December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

internet
by Rusik 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi. i need to crack my internet provider. he use windows 95 operation system. can you help me??? have you any crackers?? or you know where i can find them or any literature that can help me??? BYE with my best wishes Rusik

1 0

Who Cares
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When the politicians speak they always make statements which imply that they're speaking to, and being heard by, the whole nation. I just read a notice that less than 40% of eligible voters went to the polls. Since the Republicans are still in the majority, this means that less than one quarter of the voting population supports Clinton as President. And only slightly more than one quarter support Republicans. This would be meaningful to me, if I was making policy: what are all those other people doing? .. Blanc

2 1

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> They're bound by economics and nothing else, not even the > government cats. Which is preferable IMHO, and I think most here agree (at least in this context). As soon as you give some entity (e.g. government) the power of force to regulate privacy, you create an entity that will abuse that force and abuse privacy. Plus such regulations are a false security blanket that diminishes demand for true privacy-creating tools (cryptography) -- not to mention you current regime turns around and attacks those tools. Being bound by the law of economics is generally a good thing. Matt

1 0

Who Cares (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "Blanc" <blancw(a)cnw.com> > Subject: Who Cares > Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:22:56 -0800 > When the politicians speak they always make statements which imply that they're > speaking to, and being heard by, the whole nation. I just read a notice that > less than 40% of eligible voters went to the polls. Since the Republicans are > still in the majority, this means that less than one quarter of the voting > population supports Clinton as President. And only slightly more than one > quarter support Republicans. This would be meaningful to me, if I was making > policy: what are all those other people doing? If you're talking about the people who didn't vote, they're trying to keep from going under. Probably working two jobs, keeping the kids in school and out of trouble, saving for college, paying the house morgage off, etc. Who's in office won't make a whit of difference to any of that. It's irrelevant. If you're talking about the politicians, they're laughing their ass off on the way to the bank to cash their tax-derived income. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Robert Hettinga wrote: > A government is just another economic actor. A very large > economic actor with lots of guns and a monopoly on force, > but an economic actor nonetheless. No they are not, nor will they necessarily recognize the economic consequences of their actions before they entirely self-destruct or mutate only to do it again. History shows this. I generally use the economic/political distinction as made by Franz Oppenheimer, and furthered by Rothbard, Rand, etc. In that context they are a political actor, not an economic one. I purposefully ignored the prospect of corporations using coercive force to prevent privacy, it is rather improbable and still preferable to government coercion -- but note they do use coercive force today preventing privacy, but government is their instrument of force. Jim Choate wrote: > You need to look around, the government has NO monopoly on force. They have a *legal* monopoly on force (within a state). You do not generally consider the black market in determining monopolistic conditions, and in fact the existence of a black market in a segment generally points to a coercive monopoly in the public one. Matt

