December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Bernstein files for partial summary judgement in crypto case
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:28 PM 7/25/96 -0700, John Gilmore wrote: >Here's the press release on the latest development in the Bernstein >case. >July 26, 1996 Electronic Frontier Foundation >In his 45-page memorandum in support of his motion, Bernstein sets forth >several First Amendment arguments: >* Any legal framework that requires a license for First Amendment >protected speech, which may be granted or withheld at the discretion of a >government official, is a prior restraint on speech. In order for this >framework to be acceptable, the government has the burden of showing that >publication will "surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable >damage to our Nation or its people" and that the regulation at issue is >necessary to prevent this damage. The government has not met this burden >regarding the ITAR legal framework. Maybe it's just me, but why would even the _certainty_ that a publication will "surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our Nation or its people" justify violation of 1st amendment rights? There are, certainly, kinds of "damage" which should not warrant prohibition: If, for instance, a business regularly cheats its customers, my investigation of that behavior and revealing it publicly would certain "damage" that business, but we conclude that's justified if for no other reason than it's the truth. Would digging up an embarrassing revelation about "our Nation or its people" constitute "irreparable damage" sufficient to justify concluding that the 1st amendment didn't apply? Had the fact that we'd slaughtered Indians in the late 1800's been kept secret until today, would its discovery and publication be that "irreparable damage" that regulation could legitimately seek to prohibit? Would the news that the events leading up to the "Gulf of Tonkin resolution" were a fraud cause "irreparable damage"? Would finding out the truth about the Watergate incident cause "irreparable damage"? In a sense, speaking of any of these incidents might cause "irreparable damage" to government and people, but it's "damage" that a person should simply be entitled to do, given the concepts of free speech and the 1st amendment. In short, I don't think Bernstein should give an inch. There may, in fact, be limits on the 1st amendment, but I don't see this as being one of them. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Re: HACKER REPORT
by JonWienk＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> wrote: [snip] >On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Rich Graves wrote: > >> On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >> >> > At the end, Pete Wilson (the TV guy, not the governor) said >> > something like, "Hackers tells us that the problem may be >> > overblown. Most people--and this includes most hackers-- >> >> Really? Hackers are people? > >MOST hackers. [snip] The rest, of course, are chupa-cabras, yeti, descendants of the Roswell crash survivors, and ATF agents... Jonathan Wienke

1 0

Re: Fireworks expected, missed at Senate crypto hearing
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>more about terrorists. And Sen. Slate Gorton (R-Wash) jumped on the >>committee staff for leaning too far *away* from national security interests >>in their summary of the legislation. > >What does that mean? As opposed to what? (Gorton's my Senator, and I'm >going to give a little feedback to his local office...) (If you have Real-Audio capability, you can listen to the hearings at www.hotwired.com/wiredside) Basically he expressed his disappointment at the committee for having a biased view and having minds that were already made up regarding the issue, and he said he was beginning to lean towards the bill, but the attitude of the committee just might make him vote against it. He's my senator too and believe me he got some feedback! =) //cerridwyn//

1 0

Publicly Verifiable Anonymous Voting System
by JonWienk＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Begin Rant] As I write this, I am listening to the news coverage of the bombing in Centennial Park. The ABC news reports are already linking the suspected Georgia Militia members accused of plotting to use pipe bombs at the Olympic Games. Just like OKC, the militia-gun owner-right-wing extremist smear is gearing up before the blood has a chance to dry. On the other hand, the govt seems to be awfully reluctant to admit the obvious about TWA 800... [End Rant] Here is the how the voting system works. 1. All voting information (public keys, ballots, ballot signatures, etc.) is publicly available via a Web site or other similar means, and can be downloaded in its entirety by anyone who cares to take the trouble to do so. The software (and source code) used to generate ballots should be publicly available as well. 2. When someone registers to vote, they submit a RSA public key to a registered voter key database. The public key database does not contain voter information; only keys. Access to the key entry terminals is controlled, so that only registered voters can submit keys. A receipt is given to the voter with a hash of the key printed on it (PGP fingerprint style), the key entry clerk's name, a receipt serial number, etc., so the voter can verify the correct key was put in the system, and who to shoot if it wasn't. 3. On election day, each voter submits a ballot signed with their private key. The ballot contains the fingerprint of the voter's public key, the voter's choices, (preferably in a standardized ASCII format) and the digital signature. The ballot goes into the vote database regardless of whether it is valid or not. The voter receives a printed receipt confirming that the ballot was entered in the database, with a hash of the entire ballot (headers, signature, and all), receipt serial number, etc. 4. After the election, each voter can verify whether their public key and ballot are in the database, and see whether their vote is deemed valid or not (if the signature on the ballot can be verified by a key in the key database). If there are any discrepancies, the voter has the public key, the ballot, and the receipts to prove that his vote should be counted. 5. Since the key/vote databases are not connected to individuals, no one can connect votes to voters unless cheating occurs during the registration process. If there is fraud or other errors, the key/ballot/receipt combo is all that is necessary to prove the error--no identification of the bearer is required. 6. Keys in the system should expire every few years. Any comments / constructive criticisms welcome. Jonathan Wienke "1935 will go down in history! For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead in the future!" --Adolf Hitler "46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. ...Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government." --The 29 Palms Combat Arms Survey http://www.ksfo560.com/Personalities/Palms.htm 1935 Germany = 1996 U.S.? Key fingerprint = 30 F9 85 7F D2 75 4B C6 BC 79 87 3D 99 21 50 CB

