December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Metered Phone
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:19 PM 7/7/96 +0800, you wrote: >Does anyone have any ideas about this metered phone? >I am from Philippines and heard some news that it will be >existing in 1997. Quite a big problem! Every dial will be counted, >every seconds will be measured... That sounds like you're getting newer telephone technology. In the US, most areas with newer telephone switches offer you the choice of flat rate service (you pay a constant price per month for calls in your city or other local area) or measured service (you pay a lower price per month plus a few cents per minute for local calls.) In many places with measured service, the phone company measures how much time you use for local calls, but doesn't record who you call, only how many minutes. For long-distance calls, which always charge for time, they do record what number you call. For computer users, there are two issues - - recording who you call is, of course, bad - if you have flat rate telephone service, you can stay connected to your Internet provider full time, instead of calling up every N minutes or when you have mail. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs # Re-delegate Authority!

2 1

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: PGPfone Beta 7 Now Available for Download
by Harry Hochheiser 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 12 Jul 96 at 21:31, Arun Mehta wrote: > At 23:38 10/07/96 -0700, Will Price wrote: > >ANNOUNCEMENT: PGPfone Beta 7 Now Available for Download > > Sorry if this has been discussed before (please point me in the > right direction if that is the case), but VSNL, my government-owned > ISP (which also has a monopoly on all international traffic) made me > sign that I will not use my Internet connection for voice traffic. > Is there any way they could find out if I were using PGPfone, or > rather, could I prevent them from finding out? Arun: I can't give you a definitive answer here, but I'll take a shot. Most Internet telephony systems use UDP packets to transfer speech, since the lower overhead of UDP (as opposed to TCP) allows for better throughput. I assume (but I'm not certain) that PGPfone works the same way. Unfortunately, most of your other TCP/IP communication will be based on TCP packets. Therefore, it's theoretically possible for your ISP to monitor your traffic, watching for large numbers of UDP packets. --------------- Harry Hochheiser harry(a)tigger.jvnc.net 08 3A B5 F6 47 7F C7 C4 28 B4 8D D2 2E DF F6 1E

4 3

Re: [NOISE, FLAME] Cypherpunk kook slanders
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:23 PM 7/14/96 EDT, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: [Alot of bullshit deleted] >I remember how someone recently argued on news.groups that Bruce Bough's votes >should be invalidated because he's dying from AIDS. I strongly disagree with >Dan's (?) reasoning, which was, I recall, that someone with only a couple of >months left to live shouldn't be telling others how to run Usenet after his >death. I think we should consider Bruce's opinions as being representative. >After all, a Usenet vote is an interest poll, and the voters are just a sample >of a larger population. Not everyone who thinks like Bruce Bough is going to >die together with him from AIDS within a few months (sigh). Let him vote. I have no idea where you got the idea that Bruce has AIDS. I know Bruce well. He does not have AIDS. You have no clue as to what the hell you are talking about. I understand him being pissed at the accusation. This society does not deal very well with people with AIDS. Bruce has a justifiable concern as to lasting damage to his reputation due to unfounded allegations. (Of course, it is not as bad as accusing someone of being a child mollester, as your friend Dr. Grubor enjoys doing to people he disagrees with...) Bruce *does* have health problems. He has worked DAMN hard to overcome them. They are not a figment of his imagination, nor are they the result of AIDS. They are a very real problem which he is trying to deal with in the best way he can. As for him "dragging outside articles into this group"... You must mean him mentioning your recieval of the "Net Kook of the Month Award". It probably was off topic. After reading your forwards however, it was not undeserved. Another thing that you need to do is learn how to comprehend written english. You stated: >In article 2, Bruce Bough follows up on my article and threatens to prosecute >me under the Americans with Disability Act for misspelling his name. He did nothing of the sort. He threatened to prosecute you for slandering him (by stating he has AIDS when he does not), not for the spelling of his name. He stated: >Further, you might want to read up on the Americans With Disabilities >Act. Slanderous and defamatory statements about the handicapped - and my >government agrees that I do have a real problem, though it's not AIDS - >open you up to interesting liability. I don't understand why you feel the need to cast aspersions on those you disagree with. But you should not be surprised when it pisses people off. Bruce is a very nice guy who has some health problems. I know few people who have met him who have not gotten along with him. Why I should take the word of someone with your attitude over his is unclear to me. Acting like an asshole does not gain any sympathy for your cause. Bruce has killfiled you. I do not blame him. You remade my killfile list as well. Get a life. --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "Microsoft -- Nothing but NT promises."

