December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Gilmore Subpoena (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 21:52:20 -0400 > From: John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> > Subject: Gilmore Subpoena > [Form] > > AO 110 (Rev. 12/89) Subpoena to Testify Before Grand Jury > _______________________________________________________________________ > > UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT > WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON > _______________________________________________________________________ > > To: > John Gilmore SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY > 210 Clayton Street BEFORE GRAND JURY > San Francisco, CA 94117 > Mine looks pretty much identical. ____________________________________________________________________ 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: Censored news topic censored ...
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Would any of the NPR staff or Mr. Suarez would like > > to explain just what happened here? > > I'll take a stab: milk spills, people trip, shit happens. > > They probably didn't mean it. > > But who knows. My best guess is shit happens, but my criticism was aimed at the rather ironic situation where a topic about a topic being censored was, itself, censored. Now, I wouldn't necessarily have taken that second "censored" quite as seriously as Mr Suarez has in his E-Mails, but I suppose "censor" might have a very serious connotation in the news business (deliberateness, conspiracy, etc.). It is clear that he is, at least, aware of the fact that the bill passed under questionable circumstances. He probably took my pre-screen literally as "he wants to talk about this wire tap thing again, but I've already covered it in a previous show". In any case, the point is precisely what Dan Gillmor in San Jose Mercury (and also in the interview with Market Place) said: It's not what was passed; it's how it was passed and when it was passed, and the deliberate attempt to keep the public from knowing much about it. Notice that all the news talk today about the FCC discussing the new mobile wire tap provision has pretty much assumed that the 1994 $500M Digital Telephony (a.k.a. CALEA) bill was passed matter of fact. No one mentioned that it was passed also at the last minute under questionable circumstances during 11th hour budget deals. No one even questions the fact that Louis Freeh and Janet Reno claimed that civil libertarians and phone companies were exaggerating the >$2B price and were absolutely sure the $500M was more than adequate. Does anyone believe that a >$2B CALEA would have passed? Even in the dark of night? The lesson here to the FBI is, go ahead ... exaggerate ... lie if you have to ... no one is going to call you on it. Ern