2 2

Nerds, Dykes, Niggers, Dweebs, Fags, Bimbos, and Geeks
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:40 PM 7/26/96, Bill Frantz wrote: >At 9:09 AM 7/26/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >>... I hate the term "nerd," as I hate the >>names "dweeb," "geek," "jerk," etc. Believe me, anyone who thinks being >>called a "nerd" is complimentary, or anyone who labels himself as a "geek," >>is probably one who would call himself a "nigger," or a "queer.") > >I must disagree with Tim on this issue. Back in the dark ages, before the >revolution, the Yankee was an insult used by British sympathisers to >describe the hick American revolutionaries. The Americans adopted it as a >matter of pride and threw it back in their detractors face. I think Bill and I must've been in an exchange on this before, as I recall similar words from someone, perhaps Bill. Look, anyone is perfectly free to wear t-shirts espousing "Wimp Pride" and saying "We're gimps, we're wimps, we're dweebs, and we're PROUD!" I just cringe when I meet young programmers at Cypherpunks who mumble "I'm just a computer geek." Fine, I write them off as geeks. >Homosexuals are doing the same thing with the them "queer". When I went to >Dan Farmer and Wietse Venema's class in Internet Security, Dan taught the >class wearing a tank-top which said "QUEER" across the front. I have no problem with dykes, fags, fairies, queens, and other assorted queers and perverts "reclaiming" these terms...I'll just ignore such folks. (And I do find it passing strange that several of these "queers" expressed outrage to me that I used the word "queer" in the name of a thread; I guess it's the same way niggers insist that only _they_ are allowed to use this "reclaimed" word.) >People with pride in themselves and what they do can make their detractors >eat their insults. We should make it clear that "nerd," "dweeb," "geek," >"jerk," etc. are where the money is. We should turn them into terms of >pride in what we are and what we do. Maybe it's a generational thing (though Bill is as old as me, I think), but terms of insult are just that. The biggest users seem to be clueless journalists, like blonde bimbette Sue Hutchinson of the "S.J. Mercury News," who writes repeatedly of "nerdfests," and "geek conventions." (Hey, maybe womyn need to reclaim the terms "bimbo" and "airhead"?) As I see it, the best way to handle such terms of insult is to refuse to respond to it, not some bullshitty scheme of "reclaiming" the term. (A journalist once called me to get a "nerd's" perspective on a crypto issue--I told her I'm not a nerd and hung up on her.) As for what people ought to call themselves, e.g., when journalists ask what they are. just what is wrong with "engineer," "programmer," "scientist," and "cryptographer"? --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

Vote early, vote often
by Martin Minow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've uploaded my entry in the "Big Java Applet" contest. The best way to locate it (your vote counts) is to point Netscape to http://www.jade.org:8001/jade/show_entries?inCat=Global_Community The best way to view it from a Macintosh is to point the Sun Applet viewer to http://www.vmeng.com/pub/minow/SunClock.html Although you can also use NetScape 3.0b5 to view it, this release seems to have drawing problems on the Macintosh. I haven't tried other browsers. Your comments and improvements are welcome. There is very little Cypherpunks relevance, although "phase of the moon" may be a useful number to mix into a random number generator. (The source is available from the website.) Martin.