1 0

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Matthew James Gering <mgering(a)ecosystems.net> > Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone > (fwd) > Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:20:34 -0800 > > They're bound by economics and nothing else, not even the > > government cats. > > Which is preferable IMHO, and I think most here agree (at least in this > context). As soon as you give some entity (e.g. government) the power of > force to regulate privacy, Woah there cowboy, just exactly how the hell do you jump from economics to privacy...talk about a strawman. > you create an entity that will abuse that force Abuse is the nature of man, not economics, privacy, government systems, etc. They're things, they have no desire and most definitely have no concept of privacy, economics, duty, etc. A a person or persons are abused it's by another person or persons. > Plus such regulations are a false security blanket that > diminishes demand for true privacy-creating tools (cryptography) -- not to > mention you current regime turns around and attacks those tools. It depends on the regulation and how it's applied. You simply can't equitably apply the statement that all regulation is bad because it's equaly clear that no regulation has its own pitfalls and abuses. > Being bound by the law of economics is generally a good thing. Yes, provided you have 'fair competition' which you can't in a free market. Provided all companies and their management operate within some sort of ethical guidelines, which they won't (and don't). And on and on. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Matthew James Gering <mgering(a)ecosystems.net> > Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone > (fwd) > Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:43:31 -0800 > Robert Hettinga wrote: > > A government is just another economic actor. A very large > > economic actor with lots of guns and a monopoly on force, > > but an economic actor nonetheless. > > No they are not, Yes, they are. Can you say 'taxes'? Can you say 'interstate commerce'? Can you say 'mint money'? Can you say 'federal reserve'? Can you say 'FDIC'? I thought so. > nor will they necessarily recognize the economic > consequences of their actions before they entirely self-destruct or mutate > only to do it again. History shows this. Really? What history? > I generally use the economic/political distinction as made by Franz > Oppenheimer, and furthered by Rothbard, Rand, etc. In that context they are > a political actor, not an economic one. False distinction. Politics is about control and power, and in human society that breaks down to force and money. > I purposefully ignored the prospect > of corporations using coercive force to prevent privacy, it is rather There you go again, confusing privacy with economics... > improbable and still preferable to government coercion -- but note they do > use coercive force today preventing privacy, but government is their > instrument of force. True, but that isn't a function of regulation per se only the particular type of regulation that we have implimented. You're arguing from a specific example and trying to extrapolate to a general rule and it don't fly. > Jim Choate wrote: > > You need to look around, the government has NO monopoly on force. > > They have a *legal* monopoly on force (within a state). No, they don't. It is perfectly legal for an individual to own a weapon. There is also a clear distinction between the local police, your state police, federal agents, military, etc. Lumping them all into one generic category is a disservice and is unrealistic (especialy since they are often in adversarial roles) if we really want to understand how our society works and where we can take it. > You do not generally > consider the black market in determining monopolistic conditions, and in > fact the existence of a black market in a segment generally points to a > coercive monopoly in the public one. No it doesn't. It points to the fact that individuals want to participate in some activity that some other party doesn't want to occur. It does not imply that the regulating party wants the potential income from those activities. Further more, even in a free-market there will exist black markets. It's always cheaper to buy stolen merchandise than legitimately purchased merchandise. The aspect of a free-market is that there is no consequence from such actions (unless you want to admit to allowing corporations to have their own hit squads). Again, a function of human psychology and not economics or political systems. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: TEMPEST laptops (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:45:29 -0800 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: TEMPEST laptops > Radio waves scatter...they don't just travel in pure line of sight. And > even if they travelled only in line of sight, the reflections from inside > the box and then into the room and then off surfaces.... It depends on the frequency. Last time I checked a laser or a maser (both are radio waves strictly speaking) travel LOS. The scattering comes from beam divergence and incidental refractions and reflections from the molecules in the air and supported detritus. > Microwave ovens work by having the waves bounce around inside a box. Any > significant hole or crack (up to roughly half the wavelength) would let the > waves out. Depends on the size of the hole and location. In most microwave ovens there are definite dead-spots (corners and the exact center of the area are notorius). > An open top box will not work. If the microwaves (for example) are transmitted parallel to the open side it might very well work just fine. It's going to depend on a variety of factors that will preclude such a blanket statement from being valid. > Unlikely to prevent someone from figuring out what the real signal is. It's > very difficult, generally, to hide a signal with another signal. Noise > won't work, because noise can be filtered or autocorrelated out. A "spoof" > signal can be corrected for. For these to work there must be a time-correlated aspect to the signal that doesn't appear in the noise. If you mask the signal with the same sort of time correlated cover (eg phase shifting) it also might work. > And we are talking about 100 dB sorts of suppression. Mere factors of a few > with fake signals and noise are meaningless on this scale. The absolute magnitude isn't really important. Most of the signals that are emitted by a computer are not in the 100dB dynamic range (@2x=3db that's a signal range of 1:33) , more likely 40-50db if that. For a TTL (5V) signal it barely covers 3dB (LOW is <2.5v and a high is >=4.75). There simply is no way in hell a signal with a 3dB range is going to emit a rf signal that is 100dB. There are other logic families with wider dynamic ranges (eg CMOS w/ 18V Vcc can be nearly 18V or approx. about 12dB). ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

4 3

Cryptography Study Group - Palo Alto
by John Cutler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A Palo Alto-centered cryptography study group has been been formed. Our first project is to read Schneier's "Applied Cryptography." We meet a couple times each week to go over assigned reading and to play with ideas about cryptography. While the current participants all have a professional interest in the field, we are loosely organized. Readings are decided at the previous meeting giving us the flexibility to explore particular ideas in depth. Please contact me if you would like to join us. John Cutler jcutler(a)via.net

1 0

Re: Kong Re: Using a password as a private key.
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- At 0144 PM 11/1/98 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote > By the way, you don't want to hit the "view" button > after checking this one - you'll get > Run-Time Error 3021 - No current Record > and then Kong dies. Thanks I should release a fix on Monday the 9th. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG z/IoeOpshxPsz77gDorN0rrSb3hSKRfq8BJoUrHV 4MW1ljpG5hCWlOTNpmvtqe+qucj/X1317qNUJjGxf ----------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald

1 0