1 0

Re: dbts: Cryptographic Dog Stocks, The Dirigible Biplane, andSending the Wizards Back to Menlo Park
by Vin McLellan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jeeez, I hope no one else sprained a finger getting the current stock price for Security Dynamics (SDTI). Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> took certain, ummm, dramatic liberties as he paraphrased a Boston Globe column yesterday on Bay State stocks that had "been discounted so deeply they raise eyebrows." Said Mr. Hettinga: >It seems that Security Dynamics, trading at about 6, about >10% or so of >its high, is now considered an official dog >stock as defined by today's >Boston Globe. What the Globe actually said was: "Security Dynamics Technologies Inc. of Bedford, a leader in computer security and encryption, has fallen from an April high of 42 1/2 to 12 yesterday. It traded as low as 6 two weeks ago." Said Mr. Hettinga: >Anyway, most of the comments in the article were about SD's >hardware >token technology being made obsolete by digital >"certificates". (The >Globe's quotes, but I agree with them. >Just like I put quotes around >digital "signatures", which >are nothing of the kind, though I haven't >heard of >something better call *them* yet, either.) The Globe did >>mention SD buying RSA, but they forgot to mention anything >about the RSA >patent expiring soon. About the only thing >they said was valuable about >SD was their share in that >roaring success, Verisign, Inc., who, the >Globe seems to >imply, is evidently the sole marketer of those self-same >>digital "certificates". I wonder what Thawte, CertCo, >Entrust, etc.made >of *that* comment... Hmmmm. What the Globe actually said was: "Security Dynamics made money for years selling authentication systems for corporate computer users and later acquired RSA Data Security, an Internet encryption leader. Now its original authentication products are being challenged by new technology using so-called ``digital certificates'' to make computer communication and commerce secure - a serious problem that has hurt the stock. "But Security Dynamics, with a current market value of about $490 million, could still offer a bigger company a leading position in the important computer security field and a huge embedded customer base. "Security Dynamics also owns a stake in Verisign Inc., a competitor in the digital certificate field. The company's cash and its investment in Verisign amount to about $6.50 per share, slightly more than half the stock's current price." Hettinga essays are like handball games: the damn ball is ricocheting off the side walls, both ends, the floor and the ceiling. Linear coherence and internal consistency are less important than the electrostatic energy and the rolling rhetorical thunder -- so hey, no big deal if he's a little frisky and expansive with the facts, right? For the full Globe article, cut & paste this URL: <http://www.boston.com/cgi-bin/passiton.cgi?globehtml/294/Among_Bay_State_s_… ered_tech_fir.shtml> Wall Street has not been kind to SDTI, from whom I have collected many checks for contract assignments over the years. Mr. Hettinga's explanation of the market's dynamics is, at the very least, guaranteed to stimulate. Hettinga's apparent scorn for modern cryptography's obsession with strong authentication -- now manifest in the intensity with which professionals worry the issues around PKC binding, key certification, digital signatures, CA procedures (and in the demand for smartcards to secure X509 certs apart from the networked CPU) -- bespeaks a truly iconoclastic mind. What tucked me in for the night was the declaration -- from R.H., the avatar of DBTS, e-cash, and geodesic recursive auctions -- that (venture) capital is or will be counterproductive to entreprenurial enterprise in the New Age. Un huh. Doomed, as well, by the hesitation inherent in the merely human minds that control its flow (at least in Rob's