December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

E-cash
by pluto＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Salve, As another idea to prevent the netizen from being a sitting duck for the gov and the big mailorder companys: Get an account at MarkTwain! Do it now! Pluto ********************************************************************** P pluto(a)inx.de P Free information! # G-> pluto(a)well.com <-G Freedom through knowledge. # P www.well.com/user/pluto/ P Wisdom for all!! =:-) # ********************************************************************** +--HI, I'm a signature virus :-) Copy me into your sign to join in. ---+

1 0

Re: ALL OF YOU ARE CRIMINAL HACKERS, I AM GOING TO CALL FBI
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I AM NOT GOING TO TOLERATE EXISTENCE OF A MEDIUM FOR CRIMINAL HACKERS >AND MUNITIONS SMUGGLERS. I WILL COMPLAIN TO THE FBI IMMEDIATELY SO THAT THEY >CAN TRACK YOU DOWN AND CLOSE THIS LIST. Tips for reporting this 'clandestine' list to the FBI (and it's contributors) 1) Be sure to speak slowly and use small words when contacting the FBI. 2) If you can, be sure to work the words 'Pipe Bomb', 'Olympics', and/or 'TWA' into your sentences. 3) Remember to unsubscribe from the list before reporting it. 4) Try not to be belligerant when the talking with the FBI - RE: tracking down cpunks; they're laughing at you, already. 5) Try not to use the word 'inbred' in your report..they seem particullarly sensitive to this...for some reason. 6) When meeting FBI in person, do not wear shiny objects or bright colors - it distracts them. 7) When calling the FBI hotline, don't ask to speak to someone about munition smuggling AND computers crimez - this will put the operator into coma. 8) Be sure to ask for special agent 'Fox Mulder' and 'Dana Sculley' - they're 'the best' 9) 10)... _______ Warren Crossfield Programmer/MacOS "Buy a Pentium - so you can restart Windoze faster!"

6 5

Re: BOMB PLANS
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

welllll pipe bombs do fragment. Years ago someone decided to try to put one under my step brothers truck tire....... needless to say...nothing happened to the truck or our house in front of the truck but next door and across the street..the houses were sprayed with metal fragments.

2 1

Re:BOMB PLANS
by mccoy＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy write: > > The Sunday San Francisco Examiner had an article about how simple > it is to make a pipe bomb. It was syndicated from the Dallas > Morning News. In the article a "federal bomb expert" opined: > > They're probably one of the more common explosive > devices that are encountered. That's because the > pipe not only provides a container, but fragments > into sharapnel." ^^^^^^^^^ > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Now I don't know what takes to qualify one as a "bomb expert," > but the standards must be pretty low. The reason hand grenades > look like pineapples is because it's very difficult to get metal > to fragment unless it is scored or otherwise predisposed to come > apart in little pieces. This is no longer true with respect to hand grenades and was not really accurate wrt the old pineapple grenades. Modern grenades are pre-scored to produce good fragments, in fact one reason for abandoning the old grenades was that they fragmented into only a few large chunks along the weakest stress lines of the pineapple gripping and this did not produce the desired effect (which is lots of little high-KE pieces, four or five big pieces with relatively low-KE were produced by the pineapple grenades...) An equivalent effect for a pipe bomb would be produced by mixing in a handful of brads, wire cut into 5mm lengths, or tacks, most "recipes" for such devices I have seen tell someone to mix in nails. This is really stupid if you consider that most people only have relatively big nails sitting around and coupled with the volume restriction of a pipe bomb you will get the same poor effects as the old hand grenades. jim

