December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It was a dark and misty night.

1 0

Re: poverty traps (Re: Sa
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Harka <harka(a)nycmetro.com> wrote: > That may indeed work for some people, but the argument of > "self-discipline and sacrifice" usually goes overboard once > people _other than yourself_ are severely affected by that. > "Sorry hun, you can't have a new winter-coat. Mommy has to save > enough money so that she can choose the people she works for. > And no...no christmas this year either". -=> Quoting In:aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk to Harka <=- In> That is indeed a sad financial state to be in. I have trouble In> believing it though. [examples of well-fares deleted] In> So if any kids are being deprived of winter clothes or In> whatever, it's not because their parents don't have enough In> money, it's because their parents are stupid, or selfish. Although my statement was deliberately somewhat exaggerated, it is not that far from reality for quite a few people I know. A real-life example: A single (divorced) mother, 4 kids (3-12 years), working full-time and making in theory $42 000/year. After taxes that comes down to $2000 cash per month. In order for her to be able to work her two youngest kids go to a day-care-center. Wham! $1000 per month (hiring a baby-sitter would amount to even more). Her apartment costs $800/month excluding utilities. That leaves $200 (+ $800 she gets in child-support) per month for _five_ people to live on (clothes, food, utilities, school-books, gas for the car, etc.etc.) One thousand dollars per month for five people!! And that in New York City! She is not entitled to any support such as free school-meals for the kids etc., because she "makes too much money" (_before_ taxes, of course!) What efforts has she made to make "herself more marketable"? She has been working ever since the age of 16, went 8 years to College (paid by herself and paying rent at the same time) and now has a Masters Degree in teaching. What has it brought her? Bill-collectors calling every day! She made a calculation and (confirming your statement) came to the conclusion, that she indeed would have _more_ money by not working at all and simply going on welfare. However, that is not a choice she wants to make. Is she to be called "stupid" and "selfish" because she's poor despite her efforts??? I don't think so. She, btw., is not the only person I know struggeling in this manner from one month into the next, barely being able to even catch up on bills. Neither does she have a free choice of employers. There is only one board of education in the City. Changing for a private school would come with (at least a temporary) pay-cut, that she obviously can't afford. Therefore: Since she isn't the only person I can think of, who is in such a position, the argument formerly known as "If 'ya don't like the company-policy [employing GAK/CAK] just leave and work for somebody else" may now be called: "Ad Acta". Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* E-mail: harka(at)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail pref'd) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ ... Don't you hate it when the pessimists are right all the time? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBNFJRbDltEBIEF0MBAQFAGgf+PoTI/+900uSojxfC/xKFPsEnco5fp+df Etn4uJ23l9ZB7QczEuP96JMo+5vmFXc9Tabh5nMkNCRrA3QaAwxFh2+Boc8RvzAv SBLbjeqnCkvca1EgfOO+eZKv/YcRAZ47JH/w6/g/ggSx3vyM9quFeOqGzljG21au JdjFhtcdvWP2R79ldGnjswjjuT8MntSGwfx+wiKVQtt6YcK81/OKCBFMaZ8o7JTr gzYRzv6y+622Z97rUItmdEwQtDqq8k9wtRfmV1xPloqAHJ65VcJ3HI1LoItTmase oEWPiy6NBIeyN+Nbn+aK/egOalOHev8nX/LqTPxN3TawmxnESldEsg== =u2Q5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

3 2

New Trial in Germany over web site [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > NEW TRIAL IN GERMANY OVER WEB SITE > > graphic October 24, 1997 > Web posted at: 8:08 p.m. EDT (0008 GMT) > > BERLIN (Reuters) -- A left-wing German politician acquitted in June > of supporting guerrilla acts with information linked to her Web site > appeared in court again on Friday on new charges emerging from her > first trial. > > Angela Marquardt, 26, former deputy leader of Germany's reform > communist Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS), was this time accused > of having illegally published the charge sheet of her first trial. > > The latest proceedings were adjourned after a witness failed to > appear in court. > > "This is a farce," Marquardt told reporters. She said she had only > shown the charge sheet to a few friends. > > No date was given for the restart of the new trial. > > A Berlin court ruled earlier this year that Marquardt could not be > held responsible for the contents of an Internet-based magazine > showing anti-nuclear activists how to sabotage railway lines, > despite it being accessible from her "home page." > > Internet users set up home pages as ways of displaying information > and communicating with other users. Home page users can use > "hyperlinks" to make other pages accessible from their site. > > The court ruled that Marquardt had set up a hyperlink to the > magazine page before the details on sabotage methods were published > and did not have any knowledge of their publication. > > Copyright 1997 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.