universe of cybernetic fiscal structures.) Said Mr. Hettinga: > It's beginning to look like venture capital is an >industrial phenomenon, requiring correspondingly long >ramp-up times, and it may be that geodesic markets move too >fast for any "consensus" of the investment community to be >achieved and, um, capitalized upon, soon enough to make >money on a consistent basis, or at least in the presence of >a savvy management team. Gotta love a guy who can write a sentence like that, knot and and double-knot it into a gangly tapestry -- and then glue the whole thing across a wonderful image like a "dirigible biplane." (That's a Hettinga vehicle is ever there was one. Even in the imagination, it pushes or pulls large amounts of gas around in an unusually muscular way;-) Suerte, _Vin ----- "Cryptography is like literacy in the Dark Ages. Infinitely potent, for good and ill... yet basically an intellectual construct, an idea, which by its nature will resist efforts to restrict it to bureaucrats and others who deem only themselves worthy of such Privilege." _ A Thinking Man's Creed for Crypto _vbm. * Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + <vin(a)shore.net> * 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548

4 8

Re: Censored news topic censored ...
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't speak up here much but I can't let this go: the next time you hear William Buckley on the Commonwealth Club broadcast on NPR, or hear the almost-commercial-broadcast-length squibs that pretend to be underwriter attributions but which are really tiny little commercials for ADM "Supermarket to the World" or Wells Fargo "Making Your Time Count," ask yourself who NPR is really working for, and set your expectations accordingly. Then send your checks to Pacifica to support free-speech radio. At 03:00 PM 10/22/98 -0700, Mark Hedges wrote: > >It sounds like even the enlightened folks at NPR don't have the guts >to stand up and say something about issues as critical as expanded >FBI powers over citizens and the sneaky tricks used to pass those laws. > >It's not really a big surprise, though. Monica Lewinsky's blowjobs >take precedence over incredulous claims like 'NSA SPIES ON EVERYONE' >and 'FBI MONITORS YOU WITHOUT WARRANTS'. > >They will have to live with their own lack of character. So will we. > >Mark Hedges > > >At 1:13 PM -0700 10/22/98, Ernest Hua wrote: >>Dear TOTN at NPR, >> >>This is most distressing. I was one of the very first >>callers to your Talk of the Nation show today whose >>topic was relevant news reporting in the US. My topic >>was the lack of reporting on the FBI's last minute >>sneak of the roving wire tap proposal into the >>intelligence budget bill. I wanted Ray to talk about >>the editorial process and how these things get dropped >>on the floor as this item is extremely important to >>our democracy because it is an agency charged with >>protecting our Constitutional rights (the FBI) who is >>deliberately circumventing the democratic legislative >>process to pass a law which was sounded defeated two >>years ago in open debate. >> >>Ironically, my topic was censored, and I waited an >>hour, while other people wanted to discuss things >>like how they can vent about their divorce >>difficulties through the Monica Lewinsky scandal, only >>to be dropped in the end. >> >>Would any of the NPR staff or Mr. Suarez would like >>to explain just what happened here? >> >>Ern >> >>-------- >>Ernest Hua, TeraLogic Inc, 1300 Villa St, Mountain View, CA 94041 >>(650) 526-6064, hua(a)teralogic-inc.com > > > >________________________________________________________________ > Mark Hedges hedges(a)infopeace.com www.infopeace.com > > "One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard > a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish > a dictatorship." O'Brien from 1984, George Orwell >________________________________________________________________ > > > >