1 0

Re: Olympic bombing
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:41 PM 7/27/96 +0200, Mike van der Merwe wrote: > >Hi all > >I can just see the FBI screaming "we need weaker encryption to combat >terrosism on US soil" with nasty effects -- it seems all to many people, >lawmakers included, will be only to happy to sacrifice their privacy that >the FBI can better combat these terrorist acts (which could *of course* >could been prevented had only the FBI been able to read their encrypted >mail...) > >Somehow I got the feeling watching CNN that the FBI was given a shitload >of ammo. Call me cynical but the Reichstag fire comes to mind... > >Later >Mike This was on another list. It expresses my sentiments quite well. >Received: from ez0.ezlink.com (lneil(a)ez0.ezlink.com [199.45.150.1]) by bud.indirect.com (8.7.4/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA15498; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 20:36:06 -0700 (MST) >Received: by ez0.ezlink.com id AA20227 > (5.67b/IDA-1.5); Fri, 26 Jul 1996 21:36:25 -0600 >Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 21:36:25 -0600 >From: "L. Neil Smith" <lneil(a)ez0.ezlink.com> >Message-Id: <199607270336.AA20227(a)ez0.ezlink.com> >To: mongoose(a)indirect.com >Subject: TWA 800 and Atlanta >Cc: tompkins(a)indirect.com > >TWA 800 AND THE POLICE STATE OF GEORGIA > >By L. Neil Smith <lneil(a)ezlink.com> > >Special to _The Libertarian Enterprise_ > > I've been sitting around all week, watching the Olympics whether I >like it or not, because my wife and daughter want to watch them, and I >can deny them nothing. > > In between undeniably dramatic moments -- astonishingly courageous >little girls "playing hurt", as if they were major-league football >players -- I've been treated to story after story of how, due to the >efforts of thousands of uniformed professional paranoids, Georgia, USA >is coming to resemble _Soviet_ Georgia. The sight of _hundreds_ of >trailers moved in to house these security "troops" is demoralizing in >and of itself to anyone with a regard for a free society. > > At the same time, I've been a TV witness to the tragedy of TWA >Flight 800 and an ignoble struggle by network fear-vampires to wring >the story of its last delectable drop -- "It was a bomb!" "It was a >missile!" "It was a bomb!" "It was a missile!" -- the whole thing >beginning to sound like a macabre Certs commercial. > > Over it all hung the spectre of international terrorism, and the >swollen, corrupt, bulbous-nosed, droopy-jowled visage of a politician >(no "New Democrat" as it turns out, but just another damned fascist) >grimly determined -- exactly like Richard Milhous "Guns are an >Abomination" Nixon before him -- to be the last democratically elected >President of the United States: William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. > > Clinton -- aided by his vile minions, the national "news" media -- >went into raptures of ecstasy, listing all the ways that the freedom >of Americans would have to be curtailed (Clinton has spoken of this >before; it's a favorite theme of his) due to the heinous act he >transparently hoped had been committed against TWA 800. > > Afterward, the round-heeled sprayheads obligingly searched out the >usual street-cretins to rubberstamp Our Glorious Leader's latest Five >Minute Plan, and add that they wouldn't mind at all paying extra for >the "service" of having their inalienable rights violated even worse >-- within the increasingly Bulgarian-style compounds American airports >have become -- than they're being violated now. > > But there's a simpler, more effective way to prevent the criminal >acts generally labelled "terrorism" that Clinton and his idiot-box >doxies don't want anyone to know about. Behind virtually every >terrorist attack we've ever seen or suffered, it's relatively easy to >discover vicious and repeated acts of aggression against innocent >individuals by the state. > > Preceeding the highly-publicized excesses of the Irish Republican >Army, for example, we find 850 years of violent occupation by an >exceptionally brutal foreign power that's managed to con the world >into believing that it's civilized. > > Half a hundred years of Middle Eastern terror arise directly from >the fact that, instead of coming to America -- the appropriate refuge >for "huddled masses yearning to breathe free" -- either before or >after World War II, European Jews decided to take somebody else's land >away, and treat their victims the same way they themselves were >treated by the Nazis. (In fairness, at least before the war, would-be >refugees from Hitler's terroristic state weren't given much choice, at >least not by the American Medical Association, the American Bar >Association, and the Roosevelt Administration, all of whom worked >overtime, keeping out imported professional competition.) > > Similarly, there would never have been an Oklahoma City had there >never been a Ruby Ridge or Waco. If Clinton had any real interest in >reducing the threat of "domestic terrorism" (he most assuredly does >not: terrorism, like war before it, has become "the health of the >state") instead of ratcheting government controls tighter around the >necks of 250 million Americans who've done nothing wrong, he'd >immediately arrest, try, convict, and punish all of those responsible >for Ruby Ridge and Waco, abolish the outlaw agencies in whose names >they were perpetrated, and repeal or nullify the unconstitutional laws >which provided them their justification. > > The trouble is, he'd have to arrest, try, convict, and punish >_himself_. > > Oh, yeah, the plan: the best-kept "secret" of our overly- >governmentalized age is that terrorism almost invariably >_reactionary_; simply stop doing things -- things you shouldn't be >doing anyway -- that cause terrorists to attack you and the attacks >will stop. > > Terrorism is the price that governments -- and their hostage >subjects -- pay for exercising illegitimate power. Despite pundits >whose ignorance is exceeded only by their presumption (_Wall