2 1

Re: Markoff on Clipper III
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:35 PM 7/14/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote: >Did you miss the part in the Constitution about "provide for the common >defence" That's a meaningless part of the Preamble. And in any case, it's a statement of why "the People of the United States" wrote the Constitution. It's not an oath of the President. >and about the President's associated responsibility to "take care >that the laws be faithfully executed"? There is no law that specifically controls export of crypto, is there? I was under the impression that is an item on a list of regulated items drawn up by bureaucrats and could be changed any time the Executive Branch chose. a reg isn't a law. >And what oath do you suppose binds him because "The President shall be >commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States"? That's a job title. It doesn't command him as to what he should do in the job. In fact, the Commander In Chief is not under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and so can do anything he wants with that particular "office" subject only to impeachment and the willingness of the armed forces to obey him. It certainly doesn't require him to adopt any particular regulatory strategy. President Browne could legalize the export of all crypto by executive order on January 20th 1997 without violating his oath. That's one of the effects of a "strong executive." DCF

2 1

Organized Crime Home Page - Four Horsemen, No Waiting
by Alan Bostick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cypherpunks interested in establishment scaremongering are invited to take a look at the Organized Crime Home Page (http://www.alternatives.com/crime/index.html) sponsored by a group called The Committee for a Safe Society, about the world-wide threat of organized crime. Apparently every evil known to post-Cold-War society, even the bad weather in Chicago, is the responsibility of organized crime. Now you know why governments need GAK. Alan-Bob says check it out. -- Alan Bostick | [Spielberg's] latest is TWISTER, a film that mailto:abostick@netcom.com | gives whole new meaning to the phrase "giant news:alt.grelb | sucking sound." -- Patrick Taggart http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick

2 2

Re: CDT Policy Post 2.27 - No New News on Crypto: Gore Restates
by Arun Mehta 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:17 14/07/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote: >At 7:05 AM -0700 7/13/96, Deranged Mutant wrote: >>On 12 Jul 96 at 18:23, Bob Palacios posted: >>> * Called for the liberalization of export controls provided computer >>> users participate in a "global key management infrastructure" >>> designed to make personal encryption keys accessible to law >>> enforcement. >> >>This is particularly problematic... >Your best shot would be to make sure the part about the system being >voluntary was hard-wired into any legislation or rule-making. Unless and >until ITAR is modified by Congress, the USG has what Mark Twain called "the >calm confidence of a Christian with four aces" on this matter. International agreement on this issue won't happen this century. People don't understand the problem (or why it needs regulation), are suspicious of the US and its motives -- in any case international negotiations take forever. As for the "concession" regarding liberalisation of export controls of crypto -- big deal. The stuff is available anyway outside the US, so the only people helped are US industry -- why should the rest of the world care? Without international agreement, the whole key escrow idea doesn't have a leg to stand on, and I doubt US industry will be willing to wait that long before they can use strong crypto in their international products. Arun Mehta Phone +91-11-6841172, 6849103 amehta(a)cpsr.org check out my new page at http://www.cerfnet.com/~amehta/ The protestors of Tiananmen Square will be back. Next time, the battle will be fought in cyberspace, where the students have the more powerful tanks...