1 0

echelon in UK
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

echelon is getting a *lot* of european coverage in their newspapers and magazines over the last few weeks/months. I find this quite remarkable. here in the US where we pride ourselves on civil freedom, the public does not even *squeak* about the massive NSA superstructure. but the european community is starting to get fidgety and uppity. I sincerely hope that this pressure can be increased. it would be quite ironic if the nsa began to feel heat by *outside* countries, without the slightest raised eyebrow by the submissive, prostrate US taxpayer even as they suck up something like 50 odd billion dollars a year out of our budget without a trace. personally I think an awesome cypherpunk project/campaign would be an info-fight against the NSA. a guerrila style campaign in which people try to plaster the message everywhere, and "hack" the mainstream media. the time is ripe, with the echelon brouhaha. it's a pity that hackers spend their time fighting over somethig like Kevin Mitnick when they could truly change the us govt as we know it. I propose a continued, cyberguerilla campaign to put the NSA into the public light and make them squirm as much as a spook can do so (and I'm certain they are *very* squirmy)

1 0

IP: Enhanced Ability to Tap Cell Phones
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Enhanced Ability to Tap Cell Phones Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 11:21:56 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/washtech/cell1022.htm Federal Plan Would Enhance Police Ability to Tap Cell Phones By Jeannine Aversa Associated Press Writer Thursday, October 22, 1998; 11:16 a.m. EDT WASHINGTON - Law enforcement officials say they need to know where a suspected criminal is when he makes a cellular telephone call. Federal regulators are proposing to give them the capability to find out. The Federal Communications Commission without dissent proposed today that cellular phone companies make technical changes so the FBI, police and other law enforcers - as long as a court approves - can locate a person talking on a mobile phone. This and other additional wiretapping capabilities being proposed aim to help law enforcers keep pace with technology. With some 66 million cellular phone customers, police want the authority to legally tap cell phones to track down drug dealers, terrorists and kidnappers. But some groups worry that such a practice could violate privacy. The location proposal is part of a larger plan to implement a 1994 law that requires telecommunications companies to make changes in their networks so police are able to carry out court-ordered wiretaps in a world of digital technology. The proposal is based on a plan from the telecommunications industry. "We think this is a positive step forward," said Stephen Colgate, the Justice Department's assistant attorney general for administration. "In many kidnapping cases, it would have been very helpful to have location information." But James Dempsey, counsel to the Center for Democracy and Technology, a privacy group, said: "We're prepared to fight this one every step of the way." FCC Chairman Bill Kennard stressed that police would have no access to locations without a court order. "A lot of people are saying the FCC will turn mobile phones into tracking devices for the FBI and invade Americans' privacy. I don't believe that will be the case," Kennard said. With a court order, police already can legally listen in to cell phone conversations, and, in some instances, get information on the caller's location. But not every company has the technical ability to provide a caller's location. This proposal, if adopted, would set up a nationwide requirement for companies to follow. The legal standard for obtaining a location is lower than the standard for a wiretap order in which police must show a judge there is probable cause of criminal activity. Under the proposal, police would only need to show the location is relevant to an investigation. Privacy groups say that means the government could easily track the movements not only of a suspect, but also of associates, friends or relatives. It would give police the ability to obtain the cellular phone user's location at the beginning and end of a wiretapped call. The proposal would provide police with that information based on the cellular tower, or "cell" site, where a call originated and ended. That would give information on the caller's location within several city blocks in an urban area to hundreds of square miles in a rural area. The FBI had been seeking more exact location information. The FCC also is expected to tentatively conclude that companies must give police, as long as a court approves, additional capabilities - beyond minimum technical standards already proposed by the industry - so their ability to conduct wiretaps won't be thwarted. The additional capabilities being sought by the FBI that were advanced by the FCC include: -Giving police the ability to listen in on the conversations of all people on a conference call, even if some are put on hold and no longer talking to the target of a wiretap. -Giving police the ability to get information when the wiretap target has put someone on hold or dropped someone from a conference call; and to know if the wiretap target has used dialing features - such as call waiting or call forwarding. -Giving police the number dialed by a wiretap target when the suspect, for instance, uses a credit or calling card at a pay phone. Privacy groups and the telephone industry contend the additional capabilities sought by the FBI go beyond the 1994 law and are an attempt to broaden wiretapping powers. The FBI says it merely wants to preserve the ability to conduct legal wiretaps in a world of constantly changing technology. The FCC is involved because the Justice Department, FBI and the telecommunications industry, after three years of negotiations, were unable to reach agreement on the larger plan for implementing the 1994 law. All interested parties will get a chance to offer opinions on the proposal, which could be revised. Kennard wants a final plan adopted by the end of the year. © Copyright 1998 The Associated Press ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

