December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: EUB - Pay attention next time guys.
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:09 PM 10/7/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: > EUB is probably in more trouble than they realize because they chose an > interesting solution to their bandwidth problem. > > [...] > > Prediction: EUB will change its structure dramatically in the next 6 > months if it still exists at all in that time. Prediction: Nothing much will happen to European Union bank. Possibily their US web site will be closed down, in which case twenty guys will echo it, and they will have to pay more for bandwidth. > Lesson learned: Never > involve the United States directly. Lesson learned. The United States is just a speed bump on the information highway. The critical error is not involving the United States directly, the critical error is leaving assets or information in a place and form where US thugs with guns can get at it. I see no reason to believe the EUB has made this error. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

2 1

Re: Put up or shut up!
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:22 PM 10/6/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: > It turns out that I would save nothing in taxes by moving some of my liquid > assets to some particular coral atoll. (Unless I lie on my 1040, which is > always an option.) Hmmmm.... --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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: Put up or shut up!
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:18 AM 10/7/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: > There is no > one good solution, and anyone who sells you a universal package is selling > you a bill of goods. Surely there is at least one good solution to an exceedingly common problem -- large assets in the US that are known to the authorities. > Careful, professional, and highest quality service is required to properly > design any investment design. Again, you get what you pay for. Smoke. The reason that no one publishes "How to" step by step instructions for discretely expatriating your money is exactly the same reason as the reason that nobody publishes "How to" step by step instructions for buying dope. For example one ever popular method of expatriating money, (or repatriating it to preferred politicians), is by means of a friendly cattle futures broker. First find your friendly cattle futures broker. Despite this, many people manage to buy dope and many people manage to discretely expatriate their money. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

2 1

Re: Can somebody unsubscribe cyberpromo from CP?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:43 PM 10/7/96 -0400, Simon Spero wrote: >On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > >> At 10:23 AM -0800 10/7/96, jim bell wrote: >> >I think somebody subscribed that Cyberpromo organization to the Cypherpunks >> >list. It needs to be unsubscribed... >> >> "I have a solution." >> > >[Looks through pockets] - 7 Zlotys, 1.5 DM, and 1.20 GBP says October >21st, in the library, bludgeoning to death with 20lbs of junk mail Your code name is "Col. Mustard." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Put up or shut up! was Re: legality of wiretapping: a "key" distinction
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think those of you who continue to answer the unresearched rants of amateur lawyers waste your efforts on trying to change the learning habits of other, hopefully, mature adults. If it ain't good by now, forget it. Using, as you say, out-of-the-shower ideas to re-argue settled caselaw are almost always fruitless. Since the intents of the ranters are generally anarchistic, why even involve the law and justice. Even if their ideas have good philosophical basis there is little hope for the broad changes they seek in the political or legal landscape (given the powerful and selfish interests of those inside and outside the beltway) without a great trauma to the system. Look at the relatively pitifully accomplishments Jefferson was able to show for his many years of Republican efforts, and that after serving two terms as president. I believe that this is also the case for individuals. Almost all of us have great difficulty adopting new behaviors (e.g., dietary, excercise, change in unhealthy/illegal sexual behavior), even ones thought beneficial, unless there is great incentive or an experience which is so fundemental (e.g., near death) that we are forced confront it head on. My advice to these amateur anarchists is, if they really believe in their quest, become professionals and develop and use whatever means (civial disobedience, crypto, CBW, AP, etc.) they think they require to shock the system into confronting your demands and see how it plays out. Otherwise shut up! PGP Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Snoop Daty Data | Internet: azur(a)netcom.com Grinder | Sacred Cow Meat Co. | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Just say NO to prescription DRUGS. "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." -- C.S. Lewis "Surveillence is ultimately just another form of media, and thus, potential entertainment." -- G. Beato

5 8

Re: Voice Stress Analysis of Debates?
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 06 Oct 1996 15:28:40 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>BTW, did anyone notice that some of the evening news anchors are imaged via >>a camera/DSP to render as more youthful (e.g., removing facial wrinkles)? >Really? Where'd you hear this? I suppose it's not beyond the realm of >possibility, but that would be rather sophisticated programming, >particularly in real-time. One of the big anchors admitted it. However it was only possible in the studio. Might have even been a contrast-lowering gadget. # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # <cadams(a)acucobol.com> | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY" "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them." --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)

2 1

Re: encrypting pppd?
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 06 Oct 1996 04:18:04 -0500, VaX#n8 wrote: >Thinking about it a bit more, if you only encrypt, say, telnet >then you've got a pretty predictable plaintext stream. If you >encrypt the entire link level properly then it might be much harder >to isolate the nonvariant bits of the protocols since the port and >that kind of header info is not available to the attacker at that >level. What about predictabilities in the PPP datastream? # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # <cadams(a)acucobol.com> | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY" "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them." --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)

