December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: PGP
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There's a rumor that Timmy C. May sells his dead relatives as fertiliser as they constitute the best shit in California.

2 1

Dole crack mirror
by Rick Campbell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I put a copy of the stuff that I found at http://www.dole-kemp.org/ at http://www.c2.net/~campbell/www.dole-kemp.org/ Basically, there was very little to the content: a couple of pages and a few images. The link to the Clinton-Core page was through http://www.dole-kemp.com/ (Note .com rather than .org) where one of the links there redirects immediately to http://www.cg96.org/new/index2.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMliJARj0UvMeUesFAQHW6QP/QL/P49brEIS7Hmw2myu4gL0fikL8Y1dW 03RO2a8IbBZVcN9FPA8FKlcDg5rApvquO83c930Wdihy1Lt1ot28Jlu0wrb1TExk paTWfmFG2kkRf66HvBbW5HYxdDPBUhv6X+WW+TztuLgtau/8p6TB67gyH84QBiYz kExTNxnu/54= =8gCv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Rick Campbell <campbell(a)c2.net> ``One of the symptoms of an approaching http://www.c2.net/~campbell/ nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important.'' - Bertrand Russel

2 1

Re: Put up or shut up!
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To elaborate on some points I just made.... >My forum is this list, and a few related places. It's a forum comparable, >modulo the times, to the forums other thinkers have had. I should also add that I am not encouraging _others_ to break the laws I am unwilling to break myself, for financial reasons. You won't find me cheering on people to stop paying taxes, selling secrets about the B-2 bomber to Iran, and so on. >Your mileage may vary, but this "amateur anarchist" intends to keep on >doing what he's doing and is not interested in "crossing the line" to the >point where his assets will be seized. I believe I am more valuable--in terms of meeting the goals I think are reasonable for myself and others, and in terms of ultimately moving things--by doing the work I've done. Now, there are some on this list who believe I should have been programming Macintosh applications instead of writing, and some who apparently believe I should be refusing to pay taxes and fighting the IRS in court, but I believe working on the implications of "crypto anarchy" is both interesting and important. Who, after all, pushed for "remailers" at the first Cypherpunks meeting? Who first (to my knowledge) described how to use the LSB of a digital image to steganographically store messages, in sci.crypt posts in 1989? Who has talked for many years about the implications of digital cash for so many things, including tax policies and government's ability to control transactions? Who coined several phrases, including "Big Brother Inside" (in the Intel logo), "National borders are just speed bumps on the information highway," and other such slogans? Who has attended most physical CP meetings in the Bay Area (a half dozen others have, too)? Who wrote a 1.2 MB FAQ on key issues? Sorry if I sound defensive, but I chafe when I hear nonsense about "Put up or shut up." Going to jail is rarely an effective option. Losing my assets and having to go back to work as a chip physicist even less so. Look, I've talked about some fairly controversial ideas. But, I think, even the various lawyers on the list--Brian Davis, ex-DA, Michael Froomkin, law prof, Black Unicorn, occupation unknown, Greg Broiles, recent law school grad--will have to admit that nothing I have said as an opinion about what _might_ happen, about what the implications of strong cryptography might be, etc., or about what I would _like_ to see happen, is "prosecutable" in any reasonable sense. Sure, Eugene Debs was thrown in jail for arguing the military draft was unconstitutional (so much for _his_ free speech), but that was then and this is now. I don't believe any single post I have ever made could actually result in prosecution, as I have committed no crimes. (Nor, for that matter, do I think Jim Bell has ever really "crossed the line." While some of his posts come perilously close to advocating the murder of public officials, none of them seem to actually do so, nor to provide any proof that he is actually conspiring to create an actual system, even if conspiracy to create such a system could be found to violate a specific law, absent any actual murders, etc.) So, I'll "put up or shut up" by continuing my present path. I reject the idea that one must lay on the tracks as a sacrifice of one's self to the Cause. Usually it's better to suvive and continue fighting in other ways. --Tim May "The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos,.."We warned IBM that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology." [NYT, 1996-10-02] We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

