December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

[Books] Kahn's *The Code Breakers*
by stainles＠bga.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- My room-mate just brought me the latest catalog from Uncle Hugo's Science Fiction Bookstore & Uncle Edgar's Mystery Bookstore. The updated edition of Kahn's *The Code Breakers* is listed as being expected by mid-November, with a cover price of $65. (No publisher listed.) Hugo's can be reached at 612-824-6347, or unclehugo(a)aol.com. No connection except as a satisfied customer. ==Dwight -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6ui iQCVAgUBMlW+rYY4AzhdF11FAQEfzwP5AXP/63of9MPefzguLX5n9byRVUPcXOKT cYJNdTGe9ErVb6skDNN7e4PiwlZPSV03OFgntsp9CBFed+2AN/d+EFI3kNyFWQ5p fwEZ2u6VYINaQ0PhYaxneoMrxa+U8gnB5PZ8sa/Pwq4hhf6XxcOk7vUwKsLPQmeX 2KBLVLKeWj8= =f5D5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: legality of wiretapping: a "key" distinction
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:10 PM 10/4/96 -0700, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >>It didn't have to be this way. The SC might simply have said that wiretap >>warrants must follow the same rules all other warrants followed, meaning >>that the target is informed of the tap when it is placed. Sure, the police >>would howl, complaining that they'll never hear anything "useful" if the >>target is informed, but then again, the Constitution cannot guarantee that >>any particular search would achieve its intended results. > >but then again, if "we the people" didn't challenge a usurpation of >our rights when it happened, something's wrong here. I've read references to polls which repeatedly show that well over 60% of the public is opposed to wiretaps, period. But no, I'm under no illusion that even a legal challenge would be respected. > hence my >opinion that wiretapping should be challenged in court. Well, I agree it should be challenged, but if anything my point is that the reason it wasn't challenged was the fact that wiretap targets are never given the opportunity. (Note for the clueless out there: An after-the-fact challenge doesn't count. Apparently, "non-incriminating" wiretaps are essentially never announced to the victim...er...target. And judges are sufficiently biased, gutless, and brainless that they almost never throw out the _incriminating_ results of a wiretap warrant. THis is for the same reason Judge Ito didn't throw out the evidence the four crooked detectives got in OJ's house, after jumping the fence without a warrant, claiming that they were afraid somebody was in danger inside. As I'm fond of saying, "Fuhrman pretended to tell the truth, and Ito pretended to believe him.") >>Are police entitled to use thumbscrews if simply asking a question won't get >>the "right" answer"? I don't think so. > >very poor analogy. a rhetorical loser imho characterisitic of >painting the issue in terms of extremism. wiretapping doesn't involve >any physical pain to the surveilled. also it is barely analogous >to "search and seizure" in that there is nothing physical being >seized. (just playing the devil's advocate here) No, not at all. The point is that acknowledged illegal tactics (remember, wiretaps were illegal before 1968, but they were done!) may be unquestionably "useful," but that doesn't mean that they are acceptable. If anything, the fact that cops would use illegal tactics proves that they aren't very good judges of what tactics are appropriate. Furthermore, the fact that telephone companies ALLOWED cops to do illegal wiretaps before 1968 (and even assisted them) proves that you can't depend on them to limit these tactics to reasonable limits. >>One thing that was very important to those who wrote the US Constitution was >>the sanctity of contracts. > >well, if the person entered in a contract with their phone company >to provide protected communications, maybe you'd have a case there. >in fact such a thing is not such a bad idea. Since up until now people have not had a choice, I think it's appropriate to assume that every telephone customer would have been entitled to insist on an anti-wiretap clause, and got it. >>As I understand it, there is a principle in law that all affected parties to >>a dispute must be included in a proceeding. (To ensure that each can protect >>his own rights.) Obviously, targets of wiretaps have not been informed, and >>thus can't possibly have been included. > >on the other hand, there are clear laws that say you can't withhold >evidence. That's misleading. If a cop wants in your house to collect evidence but he doesn't have a warrant, not letting him in is "withholding evidence." But that's obviously okay. So you need to qualify that claim. >>While I'm sure that I will be corrected if this is wrong, somehow I doubt >>whether there has EVER been a "before-the-fact", full challenge of a wiretap >>order _including_ representation for the target of the wiretap. Further, I >>also doubt whether there is frequently ANY SORT of challenge to a wiretap >>by a telephone company, even when the target was not informed. Quite >>simply, the telephone company does not consider itself to be in the business >>of protecting the rights of its customers! And without real challenges, >>there can be no presumed validity to such warrants. > >no, you have it backwards; without real challenges, there >is no validity to anyone trying to defeat the status quo. That depends on whose burden of proof you think it is. Since: 1. Wiretaps were done illegally before 1968, demonstrating that the people involved (cops, government officials) don't think they have to obey the law anyway. This should destroy any presumption on your part that wiretaps are constitutional, because those people are the main ones pushing wiretaps. 2. 60% of the public opposes wiretaps, period. (I think it's arguable that if most of the public decides that society should do without wiretaps, they are entitled to do this. Otherwise, "Who's country is it?") 3. Wiretaps do not resemble ordinary searches, because the target is not informed, and he's not given a chance to challenge them. 4. Wiretaps have "never" been adequately challenged, precisely because the only outside people who know about them have no motivation to do them. (Primarily telephone companies.) I'd say the bulk of the evidence is that the legal system accepts wiretaps simply as a convenience, without genuinely believing that they are constitutional. > >[bernstein, etc] >>Since it has always been legal to use encryption (in the US), they're really >>not "challenging the cryptographic status quo." > >no, ITAR has been around a long time and they are challenging it. you're >mixing up the issue. No, YOU'RE mixing it up. _DOMESTIC_ wiretaps are being compared with DOMESTIC use of encryption. ITAR says nothing about wiretaps. The government is pushing Clipper et al based primarily on domestic wiretap issues. >>I don't know about you, but somehow I'm past the idea that it's possible to >>reliably get unbiased justice in court. Know what I mean? > >ah yes, we revert to the basic cypherpunk nihilist position oft repeated >by lucky green, tcmay etc-- "essentially, we're screwed" Not really. It's just that when there's enough evidence of dishonesty already in the treatment of this issue in the courts, there is no reason to presume that the right decision will be reached in the future. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