2 1

Re: Clipper spin [was Re:Flood Warning]
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> [...] > > > > High-Tech Leaders Join Forces to Enable International > > Strong Encryption > > > > See: http://www.ibm.com/news/alliance2.htm > > The "International Strong Encryption" phrase is something that we > need to become active in stopping. Anything which responds to such > announcements should put a different spin on this phrase. If the > Clipper farce is accepted as "strong" encryption then the battle is > lost; maybe something like "it is _international_ strong encryption > because it is the strongest encryption people like Saddam Hussein [insert > bogeyman du jour] want Americans to have access to" > > jim Back when IBM/Lotus came out with it's "International" version, I proposed the term 'espionage-enabled software'. I still like it. Peter Trei trei(a)process.com

3 2

Big Brother vs. Cypherpunks
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Time, October 14, 1996, p. 78. The Netly News Joshua Quittner Big Brother vs. Cypherpunks For more than three years, the White House and the U.S. computer industry have sat locked, eyeball to eyeball, in a seemingly intractable face-off over who will control the secret codes that protect our most sensitive communications. The government claimed to be working to protect us from nuke-carrying terrorists; the computer industry said it was championing the individual's right to privacy. Neither was telling the whole truth. Last week, in a concession to Silicon Valley, the Administration blinked -- or perhaps it merely winked. Fittingly, in the arcane world of code making and breaking, it's difficult to ferret out who's doing what to whom. And why. A few things are incontrovertible. Vice President Al Gore announced the new encryption initiative at midweek, timed to coincide with support from an alliance of high-tech businesses that included such hardware heavyweights as IBM, Sun Microsystems and Hewlett-Packard. However, most of the big software makers -- and every civil liberties group -- still opposed it. At the core of the initiative is a new code-making scheme known as "key recovery." Here at last, the government and its supporters claimed, was a way to get around the more noxious aspects of the reviled Clipper chip, the Administration's first doomed attempt to balance the industry's call for stronger encryption with law enforcement's need to surveil our shadier citizens. Clipper, as proposed, would use a powerful encryption formula to encode communications sent over telephones and computer networks but would require that a "back door" key be built into each chip that would give police -- where warranted, of course -- a means to eavesdrop. Nobody -- especially foreign companies -- liked the idea of the U.S. and its agents holding those keys. The new key-recovery proposal tries to get around that objection by chopping the keys into several pieces and storing them with "trusted agents" of the user's choosing. Some nice Swiss banks, perhaps. But the Administration's plan still falls short of what civil libertarians, and especially a vocal group of cryptoextremists who call themselves cypherpunks, say they need: encryption powerful enough to give back to the citizenry the right to absolute privacy, which we have lost in the information age. According to the cypherpunks, the so-called 56-bit code the Administration has okayed for export can be cracked by the National Security Agency's supercomputers in a matter of hours. Are they right? It's hard to know whom to believe in this cloak-and-dagger debate. Civil libertarians tend to gloss over the fact that the world is full of bad people with crimes to hide. The software industry -- which makes 48% of its profit overseas -- is clearly less concerned with privacy than with losing foreign sales. And it may be no accident that the Administration chose to start making concessions the same week an influential software CEO -- Netscape's Jim Barksdale -- excoriated Clinton's cryptopolicy and endorsed Bob Dole. The issue is too complex -- and too important -- for political gamesmanship. It will never get sorted out until somebody starts playing it straight. ----- Read the Netly News daily at netlynews.com on the World Wide Web [End] Thanks to JQ.

2 1

Seeking help on WordPerfect 6.1 cracks
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Among the possessions of a murder victim (not suspect), the local police have found a floppy disk with some provocative-sounding files on it. Rather than getting them into the habit of cracking other people's personal files, I'd prefer to give them the password myself, but there seems to be no freely available cracker for WordPerfect 6.x, and I'm not sure this one-time use is worth $100 to me. Can anyone lend a hand? Just four small files. I can give you more than enough details off the list to assure you that this is totally on the level. Feel free to discuss the implications of providing such help. Failing that, does anyone have a technical, political, or personal preference for or against AccessData or CRAK, who sell the two commercial crackers I've found? - -rich [not on cypherpunks at the moment] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBVAwUBMllpfZNcNyVVy0jxAQHtcgH8D3oW21nsaNrIHxHMqhxE/Ho9/78L1elF DYHV3jeM4VSqTP6cKhMn5ZahB4b8KP9t7EG70NAtwn/usaKiWpw92Q== =uq4u -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 2