Street >Journal_'s Paul Gigot leaps immediately to mind) 20th century history >demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that no further expansion of >that power will do anything but make make the problem worse. > > Benjamin Franklin warned us, more or less, that anyone who trades >liberty for safety is a fool, in part, because there ain't no such >_thing_ as safety. > > We're reminded by Amnesty International that more individuals have >been murdered by governments in this century -- well over 100 million >-- than have died in its wars (war itself being a government >enterprise, as well), proving that government is a worse threat than >anything it claims to protect us from. Tragedies like TWA 800 is >presumed to be, represent a failure of the _state_ -- of the very >_idea_ of the state -- and it is the state, not individuals, that must >be penalized, by reducing its income, and especially the power it >wields over individual lives. > > Americans are famous the world over for doing what was never done >before. It's time we did something historically unprecedented again. >We flew the first airplane; we sent the first men to the Moon. Both of >those were possible _only_ because we were the first people ever to >tell a King to go to hell. > > Now it's time to tell a President to go to hell. It's time to be >the first people ever to _refuse_ to be steam-rollered out of our >liberties by jackbooted thugs claiming to protect us from people and >events that don't threaten any of us nearly as much as the thugs >themselves. > >=================================== > >L. Neil Smith's award-winning first novel, _The Probability Broach_, >which has long been out of print, will be republished by TOR Books >this October. Permission to redistribute this article is herewith >granted by the author, provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its >entirety, and appropriate credit given. > > > Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Pie cutting algorithm
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:40 AM 7/27/96, Rollo Silver wrote: >Tim May said: ><< ObCrypto Sidebar: The "fair" method for dividing a pie between two people >I (RS) believe Claude Shannon proposed the following N-person pie-cutting >algorithm more than 25 years ago: Thanks! I should've suspected that The Master had worked on this problem. >Tim May: as a Licensed Ontologist, do you know who made the wiseassed (but >deep) remark "Ontology recapitulates Philology"? or for that matter, >"Oncology recapitulates Proctology". No, but my friend Chip Morningstar pointed out that "ontology recapitulates philately," (For those befuddled by these jokes, the biological original was "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," which means that the morphological development of a fetus in the womb retraces, or recapitulates, the morphological development throughout history of the species, roughly. Thus, gills, fins, etc.) --Tim 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: The Four Horsemen Go to the Olympics!
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:32 PM 7/27/96, Nathan Syfrig wrote: >This is very worrysome, as it truly is a "world stage" event that could >really serve to galvanize various governments into uniting against strong >non-escrowed crypto. Hey, it will look good for the international PR, >never mind the fact that not everybody will be so 'diligent' in registering >their keys and/or use the "approved" crypto. Well, the large crowds milling in public squares with massive numbers of world journalists watching...a classic series of "soft targets." If several million-dollar bomb sniffers are placed in all airports, the terrs will just shift to _trains_, as experts point out. Or _ships_. Or _crowds_. Next time you're out driving around, think of places where a car bomb could take out dozens of people, or where a bag or backpack could take out crowds. (The Mad Bomber in New York or Boston killed quite a few people by using lockers in public places....kind of hard to put bomb sniffers in all such places. And bomb technology, timers, detonators, etc. have advanced apace in the last several decades since the Mad Bomber.) While I don't claim there is nothing to be done about terrorism, the fact is that modern nations highly value free travel and often mingle in "soft target" areas. Even a police state wherein people's movements are carefully controlled cannot fully avoid such acts. By the way, the airline solution is not too difficult to visualize: 1. Eliminate checked baggage, or at least require those with checked baggage to deposit it enough hours in advance to be inspected and to pay any surcharges for this inspection. (I try to only have carry-on baggage, and this seems to be a major trend.) 2. Let the market decide. Airlines could announce their baggage inspection policy, and customers could decide on the tradeoffs between increased inspections and higher costs, and greater confidence in security. I think I'll repost my "Soft Targets" piece of a few weeks ago, in the light of TWA 800 and this morning's bomb in Atlanta. --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: "privatizing" phones?
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>While shopping for a new phone recently, I came across >two models (Toshiba and Uniden I believe) that >have buttons to "privatize" you conversations. These >were on no-cord models. Does anyone have any idea >on what these actually do? Can the phones change > the frequency the call is on randomly >so people can't tune into it? I know cellulars offer something >similar. Personally, I would never put much faith into >something of this sort. Even if they did change the frequency the call was on, it would be a simple matter to decode how the frequency change was negotiated, and "follow" the call (also easily accomplished with cellular calls). Failing that, there is a very limited range of frequencies allocated for cordless fones, and simply re-scanning for the conversation is a trivial inconvenience. //cerridwyn//

1 0