2 1

Bernstein oral argument set for December 8
by Cindy Cohn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has set the specific date and time for the oral argument. It will be on Monday December 8, 1997 on the 1:30 p.m. calendar. It will be held in Courtroom 1. The 9th Circuit is located at 95 Seventh Street in San Francisco. There are 5 cases scheduled for the yet-unknown panel. The first 3 are limited to 10 min oral arg per side. The other two (us included) get 20 min per side. Cases are generally heard in order so as it stands we would be last. Cindy ************************ Cindy A. Cohn McGlashan & Sarrail, P. C. 177 Bovet Road, 6th Floor San Mateo, CA 94402 (415) 341-2585 (tel) (415)341-1395 (fax) Cindy(a)McGlashan.com http://www.McGlashan.com

2 1

Re: PGP Employee on MKR
by mark＠unicorn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

whgiii(a)invweb.net wrote: > No their system does not. For what the FBI and NSA want much more needs to > be done. Really? Read the message I sent after that one. Let's suppose it's 2007, PGP have 99% of the crypto market. CMR compatibility is incorporated into all their products. The FBI announce that from today all Internet providers must support PGP SMTP enforcers on all mail passing across their links, and block all other SMTP connections. Regardless of whether your mail is spooled on your ISP's hard disk, it will always pass through their link. All encrypted mail must now be encrypted to the FBI's key as well as the end user's key or it will bounce. So, tell me why "much more needs to be done". Tell me again why this can't be implemented. The only reason it *can* be implemented is that PGP build the feature into their software. > Not to mention that *ANY* crypto system can be turned into GAK if > the FBI & NSA get congress to pass the laws that they want. Yes, but PGP WANT TO BUILD THIS INTO EVERY SYSTEM THEY SELL!!!!! I don't care that any Perl hacker can write a script which builds CMR into PGP 2.6.2, because those scripts are restricted to those who wish to use them. PGP ARE BUILDING THE FUNCTIONALITY INTO EVERY PRODUCT THEY SELL!!!! How hard is this to grasp? > What PGP Inc. did was provide what their *customers* , you know the ones > that pay their bills and keep them in business, wanted in a timely fashion > with little modification to their current code while circumventing some of > the more draconian requests. Really? Did their customers ask specifically for PGP's flawed CMR implementation, or did they actually say things like 'Well, we want to be able to recover mail if someone dies or leaves the company'? If it's the latter, don't you think that PGP should take responsibility for implementing it in such a GAK-friendly way? You seem be repeating the other pro-PGP mantra 'oh, you're not thinking of the company's point of view'. I certainly am, which is why I want to see that they get the best, most secure system without any GAK-friendly features. Here's a quick example of how cool CMR is... let's suppose that loser(a)foo-bah.com upsets a customer and is working for a CMR corporation. Mr Irate Customer downloads some of that kiddie porn that we're told is all over the Net, and encrypts it to loser(a)foo-bah.com, but doesn't encrypt it to the company key. Mr Irate Customer mails hundreds of these images to loser(a)foo-bah.com. Their system bounces them. The security personnel at foo-bah.com notice all these bounces and snarf some of the messages. The security personell take these messages to Mr Loser, and force him to decrypt them. Shock, horror, what a hideous, insane pervert Mr Loser must be to be receiving all these messages. Mr Loser is handed over to the cops and taken away. He might not go to jail, but he'll lose his job. With a more rational implementation Mr Loser would receive the messages and see that they're obscene, and immediately report them to the security personnel who could track down the sender. But when the security personnel find them first, they immediately assume that Mr Loser asked for them. Now, if you want to be able to get people sacked, this is cool. If you work for a company with CMR, this is really bad. It is also unneccesary. > >These are the important questions we should be asking and noone on the > >pro-PGP side seems interested in answering them. Why? > > They have been answered time and time again, you just have not been > interested in listening. They have not. All we've heard are 'oh, don't worry, it can't happen, be happy' assurances with no basis in fact. Is it any wonder we aren't listening? > If this is such a life and death issue why don't you and some of the other > Cypherpunks Philosopher Kings get off your armchair quarterbacking write, > test, debug, and *market* your superior system?? Duh, because PGP has name recognition, and because by the time it was finished they'd already have a large part of the market. But note: I'll be very surprised if PGP CMR gets into the OpenPGP spec. Which means that any other compliant implementation of PGP will not be compatible with CMR. > Perhaps because the majority of the "PGP Inc is evil" crowd > here couldn't make a buck in the business world if their lives depended on > it. Oh sure, ad hominem, ad hominem. What the hell do you think I do all day? Why the hell do you think I'm spending so much time trying to show people what CMR's problems are when I could be making money? > I also find it interesting how there is "much weeping gnashing of teeth" > over PGP 5.5 , which does nothing that couldn't be done with 2.6, while > Netscape, RSA and the S/MIME crowd put weak crypto on every desktop?? Better weak crypto than GAK. Key-lengths can be increased, government surveillance infrastructure cannot easily be removed. Mark