1 0

Re: Twenty Bank Robbers -- CLARIFICATION
by JR＠ns.cnb.uam.es 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I forgot to say what the GOALS are. The goals of every individual > cypherpunk are (in from highest to lowest priority): > > 1. Stay alive > 2. Get as much money as possible > 3. Keep as many cypherpunks alive as possible, all other things being equal. > > - Igor. > Most responses fail to consider "suicidal" behaviours. In many cases, when there are rounds left, it may be worth playing against your interests if that will yield later a higher benefit. The fact that anyone makes a proposal is of no interest to anyone else as long as goal#2 stands over goal#3 and there is enough people to stablish uncertainty of behaviour. As an example, if #1 proposes he gets all the money, all other things being equal, #3,#5,...#19 should theoretically vote for him since they know they can't win as long as there's a #2... But #19 knows he could win if only he and #20 were alive. It is in his interest to vote 'no'. If #1 dies, then he may get a chance, because #18 is in his same position and might do the same in the other rounds. Yes, you can follow it backwards and discover that goal #3 above then should take precedence. Should it? There's still goal #2 above. If the c'punks can't communicate among them then that's the end of it. #1 gets all. But if they can, there's another side: If you not only know the order of proposers, but also their proposals, then you can always play 'unfair' or 'against you' until the proposal that's better for you comes. Say #2 speaks to #20 and agrees to propose that he'll get some money too. Restriction #2 above takes precedence and proposer #2 knows he'll get #20 vote as long as he makes that proposal. It is in #20's interest to vote against #1 "all for me" in the first round since that way he'll get some money on #2's proposal. But then #3, #4, etc... can play the same game. The first one that can provide a proposal making happier most of the people will win... Say #1 proposes to even split between half of them. Will that work? If they can't cheat their vote that's the end of it. Then comes another point in place. Can they cheat? Obviously, under these arrangements, anyone proposing he gets all money, other than #19 risks his life for others can agree into a better split. But OTOH, #18 and #20 know that they can agree on something better than #19's proposal of he getting all. If #18 cheats, #19 can agree with #20 to split even and #18 is dead. If #18 doesn't cheat. then #20 has two chices: - believe #19 will not cheat and propose an even split. Vote against. - fear #19 cheating and the risk of not getting anything. Odds are all for #19, so he shoudl vote for #18 proposal. The only choice is for #18 and #20 to agree in an even split, where #18 can also cheat and ask for all money. But then he risks #19 and #20 agreeing on voting against him. So #18 must offer something to #20, and it must be enough for #20 not wanting to take the risk of #19 cheating too. Following back, everybody but #19 and #20 risk their lives. #19 is interested in everybody else being dead, and #20 in anyone giving him anything. Anyone who gives anything to #20 will get his vote. Anyone not giving anything to #20 risks #20 voting for someone else on the hope he'll get something on the next proposal. And everyone needs an agreement with #20 to keep his life. As you go back, #18 has a better chance of staying alive if he can ensure #19 and #20 won't agree because his offer is safer than the risks involved for #20. Work backwards. The point is, the expectancies of winning work at all round, and at every point you are interested in not dying. As you reach the end if you make an agreement and cheat you have less risk (there are less possibilities for new agreements), but if you have gone to that, it's because more and more people have cheated before, and confidence will be low. So you are more interested in not cheating to keep your life. I think the net result is that most c'punks will be offering even splits to ensure a maximum of votes. As people makes arrangements and c'punks dies, confidence and credibility on agreements in advance will fail, so the risk for the latests increases too... In the end all comes down to gullibility of the partners. If you assume they are not gullible, you'll vote for the first proposal of an even split to save your life. If they are, then you can play against while there remains gullible people, but then you know your cheating is your dead (except for #19 and #20) and you risk less by going even. That's more or less like real life: one can temporarily play against himself if that will yield later a higher benefit. But that comes at a cost in credibility, and the more you use it, the less useful it becomes. On a non-gullible environment, the first time you cheat your reputation breaks and it is in everyone else's interest to play against you. That's the ancient concept of honor. On a less-exceptic or more tolerant environment you may have a few goes before getting people absolutely exceptical again. The number of goes will depend on their tolerance level. Same for the game: there can be cheating up to a tolerance level. After that everyone will know that a non-even split proposal will take out your life. Where the border comes is a matter of circumstances. jr