RE: DESCrack keyspace partitioning
by James A. Tunnicliffe 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>geeman@best.com[SMTP:geeman@best.com] writes: >Another thinking step: most real-world DES keys are derived from hashes. >Not (P)RNGs. >The distributions are **not** uniform. Oh?? >I am talking about FAMILIES of predictable bit patterns in keys, not any >specific pattern. >I'm doing the stats. [...snip...] If you've discovered significant biases in MD5, or some other crypto-strength hash, that could be exploited to speed a keyspace search, that would be newsworthy indeed. I'm skeptical, but please share your results with us. [For context, Mike McNally wrote, in part] >[...] a good >32-bit CSPRNG has only a 1/2^32 chance of producing any particular >bit pattern. Of course, another way of saying that is that it's just >as likely to get an "obvious" bit pattern as it is to get any other >one. You can't just throw away part of the keyspace based on such >bogus reasoning. (There may be other reasons to throw away part of >the keyspace, of course.) Tunny ====================================================================== James A. Tunnicliffe | WWWeb: http://www.inference.com/~tunny Inference Corporation | PGP Fingerprint: CA 23 E2 F3 AC 2D 0C 77 tunny(a)Inference.com | 36 07 D9 33 3D 32 53 9C ======================================================================

1 0

ironic, no?
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Dr." Vulis - KOTM whines: >What is the crypto-relevance of the above-quoted passage? what is the irony-factor in the above statement?

1 0

Ignorance
by Santoyo, Felipe 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The topics inwhich are discussed here are interesting to say the least, but I need to be brought up to speed. So if anyone could help with this or suggest so good sources of information on this subject I would more than appreciate it. Thanks! Feshnicad(a)petersenpub.com

1 0

The lesser-known presidential candidates' views
by travel23＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Article carried by the A.P.] Campaigning mostly in obscurity, these lesser-known men and one woman, have managed to get their names on most if not all 50 state ballots. Here they are: Harry Browne, Libertarian Party: A best-selling investment writer, he's on the ballot in all 50 states. He says the Libertarians ``believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility and freedom from government.'' The party seeks to end income tax and ``to reduce government to the absolute minimum possible.'' Browne, 63, opposes Internet censorship and supports a repeal of the assault weapons ban. The Libertarians have been around for about a quarter of a century. Their platform includes proposals to deregulate the health-care industry, privatize Medicare and Medicaid and legalize drugs. Ralph Nader, Green Party: Primary concerns are environmental, but Nader has long fought against large corporations in the role of consumer advocate. Nader's name is on 21 state ballots. The party hopes to increase that number to 30 and to encourage write-in campaigns in the remaining states. Nader, 62, plans to use his candidacy as the catalyst for starting an ``aggressive political force for the future.'' He says the two major parties have become so similar in their views that voters are left with little choice. When Nader was nominated to head the Green Party ticket, he said, ``It's time this country has a political alternative -- a progressive mainstream that defends consumers and workers against corporate welfare.'' John Hagelin, Natural Law Party: On the ballot in 47 states -- and still trying in New Hampshire, Georgia and Oklahoma -- the Natural Law Party hopes to ``bring the light of science into politics.'' Its platform includes prevention-oriented health care, renewable energy and sustainable agriculture without pesticides. The party also wants a cost-effective government with a safety net that promotes well-being, including a 10 percent flat tax by 2002. Hagelin, 42, is a Harvard-educated physics professor and one of the party's founders. In 1992 he garnered less than 40,000 votes. The Natural Law Party advocates transcendental meditation, contending it can lower the crime rate by setting up meditation groups in prisons, and can serve as a foreign policy tool by supporting groups who practice it in other countries. Howard Phillips, U.S. Taxpayers Party: Hopes to restore American jurisprudence to its ``heritage of biblical liberty,'' abolish the Internal Revenue Service and eliminate federal income taxes, capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes. Phillips' party also supports ending legalized abortion and reducing ``the reach, the grasp and take of the federal government.'' The party platform says that while the United States should be a friend to liberty everywhere, it should only invest and fight to guarantee it for the United States. Phillips, 55, supports dismantling the Education, Housing and Urban Development departments and end government support of the arts. He is on the ballot in about 40 states. Monica Moorehead, Workers World Party: Calls for tripling the minimum wage, making polluters pay for a clean environment, furthering affirmative action and ensuring equal rights for women, lesbians, gays and bisexuals. The party supports big cuts in military spending. Moorehead's party, which is on the ballot in 12 states, believes the election is dominated by the rich and considers the Workers World Party campaign an opportunity to bring working-class politics to a broad audience. It is opposed to capitalism, advocating socialism instead. Moorehead, 44, has been a leader in the party since 1979. James Harris, Socialist Workers Party: Stands for ``the struggles of the oppressed and exploited against the increasingly brutal assault by the wealthy minority the world over,'' according to the party platform. The Socialist Workers Party supports the right of Cuba to defend its sovereignty. Harris, 48, a former meatpacker in Atlanta, is on about 10 ballots. Harris criticizes the government's response to black church burnings, airline safety and labor unions. The Socialist Workers Party accuses the major presidential candidates of continuing ``their war preparations in response to the increasing world disorder, using threats or military force from Cuba to Liberia, from China to Korea, and by backing the Israeli regime's brutal assault on Lebanon.''