6 5

Seige of Ramsey Household Ends Peacefully!
by Canadian Nutly News 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Bienfait, Saskatchewan: CNN] AN UNKNOWN murderer announced today that his seige of the Ramsey household ended peacefully, with the dead, limp body of Jon Bonet Ramsey being knocked down with a penis the size of a drainplug. The unknown murderer was pleased to announce that "Jon Bonet, is SAFE, now."

1 0

Re: Protocols for Insurance to Maintain Privacy
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I wrote: >I have my doubts as to whether it is possible to set up a really good >anonymous insurance scheme. At some point the customer must >physically be matched up with the policy. The damage may be >minimized by putting a hash of the customer's DNA markers in the >policy instead of the markers themselves. But, when the customer >wishes to draw on the policy, his or her markers will have to be >taken. > >If there were a way for the representative of the insurance company >to absolutely verify the DNA markers such that the customer could be >absolutely certain the information didn't leave the room, a really >good anonymous policy would be feasible. But, I can't think of a way >to do this. I've thought about this some more and there is a way to do this that at least works in theory. Let's say there are 30 DNA markers to be used to uniquely identify a physical person. When creating the contract, the customer creates 30 hashes based on each marker. Prior to the time the customer has a health problem, privacy is well assured assuming he or she doesn't have a blood sample taken forcibly. When the customer goes in for treatment, the insurer selects at random one of the 30 markers and verifies it. If it checks out, treatment is provided. The way to prevent people from trying to get lucky on the markers is for the customer and the insurer to make a bet before the test. This is a safe bet for the customer - he or she knows the outcome. If the odds and payoff are set correctly, it's a good deal for the insurer, too, because he or she will make money on fraud attempts. Let's take the worst case: only one of the 30 marker is different. Let's say the insurance contract consists of a health bet with a payoff of $100,000 if the ailment insured for is found. If the customer is willing to bet $3 million that any marker selected will be correct, the insurer breaks even. However, since the customer knows with certainty the outcome of the bet, he or she is safe betting (theoretically) any amount. This can be set arbitrarily high so that the insurer actually stands to make a substantial amount of money off fraud attempts. In practice some provision will have to be made for people who can't arrange the $3 million, such as taking fraud artists out to the parking lot and shooting them. And there still needs to be a way for one DNA marker to be tested for in a way which guarantees that none of the others are studied. Perhaps when the customer goes in, he or she takes samples of DNA with all thirty markers. When the insurer selects a particular marker, a blood sample is drawn, and the customer puts in DNA with the 29 other markers so that it will not be possible to study any marker other than the one intended. If each insurance contract is linked to only one type of illness, then the only information revealed is that somebody with one particular DNA marker had such and such an illness. This seems pretty secure. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFjP6JaWtjSmRH/5AQGwjgf/SIMSKV3prkmD3WDaiwojOhgxA+V0iLeY UAwHUKoOgIQAZ+5SKz2SsP6219jyi4i1mGbQFwXc8kydeEuia81/gAReo+63wZgB S6hlh9bUc4lp//S/ql5YISypNEKWXE6o7hE3IvdAeUrRlxEyU04fLmwW2UcejeFB rTdqFQLsTbONf1bvevJ4MplnhG/O7fRUDF3jneRxDZuib60EO8zUvbvpvDhaYM/e TMeuK5OywHOCX6EQc5eZ7ER1pIWgxR1cXwm428Qvk07z8VoTDJyy6QMLs+EzPcp6 Es94M2JezFmDAfD6nDGdLzrs8h4IJITdjWujLL4VQeJi6LwP7RB5NQ== =eHkn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Seige of Mayonnaise Mountain Ends Peacefully!
by Canadian Nutly News 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Bienfait, Saskatchewan: CNN] TIM C. MAY, CYPHERPUNKS PHILOSOPHER KING, announced earlier today that the seige of Mayonnaise Mountain by local, state, federal, and global assault teams ended peacefully when the heavily armed members of the NWO forces were knocked down with a wide variety of projectiles the size of drainplugs, ranging from lead elephant-shotgun pellets to homemade nuclear slingshot ammunition. Mr. May was pleased to announce that the scattered body parts of his assailants, "are SAFE, now." When informed by members of the news media that he could be subject to a fine of up to a hundred dollars by EPA officials for using lead shot in his elephant gun, Mr. May smiled, and said, "Well, they know where to find me."

