December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: The Four Horsemen Go to the Olympics!
by Nathan Syfrig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:15 PM 7/26/96 -0700, Alan Olsen <alano(a)teleport.com> wrote: >Well, there was an explosion at the Olympics... It may have been a bomb or >it may have been a transformer. >Expect this to be used as fuel as to why every one in America must be under >constant survelance by the Government. >The Four Horsemen are now an Olympic Event! And here's your suspect (from anonymous): 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. Now all you have to do is match this sentence structure with the 911 tape. Maybe there's a correlation between an electronic fingerprint and fingerprints on the phone booth. 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. And of course, this country just purchased another IBM computer for "nuclear simulation". Gee, I wonder what else that power might be used for? (but then again, it's from IBM, purveyor of the Olympics computer services) Nathan (standard not-my-emplyers-views disclaimer)

2 1

Re: Schelling Points, Rights, and Game Theory--Part II
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:31 AM 7/25/96 EST, jbugden(a)smtplink.alis.ca wrote: > Basically, in this view of rights and raising of children it would seem that a > relativistic pragmatism prevails. Personally, I think that the two choices are > either this relative pragmatism or an absolute morality. The fact that someone is doing something that is morally wrong, does not automatically give us the right to go and rectify it at gunpoint. Not all wrongs are crimes, only those wrongs for which is just to engage in violent retribution. > Some implications of Tim's view is that all our rights are basically a > transitory agreement between individuals. Tim may or may not believe this, but that is not a consequence of his views. The schelling point theory of rights is substantially equivalent in practice to "We hold these truths to be self evident." --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Re: WaPo on Crypto-Genie Terrorism
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:21 PM 7/27/96 GMT, John Young wrote: > The Washington Post, July 27, 1996, p. A22. [Snip] > Mr. Freeh and others argue, "the genie is not yet > out of the bottle" on "robust," meaning uncrackable, > encryption. Why does it sounds like Mr. Freeh and his friends are drinking out of a different bottle than the rest of us? The genie is out of the bottle and has been for a while. The tools are there for those who care to use them. Maybe it is a diffrenet genie that he is trying to portray... Maybe it is the acceptance and relyance on crypto that has not quite escaped into the general populace. If someone tried to portray all automobie drivers as dangerous maniacs and cars as only useful for making getaways, he would be laughed out of the room. If someone tried to claim that phones are a haven for drug dealers, and thus must be licenced, they would get a harsh reaction from the public. Freeh is fighting a war against the public having a positive view of Crypto. By smearing crypto users as "criminals and terrorists", he is using his office to influence the opinions of "law abiding citizens" to be anti-crypto. I beleive that there is alot that can be done to influence the public to be pro-crypto. With the proper memes, you can reveal the flaws in the anti-privacy forces arguments. Here are a few in no particular order... Teaching computer users how to use PGP. Offer to give instruction in use of PGP amongst general PC and Mac users groups. Whenever possible associate the wiretapping requests of the FBI with the opening of mail. Remind people of the abuses in the past. Ask them of if they can remember any good coming from these program. Ask them if they mind *you* looking through their mail and what makes the Government any better or worse. Local stations will usually have a "public forum discussion" program on varioussubjects. get on it. Usually the program is rigged in one direction por another, but you can get in a good meme or two that will stick in the heads of the people watching. (And it can be alot of fun!) Offer to sponsor a crypto archive and discussion area on a local BBS. Keep it current. Get others interested. Spread the tools and teach people how to use them. Build web sites that are pro-crypto. Where possible, get them working under SSL. Are there any SSL crypto sites out there? I know of only one, and it is not advertised. (Or up to date.) Work fast lest the darkness overcome us all... Be creative. The control freaks and authoritarians lack that creativity. Lets use it to our advantage. --- |"Computers are Voodoo -- You just have to know where to stick the pins."| |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0

BCI_sys
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

7-27-96. WaPo: A report on the Army's Battlefield Combat Identification System (BCIS), designed by TRW, which identifies friendly targets through triple-checked microwave pulses, encrypted signals that change frequencies 43 times a second to resist jamming or detection by the enemy. (The roasting of friendlies depicted in "Courage Under Fire" is cited as firing increased public interest.) ----- http://jya.com/bcisys.txt (14 kb) BCI_sys

1 0

Re: Twenty Bank Robbers -- Game theory:) [Classic Answer]
by Robert A. Rosenberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:09 -0500 7/25/96, Igor Chudov wrote: >Here's a puzzle for our game theorists. > >Twenty cypherpunks robbed a bank. They took 20 million bucks. Here's >how they plan to split the money: they stay in line, and the first guy >suggests how to split the money. Then they vote on his suggestion. If >50% or more vote for his proposal, his suggestion is adopted. > >Otherwise they kill the first robber and now it is the turn of guy #2 >to make another splitting proposal. Same voting rules apply. > >The question is, what will be the outcome? How will they split the >money, how many robbers will be dead, and so on? > >igor This is a variant on the normal distribution problem/game where you have a number of homogeneous/identical items that are either too numerous to distribute by the "one for you and one for me" method or are not equivalent to each other. The "goal" is to have a method of distributing so that each person feels that they got "their fair share". The classic solution is to have #1 divide the items into 20 piles (any of which he is willing to take as his share). Then number #2 is offered the choice of accepting #1's distribution or rearranging the distribution until he is happy to accept any of them. This accept/rearrange process goes on until #19 has made his decision. Then #20 is allowed to select any one pile as his share. The "choose a pile" option then goes back up the line (to #19, #18, etc) with each taking one of the remaining piles until it gets to whoever was before the person who did the last rearrangement. This person then has the option of doing a new rearrangement or approving the current distribution. After he does a rearrangement or approves the distribution, the option keeps going up the line until it gets to #1 (who selects a pile). You then keep going down [and up] the line until there are only two piles and the last approver/rearranger gets the last pile after the choice of piles is made by the other person. This is "fair" since at all times the person who is making a pile selection has already approved the distribution (or at the end is offered his choice of the two remaining piles).