2 1

No Subject
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

owF3VkuLHLkN9cab9CXgfYUWvoDD+lgzDmlGMTMRY3uHJJFJuEgixU+Vsu/kO/oh 2+wdeFSzSOD9gP/+6S/rH/uIWv+Anw9tRh1qlb5OrUHGBZs1aC5SaW9c48YjSaOQ NMdV20g0yaZ25cpLk2Pmrg+54es2mIKOpoH6wK02Oy5Zr5MzNdFKa+Z+JCn+j26F F65D6lkIT8g2M9lxWL+qebMs7+whdbSTihYNd6078Xr2fqM9c7HmtxwogBsPw7Eh 5Rg3vORVxoXzkXhFP/ssBZdIC7Mp5zdEP1jDu7RyzhxJa5SsaxbaOW75XByGJn3Q wRn/bIbnKaBWASSbjr8SfdGBp0LiPrQLlYqmqoYbRdZ+vqHlwwxZI3BQ3JvsSZ1j zLLyTl1XzbjtRlUmLp89zMyNfrECGHu2nesSrH6d0lDsW24jyxikZW22ZzX6sWlP hR2kL2BFD2rcZMO79JmBRJfG18EO0l6snEGGdDT6YCDgLx+z93NBTdoLHdYO8zaC ncTbxo5F5ZOS1CD0SSACCADEPnTiOMiwbVtcL1pRMmhd6aFhaEEF77jLSVE2f4n2 8+jTP37bWHP228qUvGzQ2KW6xEc2jScerxtgF+eH5w6opazcdkPln1hj5qf3+/4L Csg2cOxXriGhyWI20mpN6PcEXhS1Hs3iDIOyGfr6uae79bREhVIKpBcCznwozk1P PEA3vmAb/Wd+GwwJCl76GZD/S3jHyZa0GuHCJC6/gbOHYy05owOJO/rl48he+7/R 1LJBF64VgRY53OkJfYMXW7PuQpe+muwVYD79JNQQCaK4o2VpOmZfVu3j4qEfEvBg D3aAWJAdxIX/RWqiX6GY9rhg1XJY1iGQ/wF1yNIlKiw8LnlLhLDmimc3IAsOagXg 3FZLZ4R9IH0cBWGwycuLLbCpNhh2g1zajZ7yGgFAZmz6jcosXlqa9e5IF4WCdbhx Njiz8EVs0BZw6L3VysTRvezOns5m46KOw+Y4RIL+UfRYNkHr5Gj0wIf3zkFC423A dpvbbyQ0gkB5wrxQHwpPEuG8Pl5dG6FCnBjcQoIGQclVy2dosk082LkK/aI7IxU0 sst7r9zTbQGAzdYLcpgigRd0DD+jVHaKPX6cHMRavULkn9K+QZq/S3NsYPnP4TOo AIYdJN3pI7RcV8mD3tq6ot1+tnngRos7TBOyzQhEn24t4Nzv54JsrKC0GjLgJPji CXU2V9XfGWh6ANM/+MFoZEc+XShb3ZFVHWmwcLTDP7y5ifVqLs2CioHHuAIQjoTm UYP00PRAbKKcohUKWA6nzaPjAQTACnQCE0N8dtnpAHkulHW+vCBu/GySXPxhShoh uKe1OGDym3sKyvhsSIfuERjuQBWRkY0jwvMjeFil7TDZp1mj/+mRKiBN3JwIafdI m/3izkDsw6mlfGK2vPEL7MG1Kgwt5TX0gnvReZKnJ1nntTHqz6jfOfW0eLJnJaqD UTCmJmo+MMe6x9SmOxLKU7YIEiCZDzE46tydbRI8B8jcTjuESM+k5Yb4rNHb/wnu YB8nFb+OFR50EwTvQgsHTB+rd6TiT9aenO8Lctksr4jbB0chAGMR7vUZC6QbO+ie M7rKBTAAxbEjq/fyZ0hNDcVg7sDcPjc9ZFbDB0++e3CeghHZO/Jsp7/15I7yZG4T VFzkLCHNUVFRtjAx6TB0J5UTLAf6bbY7HIB4fdjJDdFR1cMNQY+52hEmS7sERpvV 6DmADLHDwXVy3sLw6hKyuSe/2acrSoM3Zsec9tE2dJ+eBIU9z66Nw7MJgveJ7nPc mf/BkGzIhQTRQfrzuJKz4nmBrzKCA7kcu+KZSwTfnvjUQ2xtgrm+YYcpwIO65xdc Bp1H30bCufgS0loyH9HVnogtnPu+npzAE572aQOWoNyACfjGFVol2wEC6B3YO/Fk wIKRYJrizsLaIyFDV978sXwSn9FQ9nvBXMOOM+EUXyxOLDBzYKT4GjQPdxzwwbSz HMGeVmhF8PFtqRA2FqJOl4ivMRGnuS7pgOmxF4E7iNzDNUEvyMRylfrWZlv5rssX AIhQotU8pfq1YgQrbvb1NQmweQzI7jVdMbIGkhP9L98fcIP9ODifV2oAfrTqcKvv hkwfkIs+m5pebAOvgiT6fpDec50rQtY9MegjOnS7+wiFYAJBJNWJfYcF6E7fV6Fl TMwFH11jvu6mKGu8riA+wf2LHglCL1JdH77nAAnQCFwxC7orga7V4WDsZdnJ/K3x Q7sngWQErgccvqC4dfqG9f9B3cAddgRgVLBLiDztWrT+Bw== =zoKi

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:17 AM 10/23/98 +0200, Anonymous wrote: >Trees cannot be indicted for assasination > >-Bono Kennedy Which prosecutor was it who said that he could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wanted to?

