December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: RFC: A UNIX crypt(3) replacement
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:51 PM 11/16/96 -0800, "Joshua E. Hill" <jehill(a)w6bhz.calpoly.edu> wrote: > I'm trying to think of a function to replace UNIX's crypt(3). >My design criteria are as follows: ... >NMAC(k, m) = H(k1, H(k2, m)) .... >Would (n . P . n ) be better? NMAC is probably a bit stronger, but the real question is why you want to reinvent crypt(3). It was fine for logging in from a hardwired or dialup dumb terminal, but in a network environment you really need some sort of one-time password system. S/Key, for instance. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk

1 0

RE: Another apologist for John Gilmore's censorship
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM dv: Why the quotes? John Gilmore censored me with no quotes. bw: Don't worry about it. dv: No. John Gilmore's actions are contrary to free speech, but his own principles clearly don't include free speech. He has no credibility. bw: I guess you think this will bring me anguish. dv: Not true. An honorable person would tolerate all speech and either ignore it or respond with more speech. A dishonorable person, such as John Gilmore, seeks to silence the speech he doesn't like. bw: You're not obliged to be dishonorable even if others are. dv: .....Note also that he hasn't pulled the plugs of other very rude people, like Timmy May (fart). bw: He's not obliged to be rude only according to your preference. dv: Speech is not action. Action is not speech. bw: But the principle regarding the tolerance of insults is the same in both cases. dv: I don't think John Gilmore's sexual practices are *that* bizarre. The Kinsey report estimates that 10% of the population shares his practices. bw: I guess you think you're talking to someone who gives a flip. .. Blanc

1 0

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News-Reply
by Raymond Mereniuk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>> aga <aga(a)dhp.com> 11/16/96, 02:26am >>> On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Bill Frantz wrote: >Yes it WAS!! He censored the mode and manner of the speaker. >He censored the personal attacks and the rants and the racial >diatribes! And that SUCKS! Gilmore was a fucking asshole for >doing it! And Gilmore is the WORST kind of censor that there >can be, one who censors a person's "style." >-aga.admin >InterNet Freedom Council You state that Mr. Gilmore censored someone but yet I still see that someone's messages being propagated by `cypherpunks(a)toad.com'. If Mr Gilmore was really trying to censor someone he sure did a bad job of it and can be criticzed for that much as I still see mail from the censored party. Have you every lived, or been involved, in a society where censorship, or local distortion, of facts was the norm?? Do you have any idea how the powers that be discredit any voice in which they don't like the message (or even the tone) and the lengths they go to ensure the offical line is only one which is presented in a reasonable form?? Have you ever been arrested and interrogated by the local anti-corruption police because you made too much money and dealt with a company where one particular person was known to accept brides so therefore you must be corrupt?? So far no big deal, a simple misunderstanding - but the anti-corruption police know how you live your life and since you work long hours you must be cooking the books. There is censorship in this society but it is so not so blatant and is probably more dependent on what the established media choses to report or not report. Mr. Gilmore only made it slightly more difficult for one particular player, who was misbehaving badly, to be heard but did not totally remove that player's ability to be heard. If you are truly concerned about censorship you should be more concerned about how the current administration's polices in regards to cryptography will affect your future freedoms to communicate in a manner in which is completely private and will subject you to no government review of the subject matter discussed. Virtually Raymond(a)advcable.com