1 0

Siege Update!
by Canadian Nutly News 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[COAL DUST SALOON, Bienfait, Saskatchewan: CNN] A BAR WHORE donated to the TruthMailer operator by the local chapter of "Ladies Against Women" announced to gathered reporters, after showing them her tits for ten dollars, that the bodies of the Whitehouse occupants and the scattered body parts of the members of the Mayonnaise Mountain assault teams had been examined by the Coal Dust Saloon bar owners, who had declared, "Those fuckers were crazy, alright, messing with the CypherPunks." Chief CypherPunks Spokesperson, Anonymous, declared that the merry band of anarchists was happy to be exonerated in the face of claims by the head of the American Medical Association that those slain by the CypherPunks were mentally stable. "We were certain that the opinion of our own psychiatric specialists, Dr. Dimitri Vulis, KOTM, and the world-renounced Dr. Grubor, would be upheld by the Circle of Eunuchs schills who count on the Last Canadian Outlaw to singlehandedly keep their bar operating in the black." When asked about the Coal Dust Saloon bar owners' decision in regard to the mental stability of Jon Bonet Ramsey, Anonymous leaned over and whispered to the Canadian Nutly News reportwhore, "If anybody asks, I was with _you_ when the little tart 'bought it', OK? Can I buy you a beer?"

1 0

PGP question
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Not being very knowledgeable in the cypher world, are there any good online >references that compare RSA vs DSS PGP? and why one would be better than >the other? > >thanks If you use PGP 5.0 many people will refuse to read your messages and send them to you. They won't be able to decrypt your messages, verify your signatures, or use your keys. In general, using 5.0 just pisses people off. 5.0 is purposefully incompatable with all previous versions of PGP, they purposefully haven't released usable versions except for Windows and possibly Mac, they've purposefully broke any scripts and programs which invoke PGP, they purposefully made command-line versions of PGP many times more annoying to use, and PGP 5.x encrypts to a "CMR key" without having the decency to ask. Generally the PGP 5.x folks are being complete and total assholes about this entire thing and haven't done anything to improve the state of cryptography today and a whole lot to worsen it. Somebody recently posted a large rant about this titled "PGP 5.0: What were they thinking? (revisited)." CompatabilityMonger

1 0