1 0

Re: dbts: The Economic Cause of Privacy (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 14:25:16 +0200 > From: Anonymous <nobody(a)replay.com> > From: bman(a)barn.pct > Subject: Re: dbts: The Economic Cause of Privacy > There is no financial privacy because because those who would like such thing > have less power (hired guns) than those who would not like it. That is certainly a valid way of looking at the situation after the laws are enacted. However, the situation leading up to the laws being created probably didn't involve (c)overt violent implications. I would posit that we have no financial privacy is because prior to now (pre-ubiquitous computers) there was a significant cost in compiling the information because copies had to be made, people involved, etc. This is all going away. The base infrastructure changed radicaly and this is bound to effect those aspects that rely (recognized or not) on specific characteristics (eg cost to retrieve a single page) will see their 'balance of power' change. > be lost, and population harvesting (aka taxing) would have to be radically > changed, and that is expensive. The system is self-supporting. One potential view of this situation is that the tax burden in a post-computer economy is significantly different than in a pre-computer economy. In particular examine the primary source of taxes. Individuals look to become very ephemeral entities in the near term increasing the costs to the regulators (local, county, state, federal, special) to monitor compliance. What is needed is a long-lived, well know contact point between the source of funds wishing to be taxed and the sink of those same funds. The most obvious is the business or entity sourcing funds. Because of regulatory issues such organizations need plenty of documentation in order to do business. Business has as one of its principle goals long-term profit (excluding short-term business only for convenience and brevity) which implies long-term existance. In a computer managed economy the primary tax point should be the retailer or VAR passed along to the consumer via increased prices (compensated for by increased paychecks). This also has the potential for eliminating (or at least reducing significantly) the amount of registration and forms that need to be done. Such issues could be taken care of at the time of transaction and anonymously. This could also be used to impliment a flat tax system that automaticaly takes care of those who are poor. Exempt basic housing, food and clothing items much like now. Since the poorer members of society don't buy things like CD's and new jackets each year they aren't burdened by those tax responsibilties. > Idea that somehow smart algorithms will bring financial privacy is a good starting > point for cryptoaddict's wet dream, but in reality has the same chance of > success as survival rate of armed citizens against the government. Zero. Hm, I thought that's how this country was formed 200+ years ago... Actualy people will bring financial privacy via smart algorithms (perhaps). This will occur when there is either a compeling reason to do it or there is simply no other way to reach the next platue of technology/civil gestalt. > Use of government-controlled, issued and supervised payment methods/instruments > is in place because it is proscribed, not because "money/checks, etc. exist". True, history traces money back to the dawn of human history when the concept of government is not really applicable (though despot might be). The groups were simply too small and non-interactive with other groups to really class them as a full blown economy. As those groups grew and increased their interactivity the need for regulating the economy became clearer and clearer. Those who took on the job obviously wanted something for their labors so taxes were born. As time went on the roll of taxes increased to include civil support. > Money is a highly artificial entity in the first place. It is "natural" to > use currency-binded valuation as it is natural to go to church. And theorizing > on money and economy in general has similarities to religious rituals. Without getting into what natural means (I can't take another theism discussion right now); there must be something 'natural' or universal about money since widely seperate and uncommunicative societies have invented the concept when other as simple technologies didn't translate (compare the Egyptian and Aztec use of the wheel - the Aztecs didn't though they knew of it by using it on toys). > Therefore constructing computer-assisted anon payment schemes "because it is > cheaper that way" is pointless. Not if one of your goals is to decrease cost. This won't suffice for the sole motivation however. So at least to some degree we agree. > Money is not there to make your life easier. > Money exists so that you can be taxed and conditioned to desired behaviour at > minimal cost. I'll have to disagree. Money exists to ease the transfer of goods across geographic and social boundaries, it's a level of abstraction above straight barter. Taxation is a mechanism for those geographic an social boundaries to continue to exist while hopefuly providing useful services. > The only way for society (or loosely coupled individuals) to function without > abstractions like money (that need organized gun power to maintain) is direct > exchange of goods and services with enforcement based on close relationships > between parties. Has been tried, several thousand years ago, and such societies > were annihilated by others who did organize. Which seems to be the fate of any > anarchism in general. These sorts of societal arrangements historicaly don't support the thesis of anarchism being the root cause of the failure. As a matter of fact, historicaly there is no example (not even the Icelandic Anarchists traded with the mainland to a great degree) of a interacting set of societies that supported an economy involving a anarchy that I am aware of. There are plenty of examples where (near) anarchist societies have destroyed economies and socieities. The primary problem is one of wastage. In a barter economy the amount of value implicit in every exchange varies greatly. If you trade a chicken for a duck from one customer and a pig from another, does that mean they should trade a duck for a pig between themselves? Since the pig farmer doesn't want a duck since he bought a chicken from me how does the duck vendor entice the pig owner into buying his duck (especialy when he needs the pig to feed his family as this is his last duck and pigs are bigger than ducks). Then there is the issue of geography and how a duck is worth less in the middle of duck-raising land than in the middle of no-ducks-to-be-seen land. Money stabalizes the swings in the individual transactions and causes the economic system as a whole to be more stable and predictable. Perhaps what we really need to be looking for is a economic model that is dynamic but predictable to a very great degree. Though I must admit that looks suspicously like some sort of communism/socialism 'share everything equaly' style of governments. Though, if you could seperate the monetary aspects of a government from the legal/social side it could work. Probably at least one of the seperate-but-equal aspects of a polycratic model; Religion - Economics - Criminal - Legislative - Executive - Military (external) - Militia (internal) - Science/Technology - Medicine ____________________________________________________________________ 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