1 0

Re: Does John Gilmore...
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:08 ðì 17/11/1996 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >The problem with people too used to dictatorships is that they grow >so accustomed to taking those favors and incentives which are dictated to >them that the freedom (and responsibility) of "financial gain" seem like >too much work. Boy oh boy!!!! :-) Financial Gain being "too much work"??? :-) Hey dude, I work for myself, you know. Ever since childhood, I learned how not to rely on ANYBODY. I experienced no "favors" nor "incentives" whatsoever, all my life. The taxation here is designed to drain the blood of all SMALL businesses (like mine) and favor the big businesses. There is very poor welfare here, too. America is almost... socialist in some respects compared to the Greek welfare state. Your 'model' of what's going on is more appropriate for the Russians and the Eastern Block (former) dictatorships, in which case I agree! :-) >The free market will ever be the only real path to free speech, because, >in essence, it is free speech. The free market is the _precondition_ for free speech. But Free speech does NOT necessarily follow from it. What happened in GREECE and CHILE in fact is a living proof of this: Such countries had ENTIRELY free market and NO FREE SPEECH. This is right-wing fascism, as you know. I hope you agree with these clarifications. I don't see why not... >Much easier to just work for food. "The all-knowing General Pinoriega >would have given us money if we needed it." The 'all-knowing' dictators of Chile (installed by US involvement) gave NO money to ANYBODY (but big businesses and American corporations). As for the Nicaraguan case, the scandal of the C.I.A. financing the contras using drug-money from selling drugs to American Blacks has been thoroughly exposed in the rest of the world. The only 'all-knowing' philanthropists around the world have been the Stalinist lunatics who are nowdays replaced by (more 'professional' Mafiozos). You should be glad to be American, in fact! :-) (At least you are ruled by the Trilateral Commission; the Mafia plays only a secondary role in your politics). :-) >Of course the result is an increased dependence on the state. We never run out of saliva spitting on the face of the (Greek) state over here. Same is true all over the world... >Market economies which approach true "free market" status provide no >foothold for regulation. You cannot really have one without the >other. This is a big discussion. The free market _is_ the only way. I agree. However, as I explained in another (private and humourous) posting, for instance, I am a winter-swimmer, and use the facilities of a beach run and owned by the State here in Greece, which will probably CLOSE DOWN, as soon as it is privatised. At the moment, it's a gift to us -10 or 20 'winter-swimmers' operating at a loss, not a profit. One must be on guard for extreme views, neo-liberal or otherwise)... :-) >(Note the coming backlash against free speech and free markets in >the United States). I am in solidarity with your worries, and in favour of both. But... Sometimes one does not 'automatically' imply the other. >Free speech does not, however, require that all speech be universally >broadcast to each and every citizen on the planet free of charge. That's >"subsidized speech." How much should I be charged for every word I utter? In 1990 I was being PAID for every word I wrote. Not so anymore! :-) :-) At least you could afford (as the English say)... 1 penny for these thoughts! ROTFL!!!! :-) >Consider long and hard if that is the path that you would like to take. Me? I voluntarily waste my time, dude, to write my opinions for free! :-) It's the last thing I do for free, after some rare friendships and other rare precious things in life. Don't we al have such things? :-) If we don't write _some_ opinions for free we'd all become... whores waiting for the next pimp to exercise 'list-owner's rights on our speech. Or get bribed to tell lies, and so on! :-) :-) Perhaps my clarifications helped. George P.S. In Logic, Complete Systems are Consistent, and Consistent Systems are Incomplete. Thus, 'extreme views' of any kind are impractical. (theorem of Goedel in Logic and Mathematics applied in practice).

1 0

Re: Censor John Gilmore -- EFF is a disgrace!
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:51 ðì 17/11/1996 -0500, Tim Scanlon wrote: >George A. Stathis wrote: >> This was my objection also inside the F-K list, for _some_ of the postings >> in the past, but none of these postings was connected with acts of >> censorship, or with "sweeping generalisations" without evidence. On several >> occasions that I searched and found who or what they were talking about, >> I discovered they were talking about people whose activities were indeed >> horrifying (forged cancellations etc) and who also fought back. > >Horrifying eh? Hmm I found this just a bit to priceless to resist. >I guess it falls under the old 'but I'll defend your right...' way >of looking at things... > >In any case, here you go, this is the latest contribution of software >from Dimitri to the values of freedom of expression and non-censoring >& all that blather. > >#From Phrack 49, file p49-09 published this month: > .oO Phrack Magazine Oo. > > Volume Seven, Issue Forty-Nine > > File 09 of 16 > > by Dr.Dimitri Vulis (KOTM) > > A Content-Blind Cancelbot for Usenet (CBCB) > >And what follows, is Dr. Dimitri, defender of freedom of expression, >champion of the anti-censors on the net, posting code to the world to >engage in exactly those activities that everyone has been ranting about >as being so utterly "horrifying (forged cancellations etc)" as it were. > >Amusing to say the least. > >Tim Well, this is why we _NEED_ this discussion; we _NEED_ Dimitri to explain his ideas and his critics ALSO to explain his ideas. My guess is that Dimitri's 'CANCELBOT' is intended to remove pure spam. A little while ago, I received Spam from the same source an 8th time. It even automatically replied to my... complaint AS IF it was not a complaint but a request for info, and it also... forged my E-mail address. If Dimitri Vulis (and others) possess the technical genious to relieve us of such very annoying spam-problems, I don't see at all how this contradicts Free Speech, or the right of people to speak when invited to open meetings. In any case, I am extremely greatful for the info, and would appreciate the full text and the sources of it. Cheers George

