December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: "address verification databases"? (was: Netscape download...)
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Personally, I don't mind being in a data base of people interested in products with strong crypto. (For another one, ask majordomo(a)toad.com.) BTW, I must be lucky, I down loaded it on the first try. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The Internet may fairly be | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | regarded as a never-ending | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | worldwide conversation. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

Re: "address verification databases"?
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:57 PM 7/17/96 -0700, Tim May wrote: >At 9:45 PM 7/17/96, Jeff Weinstein wrote: > >> Because we have not yet been able to obtain the address verification >>databases that we need for Canada. There is someone working on >>tracking this down right now. When we get the proper database we >>will add access to canada. >> >> --Jeff > >Jeff, can you tell us anything more about what these "address verification >databases" are? > >For example, are they derived from government sources? Census data? (Naw, >can't be, for at least two obvious reasons). Voting records? (Naw.) Credit >card purchases? (??) I followed the links and explored the web site of the "address verification" provider ( http://www.abii.com ). The data they have about me is outdated (by at least a year) and apparently derived from a phone book or directory assistance. I picked up a copy of "The Net" magazine at the store tonight because it's got an article listing several of these Web-accessible address/phone databases. The article doesn't say anything especially fascinating but it does list three such sites: http://www.abii.com/lookupusa/adp/peopsrch.htm http://www.searchamerica.com/ http://www.switchboard.com/ -- Greg Broiles |"Post-rotational nystagmus was the subject of gbroiles(a)netbox.com |an in-court demonstration by the People http://www.io.com/~gbroiles |wherein Sgt Page was spun around by Sgt |Studdard." People v. Quinn 580 NYS2d 818,825.

1 0

Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
by Bert-Jaap Koops 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'd rather say, filtering out TCM is OK. Bert-Jaap

1 0

Re: Alternative Journalism
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:04 PM 7/18/96, enquirer(a)alpha.c2.org wrote: > THE CYPHERPUNK ENQUIRER PRESENTS: > ... >"Don't worry about it. It gets worse before it gets better. Come on, we're >going to a party. Tim May and John Gilmore are throwing a Mad Tea Party." > >"Are they really mad?" > >"May's crazy as a loon. You'll like him. Gilmore, he's just still pissed >at Shimamura for that stunt in the hot tub ... " Ssshhh! Don't let it out that I'm crazy as a loon. BTW, "loon" is now considered to be derogatory slur and has been replaced by the more PC term "differently outlooked." We differently outlooked persons are forbidden by U.S. and California law from owning firearms, a method used increasingly to seize the firearms of those who have ever come into contact with the mental health profession. (Hint: Never, ever, ever, ever have yourself admitted to any kind of psychiatric facility for any reason whatsoever! Never, ever, etc. let a family member have you admitted for treatment, observation, or analysis. You will likely find that your right to own a firearm has evaporated if you do any of these things.) Personally, whenever I fill out the forms to buy a gun, I have no compunctions about lying. (The checking procedures are primitive, fortunately, unless one is so stupid as to answer "Yes" to any of the questions the form asks.) That I am a felon has never stopped me from picking up a gun. --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."

3 2

PictureTel Licenses Cylink Security Technology For Encrypted Videoconfe (fwd)
by David Lesher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Message-ID: <BcylinkURQwQ_6lJ(a)clari.net> Clarinet reports: SUNNYVALE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 19, 1996--Cylink Corp. (NASDAQ: CYLK) today announced that it has licensed its patented security technology, the Diffie-Hellman, Hellman-Merkle patents covering public key cryptography, to PictureTel Corp. (NASDAQ:PCTL) to be used in its System 4000 group videoconferencing systems. The Cylink license allows access to all implementations of Public Key cryptography, including Diffie-Hellman key exchanges and Digital Signature Standard (DSS), ..... ============== Hmm..... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

2 1

Secure IRC conversations
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi there, does anybody know of a way to have encrypted conversations on the IRC or via ytalk? Thanks, Harka ___ Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR]

4 3

GOPHERD FOR SOLARIS 2.5
by dani＠193.144.104.4 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi!, IŽm looking for a gopher server for Solaris 2.5, IŽve tried in the Sunsite, but succesless. Does anybody know where else may I find a gopher server for Solaris 2.4?. Thanks in advance. Danny. dani(a)gva.es _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ Daniel Díaz Luengo. dani(a)gva.es _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Consellerìa de Presidència _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ C/Micalet nº5. _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ Valencia-(Spain) (96)-386-38-57

1 0

Re: MSNBC and cookies
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Microsoft and GE, the parent corporation of NBC, are participants in the >FBI's "Web Awareness Program." Like the FBI's "Library Awareness Program," >which tracked which books were being checked out by which patrons, the Web >Awareness Program tracks user interests at Web sites. > >The WAP has already allowed the FBI and other intelligence agencies to >check up on several people who appeared to have an unusual interest in the >TWA 800 case. > >(Don't spend too much time in certain sites, friends.) This is interesting. Where can one find reliable sources to verify this information? (The existance of a WAP, and the use of it in the TWA 800 case). //cerridwyn//