Break DES Fast!
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Friend, My name is Dave Rhodes. In 1997 my cipher designs had all been broken, my patents declared without merit, and NIST had rejected my preliminary AES submission. Then in early 1998 I received a letter in the mail telling me how I could earn fame as a cryptographer whenever I wanted. I was naturally very skeptical and threw the letter on the desk next to my computer. It's funny though, when you are desperate, backed into a corner, your mind does crazy things. I spent a frustating day looking through the DES S-boxes for better differentials, but the pickings were sparse at best. That night I tried to unwind by reading a few security newsgroups. I read several of the posts and then glanced at the letter next to the computer. All at once it came to me, I now had the key to my dreams. This year I presented a paper at Crypto'98 and have one accepted for Eurocrypt'99. Cryptographers from all over the world come to me for advice, and NIST has asked me to be on the AES evaluation board. I will have my own crypto conference within 4 or 5 months. Anyone can do the same. This crypto method works perfectly every time, 100% of the time. Best of all you never have to leave home except to go to your mailbox or post office. I realized that with the power of the computer I could expand and enhance this method into the most unbelievable system that has ever been created. I substituted email in place of the post office and electronically did by computer what others were doing 100% by mail. Most of the hard work is speedily handled by computers throughout the world. If you believe that someday you deserve that lucky break that you have waited for all your life, simply follow the easy instructions below. Your dreams will come true. Sincerely yours, Dave Rhodes INSTRUCTIONS Follow these instructions EXACTLY, and in 20 to 60 days you will have searched well over 50 trillion DES keys. This program has remained successful because of the honesty and integrity of the participants. Please continue its success by carefully adhering to the instructions. 1. Immediately send the following ciphertext/plaintext pair below to ten friends: 12F7E88920:0A2DE3172B 2. Remove the searched keyspace that appears at number 1 on the list below. Move the other 9 sets of searched keyspaces up one position. Number 2 will become number 1 and number 3 will become number 2, etc. Place the keyspace you've searched in the number 10 position. 3. Post the message with the keyspace you've tried in the number 10 position into 10 separate newsgroups or mailing lists, call the file BREAK.DES.FAST. 4. Within 60 days you will receive over 50 trillion further DES keys which people have tried. This is not a scam. This is perfectly legal. If you have any doubts, refer to 22 USC Sec 2778. [Keyspace list snipped]

3 2