets >planned it leaned closer to the "gonna do this". Then, unfortunately, your "logic" is atrocious. If you see a likely enemy, it makes sense to identify his assets well in advance of any actual hostilities, even if those hostilities are not certain. (to fail to do so would be completely irresponsible.) That's what these people appear to have done. > From the minimal discussion in the media I have read, ^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That's a CLUE. The reason there's been "minimal discussion" is because the lap-dog media wants to avoid the entire "we're gonna do this/someday we may have to do this" issue. It's not that they want to put the dividing line in a slightly different location, they want to deny that there is ANY SORT of a dividing line at all! For the media to acknowledge that the people have a RIGHT to simply collect weapons of all kinds, including explosives, for a potential future confrontation with the government would, then, require debate as to how far this could go. I think that would lead to the logical conclusion is that no action is illegal short of actually engaging in an attack. > it appeared to be another >'revenge for waco and ruby ridge' action rather than a 'defense of >civil liberties from a potential totalitarian government' action. I don't really see any valid distinction, here, except in _time_. > (I'm rather skeptical as to how blowing up a specific IRS office would >be effective were the government to change into a totalitarian regime.) > >Rob. Local people can be expected to act locally. They'll take care of their part of town, you take care of yours, right? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0