At 02:14 PM 10/5/96 -0700, Greg Broiles wrote: >At 04:42 PM 10/4/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>I think it's really very simple. Wiretaps in the US were illegal until >>1968. > >Then please explain what the Supreme Court was doing some 40 years prior to >1968, in _Olmstead v. US_ 277 U.S. 438 (1928), where the product of a >wiretap was held to be admissible because without a physical trespass there >was no Fourth amendment violation. (This is no longer good law.) Then you ignored the rest of my commentary. While wiretaps were narrowly held "constitutional" in about 1932, as I vaguely recall, that doesn't mean that they were LEGAL: On numerous occasions subsequent to 1932, Congress rejected laws which would have legalized the use of wiretaps. They were not provided for under law. Obviously, you could take the position that Congress could have approved of them at any time, as they did in 1968, but apparently it took such approval to _legalize_ them. My position, of course, is that they are unconstitutional, period. But I also believe that the cops' use of wiretaps during this period when they were _illegal_ undermines their credibility and judgment when they claim they were constitutional. Minor point? Maybe, but it seems to me that anybody who tries to claim that he's on the side of the legal system's dictates has a bit of a problem if it turns out he's been engaging in illegal activity regularly. >>Of course, some >>lawyers (who have been trained to accept the status quo with little or no >>challenge) will disagree! However, those same lawyers would have accepted >>the Dred Scott decision without question, Plessy vs. Fergusen, etc. > >There's a difference between understanding the status quo and liking it. >But making up your own interpretation of the Constitution and then just >repeating it over and over is not legal argument and doesn't win cases. You're ENTIRELY misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) what I'm saying! I'm well aware that the SC disagrees, but that is simply because they are entirely wrong in this matter. Why should this surprise you? Given the rash of 5-4 decisions in the last few years, there can be no illusion that they always come to the right decision. I don't claim that they agree with me, quite the opposite. But if anything, their error justifies removing them by whatever level of force turns out to be necessary. > But >active misunderstanding can be dangerous when you're dealing with a system >that can and will take all of your stuff away or put you in prison or kill >you. Which, then, is entirely my point: The reason I think it's going to be necessary to "put THEM in prison or kill THEM" is because they will 'never' accept the correct interpretation of the Constitution. (See? I simply DO NOT ACCEPT the SC's "supremacy" in this. Neither did the founding fathers, BTW. The people are supreme, and by that I DO NOT MEAN 50%+1 of the people, either.) "Never" you ask? Okay, strictly speaking, the SC is very occasionally capable of admitting that it was wrong. But frankly, I don't think they have the _right_ to be wrong, and I don't feel that the hypothetical possibility that they may fix their collective heads some day is a valid argument against loading up an ANFO bomb in a Ryder truck. (there may be _other_ reasons against this, of course, and I'd prefer a more selective solution!) >>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. > >I suspect there hasn't been one because it's not required under the way the >Constitution is and has been interpreted. That is yet another issue that has yet to be properly challenged. "Without a challenge that includes all parties, how can we be sure of any decision that doesn't include all parties?" > Here's a tip: if you think of a >way to interpret the Constitution that would make law enforcement not >merely less efficient but effectively impossible, your interpretation will >not be adopted, Your statement is inadvertently illuminating. Legal decisions are not supposed to be made by people who have a stake in the outcome. Here, you are acknowledging that there is no way to expect the current legal system will come to any kind of objective decision concerning these matters, precisely because they would reject any decision which was seen as "mak[ing] law enforcement effectively impossible." This sounds like a classic conflict-of-interest, huh? It's not quite the same as receiving a bribe, or falsely convicting an ex-wife's lover of murder, or some sort of purely personal issue. Nevertheless, it is a conflict of interest. And BTW, you vastly overstated your case by suggesting that the rejection of wiretaps would "make law enforcement...effectively impossible." Before telephones, there were no wiretaps, right?!? (I won't claim "justice was done," then, but they would have claimed it was...) And even today, probably 99%+ of cases decided by courts within the US do not contain any wiretap evidence at all (I invite you to correct me if I'm wrong, here!) so I suggest that it is obvious that even the complete rejection of wiretaps wouldn't "make law enforcement...effectively impossible." (how could it?) So were you just exaggerating for effect? No, I don't think so. You just demonstrated the typical kind of biased, "the ends justifies the means" myopia which probably affects nearly all judges and cops, and most lawyers. As penance, I suggest you go back and re-visit the issue. Just exactly how "effectively impossible" must a decision make law enforcement before a judge will decide the other way on the legitimacy of a tactic? I don't doubt that the Star Chamber thought that racks, thumbscrews, and various other torture implements were necessary for _their_ job... >and therefore is not useful. No, actually it's potentially quite useful! It's just highly embarrassing for anyone who has a strong psychological stake in working entirely within the American legal system. >It might or might not be >theoretically elegant or logically attractive, it will not be adopted. So >stop thinking about it. Ultimately, I don't think there's even a choice in the matter: The current system WILL be dropped, possibly directly onto the heads of the people who currently populate it! Are you going to be part of the solution, or part of the problem? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Re: ElGamal
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim Maysits at his terminal dressed in five-inch stiletto heels, fishnet stockings, a gold-lame mini-skirt, a purple halter with girdle underneath to keep in his flabby gut, A Fredericks of Hollywood padded bra also underneath the halter, a cheap Naomi Sims pink afro wig, waiting to yank his crank whenever a black man responds to one of his posts.