2 1

Re: Markoff on Clipper III
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:33 PM 7/14/96 -0400, Duncan Frissell wrote: >On the Friday "Clipper III" rehash by the Admin: > >Balancing Privacy and Official Eavesdropping > > By JOHN MARKOFF > > "The president and vice president took an oath to protect our >national security," Simon said. "They feel they have to err on the side of >protecting national security." > > The government also said that it did not see an immediate >technical solution to the problems that would result from the global >proliferation of "strong cryptography." > >************** > >Last time I looked, the oath they took was to protect the Constitution -- >not the nation or national security. It's called "mission creep." And they didn't quite tell the truth: Their main loyalty is to "government security" or even "job security." >I don't see an "immediate technical solution" to strong crypto either. Or, >indeed, a long-term solution. Thank heavens for that! Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Clueless "Attachment converted" uses
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:48 AM 7/15/96, Gregory A Empey wrote: >On Thu, 20 Jun 1996 10:55:29 -0800 jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> >writes: >>At 10:59 AM 6/20/96 -0400, Intense wrote: >>> >>>does not matter - it will be renewed in the interest of the >>government >>>The goverment want's there backdoor... would you expect less? >> >>As far as I know, patents can't be "renewed." I've heard they can be >>"re-issued," amended, but to my knowledge that doesn't extend their >>term. >> >>Jim Bell >>jimbell(a)pacifier.com >> > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:UUE.DOC (WDBN/MSWD) (0000FAD8) OK, I _usually_ delete these "Attachment converted" messages, which (fortunately) deletes the attachment in my "Attachments" folder, but for some reason this time I fired up my word processor and opened the attachment. All I found was this crap: "Hey, im ready to seriously f*ck-up MCI for no apparent reason, and im also giving credit card (and calling card) #'s away for no apparent reason, just reply to skitzo(a)juno.com." I urge people to NOT use attachments when ordinary plain text will obviously work. There's a time and a place for richly formatted messages, a la MIME, but not on a mailing list with heterogeneous platforms, mailers, and varying graphics capabilities. Think of our mailing list as being like Usenet, where graphics messages and oddball formats are frowned upon (except in the binaries groups, and a few of the non-English language groups). And especially not clueless nonsense like this call for "fucking up MCI." --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."

4 3

Filtering out Queers is OK
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:29 PM 7/18/96, Cerridwyn Llewyellyn wrote: >I am not saying that a private entity doesn't or shouldn't have the Legal >Right to censor, but I am saying that censorship of any form by any >entity is a Bad Thing and the public (not the government, mind) should >fight it on all fronts. This, in my mind, is the only reason to be >dismayed by the decision on the CDA. It was found that the government >shouldn't censor on the Internet because there were forms of Corporate >censorship available. It would have truely been a great day if the >decision had been that the government shouldn't censor on the Internet >because censorship is wrong. Filtering is not "wrong," Cerridwyn, it is a rational response to garbage being spewed constantly. I filter lots of items. I read "Scientific American" and "The Economist" because they filter (or "censor," in the sense some are objecting to here) nonsense about "queer rights" and "peircing fashions," to name but a few things I have no interest in hearing about. If I had kids, I'd make sure that lots of negative memes were kept away from them until they reached an age where it no longer mattered, where there views are already basically set. I see nothing wrong in this. Anyone who disagrees is, of course, free to set his filters differently, but not to insist that my filters be changed. And the government is not free to pass any laws about what filter sites can and can't do. Unfortunately, I think many on this list are so taken by "liberalistic" notions that they think the State needs to intervene to stop me from filtering my son's access to "The Joys of Queer Sex." (As a libertarian, I really don't care what sexual practices others practice, so long as I am not forced to either fund or witness their practices. And so long as I am free to filter out their practices as I see fit, including for my minor children and/or members of my household.) >That is another problem, not the Real Problem. The Real Problem is that >parents are scared to have to explain to children why something they've >seen is wrong or bad. They are afraid to teach their children their >beliefs and values, so instead would rather just filter everything that >conflicts with those beliefs, so that they believe it by default. This is Some parents simply get tired of spending time each night trying to undo the propaganda taught in many public school, such as books like "I Have Two Mommies." Many of these parents eventually give up and put their kids in religious or private schools (even though they continue to pay taxes for schools their own children are no longer using). Queers are, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly free to practice their AIDS-spreading practices to any and all receptive anuses they can find, but I eschew this lifestyle and will fight to the death for this right to avoid their practices from being forced on me or my children (if I had any, which I don't). I think of AIDS as "evolution in action." Retroviruses which have existed for millenia now find new vectors for spreading in our population. I cry no tears for those dying of AIDS, and work to reduce to tax dollars spent on such things as "AIDS research." Let those who introduced the new vector pay for the research. What do you call ten million AIDS deaths? You figure it out. --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."

8 11

Re: Making encoding out of an authentication cipher
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 17 Jul 96 at 19:36, EVERHART(a)Arisia.GCE.Com wrote: > Had an interesting thought, maybe worth passing on for commentary. > > (...since "authentication" ciphers are considered "harmless" by > those interested in spying on your info...) > > Suppose you have a secure hash function H(msg) that delivers a random [..] There's a section in Schneier's Applied Cryptography about using hash algorithms for ciphers. There are several ways of doing this, although some are stronger than others. One you adapt the hash algorithm to a cipher, it's a cipher, not a hash algorithm, and is regulated. 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