3 2

RE: Overwelmed with Stupidity...
by Gregory Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Shaun Clark <jacquard(a)teleport.com> writes: > > > Ok, ok... Let me say something, but I don't want anyone to > > take this wrong. I'm not trying to be stupid, but I don't > > have half the knowledge you all seem to posses. > and Mike Duvos <mpd(a)netcom.com> replies: >That's ok. Welcome to the list. > then proceeds to pull Mike's leg by telling him TRS-80 is a technical paper by David Sternlight, DES is a synthetic estrogen that shrinks your dick, and GAK is green slime on a kiddie show. In my mind, this is just schoolyard bully-ism at the expense of the "new kid." Really mature, really nurturing of the serious values and issues this list exists to disseminate. Go back to second grade, Mike. I, too, am a relative newcomer to this list, and have not participated very actively because I'm having a hard time gauging the balance between the genuinely useful technical and philosophical issues being discussed (of which there are many) and the childish, irrational ranting and insulting pseudo-intellectual one-upsmanship being bantered about (of which there is far too much). If people like Mike Duvos can't bring themselves to offer any useful information to newcomers who earnestly ask, they could at least refrain from insulting them for the "crime" of not knowing. Shaun, TRS-80 is an early line of microcomputers produced by Radio Shack, DES is a (not very secure) encryption algorithm supported by the Bureau of Standards, and GAK stand for "govenment access to keys," the position that the government should have access to all private keys (in escrow, of course) just in case there is a "legitimate" need to listen in on anybody's private communications. I believe in the values this list was founded to promulgate, and I value it for the open political, technical and philosopical discussions of issues crucial to our time. And, yes, it's great to have fun, too, but does it always have to be mean-spirited fun at someone else's expense? -- Gregory <gregorye(a)microsoft.com> "Opinions expressed herein are entirely my own and not the opinions of my employer." PGP key for <gregorye(a)microsoft.com> is on the keyservers >

3 3

Pie cutting algorithm
by rollo＠artvark.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May said: << ObCrypto Sidebar: The "fair" method for dividing a pie between two people is well-known: "You cut, I choose." This *game theory* result is central to many cryptographic protocols (though it may not always be apparent at first). And the protocol can be extended to 3 parties, and proabably to N. Research is ongoing on this, including Cypherpunk Robin Hanson's work at Caltech. >> I (RS) believe Claude Shannon proposed the following N-person pie-cutting algorithm more than 25 years ago: Persons 1...N are seated around a circular table. A Thing To Be Shared (Call it a "pie") sits in front of P1 (Alice, if you prefer). P1 cuts a slice (a portion satisfactory to her) out of the pie -- the "current slice" -- and offers the whole pie with the current slice to the person P2 (Barbara, if you like) to her left for her consideration. It is possible that P1 is so greedy that she makes the whole pie the current slice. P2 does one of 2 things: A. P2 cuts a smaller slice (a portion satisfactory to her, which becomes the new current slice) out of the old current slice and offers the whole pie with the new current slice to P3. B. P2 passes (being unwilling to settle for a smaller slice of the pie than the current slice), offering the person P3 to her left the whole pie with the current slice for her consideration; P3 does one of 2 things: A. P3 cuts a smaller slice (a portion satisfactory to her, which becomes the new current slice) out of the old current slice and offers the whole pie with the new current slice to P4. B. P3 passes (being unwilling to settle for a smaller slice of the pie than the current slice), offering the person P4 to her left the whole pie with the current slice for her consideration; ... Eventually, someone (Pm, or Morticia) has cut a current slice, and everybody else has passed. At that point Pm gets the piece she cut, leaves the table with it, and (if N > 2) the game proceeds ab initio with N-1 people and the remaining pie. If N = 2 (two people were playing), there's now one person left (Winnie), and she gets the remaining pie. The whole procedure terminates, with everyone satisified, after a finite number of steps. 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". Rollo Silver / Amygdala | e-mail: rollo(a)artvark.com 216M N. Pueblo Rd, #107 | Website: http://www.artvark.com/artvark/ Taos, NM 87571 USA | Voice: 505-751-9601; FAX: 505-751-7507

6 6

Re: Fireworks expected, missed at Senate crypto hearing
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:44 AM 7/27/96 -0700, Cerridwyn Llewyellyn wrote: > >>>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! =) I would not trust Slade Gordon as far as I can shoot him with a tree shreader. Gordon was the CO-SPONSOR of the CDA. Exon got all the press, but Gordon was just as responsible. (Maybe the netfolk ought to make that fact well known when he comes up for re-election. Hint! Hint!) Where issues of freedom are involved, I doubt if he is on our side. --- 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

Overwelmed with Stupidity...
by Shaun Clark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ok, ok... Let me say something, but I don't want anyone to take this wrong. I'm not trying to be stupid, but I don't have half the knowledge you all seem to posses. For instance what the heck is a TRS-80, DES, or even GAK? I probabl;y know or have heard but, I'm not picking up on the three letter words. So, if you could help meout maybe I just might be able to start contributing activly to this mailer!

5 4

cypherpunks vs hackers
by Jerome Tan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How can we differentiate cypherpunks to hackers? What are their attitudes, psychological thinking, main objective?

1 0