1 0

Speaker Position Filled
by se7en 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks for all who responded to my request for a speaker on Computer Security Disaster Prepardness. I have filled the position and have two alternates. se7en ------------------------------------------- I will be speaking in nine different states over the next nineteen days. I will not be reading my email while I am gone......se7en -------------------------------------------

1 0

pumpcon info
by Moroni 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone have info on pumpcon for next month? If so please send it to me email. I am looking for the hotel and the exact dates. Also is it open invite? Thanks in Advance, moroni

1 0

Re: anagrams
by ! Drive 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I generally use wordsmith(a)wordsmith.org Its preety quick! ---------- : Subject: anagrams : Date: Friday, October 04, 1996 7:42 PM : Fast(est?) anagram generator: : : ftp://suburbia.net/pub/proff/original/gan/an-0.93.tar.gz : (unix source and dos executable) : : : Some Anagrams Found Using an-0.92 : ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ : Free Software Foundation - I'd fan out tons of freeware! : National Security Agency - Lusty yearning at cocaine. : President Dole - Led despite Ron. : Central Intelligence Agency - Langley: Inelegant, eccentric. :

1 0

legality of wiretapping: a "key" distinction
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

reponses to my last post were very illuminating and interesting, and one key point by someone-or-other caught my attention. he made the distinction of "search and seizure" made with the knowledge of the person involved, and "search and seizure" such as wiretapping done without the knowledge of the person surveilled. if one were to try to say that wiretapping was unconstitutional, it seems one would have to define why it is an *unreasonable* kind of search and seizure. and this distinction might be a great, prime candidate: because the participant is *unaware* of the "seizure," there is too great a potential for abuse. it seems to me many people's fears here boil down to this fear of the government surveilling them without their knowledge, of them being denied the right to choose to be in contempt of court and reject handing over information when presented with a warrant/subpoena. (is this a right? is it being broken by surreptitious surveillance?) == I am really amazed that there isn't much case law on wiretaps, which have been around a long time. at least it is rarely quoted here. what exactly is a legal wiretap? has anyone challenged the fundamental authority of the government in making wiretaps in which subjects are unaware of the metaphorical "search and seizure" going on? recent Bernstein and Junger cases are going to be fantastic milestones in our legal system for challenging the cryptographic status quo. I wonder if cpunks might be interested in challenging the wiretap status quo!! it would seem like the first logical step. the FBI has often said they don't want to expand their powers in wiretapping areas. but are those powers they have right now legitimate? if they are not, as many here seem to argue, then they ought to be challenged in court ala the one-man-guerilla attacks like Bernstein and Junger. (any takers? <g>) anyway, I propose that cpunks try to collect all the minutia in the case law about wiretaps and try to make the case that wiretapping that the FBI has enjoyed is itself not legitimate, and therefore any extension of it (such as Clipper) is also illegitimate. == more and more I wonder if this is one of the key differences between libertarian and spook bureacrat's views on GAK, key escrow, key recovery (let us put it all under the heading "key access"). the spooks seem to emphasize that they should be able to get access to communications without giving anyone the opportunity to refuse or possibly even know about such access. libertarians seem to insist that this is a violation of privacy and due process etc. I think there may be a legitimate argument here that might have legal merit that a reasonable "search and seizure" ought to involve the knowledge of the participant, and that unreasonable searches and seizures often do not. hence, wiretapping without suspect agreement may be illegal? (in all the other ways that evidence is obtained through warrants/subpoenas, one needs the cooperation of the suspect?) obviously the government would argue that the cooperation of the suspect is irrelevant and impossible. what exactly does it mean to "present a warrant" or subpoena? is there a right to refuse such a subpoena similar to the way one is guaranteed freedom from self-incrimination?

4 5