1 0

U.S. presidential debate: URLs, V-Chip, huge databases
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 20:53:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: U.S. presidential debate: URLs, V-Chip, huge databases Tonight's U.S. presidential debate highlighted no embarrassing missteps by either participant. Like the 1992 debate in Richmond, Virginia, it spotlighted the issues. It was classy, not memorable. Except for one sentence that will go down in Net.history -- Bob Dole ended the 90-minute session with what he framed as an appeal to younger voters: "If you really want to get involved, tap into my home page at www.dolekemp96.org. Thank you." Ain't it hip to be a netizen? I didn't hear any other Net-references or mentions of encryption, terrorism legislation, or the CDA during the debate, except for Clinton's continued support of the V-Chip and universal service for schools. He said, "Let's make education our priority... so that every 12-year old can log onto the Internet," adding later that he wanted to wire "all of our classrooms to the Internet by the year 2000." Not one to let an opportunity to preach censorship pass him by, Clinton added: "I supported the V-Chip so parents can control what their kids see... along with rating systems for TV programs." What? Parents can't control their kids, so government must? (I fear what the CDA Round II may bring next summer after the Supreme Court rules, especially if the second try has Congressional backing and support from a Clinton White House. We may see a law demanding "voluntary" ratings of web sites with RSACi in exchange for immunity from prosecution.) Dole called the use of illegal drugs a heinous crime, accusing Clinton of being a "liberal." Then, responding to a get-tough-on-guns challenge from his opponent, Dole suggested a database system that would check your identity and background before allowing you to buy a gun: "You put your card in there and if it says 'tilt' you get nothing. No guns. Zippo." These are hardly the words of someone who gives a rat's ass about privacy. What's worse, elephantine government databases or V-chip style censorship? All I know is that neither of 'em has my vote. -Declan

1 0

RE: DESCrack keyspace partitioning
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

: Re: DESCrack keyspace partitioning of course, any number in the range of a random number generator is theoretically as likely/unlikely to appear. however, consider the case in which DES keys are generated from ascii sequences or words that people enter in at password prompts, which is in fact how the unix passwd file word. these obviously have far less randomness and Gary's attempt to narrow the keyspace is highly relevant. >> Gary? also, I took his post as suggesting that some parts of the keyspace ought to be searched at higher priority than others. in the above example, keys that correspond to ascii sequences typable on a keyboard should be searched first in the keyspace. >> Something like that. a lot of systems use DES only in conjuction with a one-time-key generated for a particular message. (similar to the way PGP uses IDEA for the session key, and transmits this encoded key using RSA). in general I would say these could be considered random in a way that the previous "less-than-random" property doesn't hold. >> Depends. Not if generated by certain processes that **tend** to produce non-entropic values. But I have more work to do on this....

1 0

Re: PGP
by travel23＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: nobody(a)cypherpunks.ca (John Anonymous MacDonald) > > There's a rumor that Timmy C. May sells his dead relatives as fertiliser as > they constitute the best shit in California ^^^^^^^^^ Hmmm, methinks there lies a clue here. This is the British/European way of spelling the word. Someone got sloppy....... T.T. ................................................................................. Just consider me an acorn who is trying to deal with the rest of the nuts .................................................................................

1 0

Londinium
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

So a few days in Londinium for the Internet Show at the Aggie (now the Business Design Centre) in the People's Republic of Islington. While I was in town, Tony Blair's voicemail was hacked (it wasn't me) and we discovered that he is a politician trying to fool the voters. Also, a public domain game called "Schoolyard Slaughter" written for an obsolete computer system and awarding points for head shots to children was attacked in the press. It was distributed on shareware disks and CDs and not on the dreaded Net but they talked about the net in any case. The interesting thing about "Schoolyard Slaughter" is that similar games involving adult males and aliens ("Doom" par example) have been around for a long time. The lesser controversy surrounding games like Doom suggests that the commentators (and perhaps the public) are guilty of speciesism, ageism, and gender bias. After all, the fictional slaughter of adult males and aliens should be just as bad as the fictional slaughter of children. None of the ISPs represented at the Internet Show would comment on whether or not they were going to ban customers who refused to rate their sites or news posts. But they were just sales types. I did teach a young lady working at the UUNET/Pipex booth how to telnet. She'd never done so before. DCF

3 2

Re: The Great Reducer: Line of the Year
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:02 AM 10/7/96 -0400, Brian Davis wrote: >> > I'm >> > well aware that the SC disagrees, but that is simply because they are >> > entirely wrong in this matter. > > >Well then, it is a good thing we have Mr. Bell here to set us all straight! > >EBD The Supremes frequently err (Hugo Black's decision in Korematsu vs U.S. par example). In a larger sense, the existance of an entity like the Supreme Court will probably become generally recognized as "wrong" as we transition to non coercive methods of social organization. Slavery and bleeding were once considered natural and appropriate. DCF

2 1