1 0

Re: Reasonable validation of a software package
by David Sternlight 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:12 PM -0700 7/18/96, Carl Ellison wrote: > >The problem people overlook is that a CA binds a public key to a name but >the name is in the CA's name space. For me, a verifier, to derive any >value from a certificate binding (key,name), the name has to be in *my* >name space. > >If there were such a thing as a global namespace meaningful to everyone, >then we could both use it. That's the X.500 falacy/pipe-dream. Think of the common name on a certificate as if it were a first-come, first-served serial number of alphanumeric form. There's no reason to believe that John Smith is YOUR John Smith. Your John Smith might tell you he's John Smith 37. It's kinda like vanity license plates. The alternative is every privacy fan's nightmare--embedded SSNs or some such in certificates. Some of the problems, of course, will be of the users' own making and there they get to pay their money and take their choice. What I mean is that you can optionally include or suppress your e-mail address in Type I certificates, and real address in Type IIs. If you include it you improve the chances of being the "right" John Smith someone is after. If you prefer privacy you will also be less accessible. I see nothing unusual about that--after all, people with unlisted phone numbers are ultimately inaccessible except (pretty much) to those to whom they give the info. > >The fact is, no global name space could be held in one human's mind, so >there's no way a global name space could be meaningful to me. Nor is there any reason it should be. It isn't, now. > >So, to use a certificate from a CA, I need to map a name from its name >space (DN) into a name in my name space (nickname). Every time I've looked >at that process, I've had to have a secure channel over which to learn from >the person I call by that nickname what DN he goes by. Why does it have to be a secure channel? Why can't it be published (for instance by including the address in the certificate)? >If I have that >secure channel, then he could tell me his public key fingerprint ove that >cnnel -- and I wouldn't need the CA. Why wouldn't you use the certificate to bind the public key to the name and address? What need would there be for fingerprint communication? How is this different from 20 John Smiths in the phone book at 20 different street addresses? I'd better know the address of the John Smith I want if I'm to get his phone number from a directory. Note that I'm not attacking what you say. There's clearly something you're getting at that I don't understand--since you post sensible stuff (as far as I recall). Help me out here. David

1 0

RE: ABC news on Internet Telephony
by talon57＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David Sternlight writes: >There's something fundamental going on here beneath the surface. >Surprisingly, a recent item (maybe the one you reported) on this >suggests that the big phone companies are trying to use this >phenomenon rather than stop it. I think it was AT&T who announced >that they had web software that improved the quality of such >internet voice calls. Surprisingly constructive, in contrast to >the coalition of small phone companies screaming for the FCC to >"stop it". The FCC has wisely said they're not going to act right >now because it could kill an incipient new technology. There is something fundamental going on here, a lack of common sense, and/or critical reasoning. Lets try it again. Who is the most likely to be disintermediated by a global packet network? (how do you get to your ISP?) I assume by "big phone company" vs "little phone company" you are refering to long distance vs local service, tell me, if the RBOC's continue merging, at what level do they become a " big phone company." The RBOC's are not the only local service providers of course, here in Illinois alone there are more than 80 (at my last count) providers of local service, and soon there will be many more. The other "urban myth" you are helping to support is the notion that it is the local providers that are fighting deregulation. Ameritech filed for total unbundling in March of '93, and you don't see them insisting on having a percentage of the long distance market before the long distance companies are allowed to compete in the local loop. >This is the rankest speculation on my part, but could some of the >bigger, smarter phone company cum internet providers have done >some serious analysis and concluded that we're moving away from >distance-based rates for voice calls. Might they even have >examined where we'll be in the next ten years (with ADSL, etc.) >and decided that the network technology and simple market >economics makes fixed charges per "line" more profitable to them >than metered usage? Maybe this is wishful thinking on my part, but >some of the bigger actors are starting to behave in a surprisingly >counter-intuitive (based on the way we stereotype them) fashion on >this topic. point to point circuits are more efficiently handled by circuit switching rather than packet switching networks. Nicholas Negroponte wrote an interesting piece about asynchronous vs synchronous, I believe it is in his book "Being Digital." ADSL is an interesting attempt at digital telephony but expensive and basically would mean replacing existing central office switches. (backbone bandwidth) In a packet network you have to either dedicate a portion of the bandwidth for a synchronous circuit, or you have to have a very fast network and use very small packets (ATM), expensive either way. A single central office has many times the bandwidth of the widest part of the internet, and the average state has hundreds of CO's. If even a small portion of the Internets current users tried placing a call things would grind to a halt. A huge increase in the number of backbones and their bandwidth would solve this, but who will pay the bill? TANSTAAFL Sometime ago the discussion was on the cost of laying new fiber, may I suggest the realworld heuristic of "a million dollars a mile." Please note I am not trying to make fun of anyone personnally, I am in the words of Jubal Harshaw "heaping scorn upon an inexcuseably silly idea, a practice I shall always follow." Brian communicate globally, censor locally

2 1