1 0

Re: cypherpunks vs hacker
by pjn＠nworks.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In> Rather than debate semantics of the definition of "hacker," or ask In> others to suggest definitions, it might be better for interested folks In> to read some of the various books on the topic and then decide for In> themselves. Some of them are: In> - Levy, "Hackers," of course Very good history. In> - Haffner and Markoff, "Cyberpunk" In> - Sterling's book on hackers Hacker Crackdown. In> - any one (but not more) of the several Shimomura v. Mitnick books I think that Markoffs book on the incident was written beter then the rest. I might also suggest: - Masters of Deception - The Cuckoos Egg by Stoll P.J. pjn(a)nworks.com ... Resistance is futile, taglines will assimilate your hard drive. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]

1 0

International Standards
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mr. Freeh, testifying at Thursday's hearing in favor of an optional key escrow plan, noted that the point is not to prevent all copies of uncrackable code from going abroad -- that's clearly impossible -- but to prevent such high-level code from becoming the international standard, with architecture and transmission channels all unreadable to world authorities. Looks like the fibbies (FBI) haven't been reading the "Proceedings of the IETF". Strong crypto is already an international standard. DCF

1 0

Re: cypherpunks vs hacker
by pjn＠nworks.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> It is interesting to note that while both groups have opposite > objectives (Hackers want all information free, where cypherpunks want > everbody to be able to have privacy), and yet in there own ways, they > are both right. In> I don't entirely agree with this. I think both groups want In> information to be free, but also want people to be able to have In> privacy. Most hackers (used in the sense of people who break into In> computers) attack computers owned by such companies as TRW and the In> phone companies. Both of these systems have little regard for privacy. In> Most non-malicious hackers promote system security, but at the same In> time, don't like government-controlled monopolies and agencies to be In> able to keep secret information that should be free. A very In> interesting paper by Dorothy Denning (she used to be regarded very In> highly by the hacker community before she started to support Clipper) In> expresses some of the concerns and morals of hackers. It's called In> "Concerning Hackers Who Break Into Computer Systems" and is in Phrack In> issue 32. > I have read the file (I have all Phracks from the beginning. Crypt is good too, but they dont have the same level of information as Phrack) and I though that it was very inciteful (sp). > I think what we need to define is the diffrence between hackers and > crackers. A hacker breaks into a computer like a cracker (but the > similarities end there). The hacker just want to look and learn, > possably "map out" the system just to see how everything works with > everything else. Crackers break into computers for the sake of > destroying or stealing information or the system itself. In> That's debatable. I think many people incorrectly consider these In> terms to be mutually exclusive. There are many hackers (used in the In> sense defined in the Jargon File) who also break into systems and could In> therefore be considered crackers also. Most hackers definitely have In> the knowledge to break into computer systems, but many crackers aren't In> very well versed in programming and learn how to break into computers In> by using canned programs and G-files. I am saying that hackers do break into computers, but crackers are more malicious in their intent. And yes, pathetic hackers rely on programs. I have respect for hackers who do all the work themselfs. > > Both cypherpunks and hackers think that the government is wrong > in many things that they do. In> Agreed. P.J. pjn(a)nworks.com ... Sorry, the dog ate my Blue Wave packet. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]

1 0

Re: A Libertine Question
by Seth I. Rich 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>My opinions are just that, MINE but here's a question .. You mean "libertarian" -- not "libertine". Got me all hopeful for something juicy and fun. Seth --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Seth I. Rich - seth(a)hygnet.com "Info-Puritan elitist crapola!!" Systems Administrator / Webmaster, HYGNet (pbeilard(a)direct.ca) Rabbits on walls, no problem.

1 0

Re: Feinstein wants controls on Internet, Books
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:45 PM 7/28/96 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: >For instance, say you, hypothetically, wanted to blow up your government's >legislative building. You'd obviously want to pick a dark and stormy night, >say early in November, and you'd sneak into the basement with barrels >of gunpowder. You'd use a long, slow-burning fuse, so it would blow up >the next day when they're in session, but after lighting it you'd still >run away very fast just in case your fuse speeds up on you. The obvious >thing you'd need to do is to NOT GET CAUGHT LIKE THE LAST FOOL WHO TRIED IT. >However, if you do get caught, maybe you'll end up with your name in lights >and people will set off firecrackers in your honor every fall, >while if you don't get caught you won't be personally famous. Tough choice:-) > >Penny for the Guy? Fawke You! Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1