1 0

Re: Does John Gilmore...(CORRECTION)
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:40 ìì 17/11/1996 -0200, George A. Stathis wrote: >In Logic, Complete Systems are Consistent, and Consistent Systems >are Incomplete. Thus, 'extreme views' of any kind are impractical. >(theorem of Goedel in Logic and Mathematics applied in practice). Boy oh Boy! time to flame myself this time: "Complete Systems are INconsistent, and Consistent Systems are INcomplete". At least in the Predicate Calculus. This is why I look forward to Dimitri explaining his 'Cancelbot' in detail. It's possible that the _misuse_ of such an innovation would be against the original goal (of Spam-elimination etc). In any case, while you all go to sleep, it's me for me to do some work! :-) George

1 0

Re: A word on "emergencies" [WAS Re: Final Solution to the Crypto ]
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Michael Froomkin wrote: >Rather, my point is a simple one. The fact that the President has >declared an emergency here is primarily a technical legal event. It is >not a sign that martial law is about to be declared, that they are coming >to take you or your [fill in blank] away, or that anything fundamental has >changed. Multi-year emergencies in which the executive uses one statute >to compensate for the Congressional decision/failure to pass another >statute is not, I submit, a particularly telling sign of a mature and >healthy democracy. But this goes to large and gradual processes, not to >anything that suddenly happened. Thanks for the steady-hand reassurance. Your papers are balm. Was it not Hal's original ironic lament about the current charade -- that it's business as usual among the jaded insiders who are confident that they know how power really works. The disdain for public accountability -- cynical extension of declared emegencies well past their time -- is what breeds the desire of outsiders to protect themselves from insiders. Hence, the desire for crypto, especially the cryptanalytic kind that ventilates those privileged inside communications. The battle may be between cryptogologists and lawyers, it seems to me, the struggle for supremacy between privacy-protecting code and privilege-protecting secrecy. Hoary national security proclamations have become much more lethal munitions than cryptography, and it is these incitements that need ... what, X-rating? What can be done to supplant these thrilling, crowd- rousing proclamations of national threats -- ancient, vulgar strategems around the globe?

1 0

Re: Could Declan or some libertarian explain this?
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn wrote: >Could someone explain to me why we have to have *any* censorship, if >people on a list are given tools to filter with and reminded on occasion >how to use them? You are the reason, you can't shut up and you have little or nothing to say. plonk.

1 0

Re: The Utility of Privacy
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:11 AM 11/17/1996, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > >> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 18:22:33 -0800 >> From: Huge Cajones Remailer <nobody(a)huge.cajones.com> >> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >> Subject: The Utility of Privacy >> >> >> Privacy is a hassle. Is it worth it? >> >> Which unfortunate situations does privacy prevent? What are the odds >> that they will occur? How much effort will it take to prevent these >> outcomes? As a model, use the present and future situation of a >> typical reader of this list. > >Insurance is a hassle. Is it worth it? > >Which unfortunate situations does insurance prevent? What are the odds >that they will occur? How much effort will it take to prevent these >outcomes? As a model, use the present and future situation of a >typical reader of this list. I know many people who were happy they had insurance due to car accidents, health problems, or whatever. What is more, the odds of these events are carefully calculated and available. Call an actuary. Are there similar sources of information calculating privacy risk? I don't think so. Informally, I don't know anybody who has suffered due to a loss of privacy. It may be the case that it is politically beneficial to have a society of privacy fanatics. But, this is different from the direct benefit to each participant. My question remains unanswered, probably because privacy isn't worth the effort.

4 3

Re: The Utility of Privacy
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:49 PM 11/16/1996, Hal Finney wrote: >David Brin has an article in the December issue of Wired arguing that >privacy is obsolete and was never that great an idea in the first place. >Maybe you'd say that all of these people should expose their secrets, or have >them exposed for them, and that the world would be a better place. (Actually, >you do seem to say this, and I'll discuss it later.) >I really don't think we have any right to second-guess the decisions people >have made about what they will reveal and what they will keep private. This is not my claim. If free citizens go to the trouble of protecting their privacy, good for them. How important is it that I should do so?

1 0