December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Public and private.
by doug＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

GRABOW_GEOFFREY(a)tandem.com said: >As to the gov't tracking every penny that I earn, the only alternative to an >income tax is an extremly high sales tax. This is extremely unfair to those >on the lower end of the wage scale. This can be avoided simply by exempting subsistence items, just as current food stamps pretend to do. This is *almost* a digression from the topics of the list, but not quite. The connection is that consequences like this and strategies to handle them are very much an issue when we talk about deploying new technologies. Crypto-technology will change the world, will he nil he; we can either shrug off the consequences, or we can plan for them. Doug

1 0

Re: PC random number hardware
by doug＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jon(a)balder.us.dell.com (Jon Boede) said: >Can anyone refute the claim that you can only generate truly random numbers >using hardware? I recall seeing a proof that totally random numbers could >only be generated by an infinitely large program. Assuming a bit of leeway in interpretation, this is trivially true mathematically. There's a great von Neumann quote that goes something like "anyone who uses finite state machines to generate supposedly random numbers is, of course, living in a state of sin." Use of hardware random number generation does not automatically confer a state of grace, however. Such processes sample through an aperture and are subject to the Nyquist limit, the General Uncertainty Principle, and frequently the Central Limit Theorem as well, which is to say that you still have to mind your p's and q's quite carefully. Doug

1 0

TEMPEST Defenses and average Van Eck Gear...
by nobody＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi All.... #1 using personal countermeasures against emanation eavesdropping IS defnitely NOT illegal. #2 So few people have actual experience with Van Eck gear either the ConsumerTronics Model or the Pk Electronics German Device or the version made by a firm in england. First of all Van Eck Monitor Eavesdropping seems to be a deeply shrouded subject even for most engineers and for most c-punks. Its basically a system for reconstruction of the sync signal for monitor radiation received with a standard tuning mechanism... It is VERY similar to various Pay TV Decode Schemes mentioned and detailed in Radio Electronics over the past several years combined with a Monitor and a high gain amplified antenna... VERY specific plans are available from consumertronics for 25.00. And protecting against Van Eck can be extensive as a faraday cage or a subtle as conductive Wallpaper. floors, doors and windows... it really depends on the economic resources of your adversary and how much of a bother you are... Sam Hill p.s. Careful monitor placement if you have A LOT(at least 50) computers/ monitors can use noise data displayed on non-critical monitors to mask emanations of a single monitor where critical data IS handled.. $3-25k spent by a firm on acquiring the technology for internal survey can save LOTS of money from having to Faraday Cage an Entire Data Center... As for eavesdropping on bus/circuit emanation we will take that up at another time

1 0

Re: TEMPEST, Van Eyck Radiation, and Eavesdropping
by rustman＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As FCC regulations become tighter, the issue of Van Eyck Radiation will go down some. In 1974, when we had a Motorola Exorbus 6800 development system; the neighbors could tell what we were doing on it by the RFI to their TV sets. My 1993 Quadra doesn't even totally wipe out a receiver sitting next to it. > First of all Van Eck Monitor Eavesdropping seems to be a deeply shrouded > subject even for most engineers and for most c-punks. > > Its basically a system for reconstruction of the sync signal for > monitor radiation received with a standard tuning mechanism... More reason to use a LCD panel or EL display. None of this messy sync radiation. > And protecting against Van Eck can be extensive as a faraday cage or > a subtle as conductive Wallpaper. floors, doors and windows... If you can still receive the AM broadcast band inside your conductive wallpapered room, I would not feel comfortable about attenuation being provided. ;-> -- Rusty H. Hodge <rustman(a)netcom.com> A+Plus Technology & Design (714) 639-4949 1407 North Batavia Street, Suite 107, Orange, CA 92667 FAX (714) 639-3311

1 0

Nymalizer, politics on the list
by greg＠ideath.goldenbear.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Will an input-oriented (recognition mode) Nymalizer be able to differentiate between the outputs of "actual people" (ha) and actual people as filtered through output-oriented (generation mode) Nymalizers? After all, once we discover that username 'x' posts using LOTS of CAPITALIZED words and phunny SPELLINGS and so forth, it doesn't seem so hard to turn a Nymalizer into a filter which would create (or at least describe to a human creator) text which would fit that pattern .. I'm pleased to see that Perry now supports moving politics off the list; his posts do make me wonder if he's being spoofed, as he cheerfully participated in the econ-flames of a month ago. Still, I wholeheartedly support either him or the spoofer in their call to take the politics somewhere else. -- Greg Broiles greg(a)goldenbear.com Baked, not fried.

1 0

No Subject
by nobody＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Re the Phiber Optik case. I understand that only vanilla, split-band modems (1200, 2400 baud) were tapped, on the analog loop. They were, and still are, common in the mundane telco world. Throw a bandpass filter on the upper half of the audio band, get the answer data. Throw a filter on the lower half, get the originate data. Much MUCH easier than tapping modern full-duplex full-band modems with echo cancellation and compression. I know some of the datacops involved, and I seriously doubt they have a clue about how to handle V.32 without help from the NSA, which DOES know how to intercept them. Of course, even if the modems had NSA-proof encryption built in, the victim could always intercept the decrypted data on the DTE connector... cracking is and will remain a risky and stupid thing to do...

2 1

Real Identity: valid or worthless?
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Many have sent me mail along the lines, `the concept of real identity is fading away completely. It no longer has any meaning. You simply don't get it. There are no distinctions between imaginary and real identities.' But that is not my complaint, that you have an arsenal of imaginary identities to play with. It is when you wish to pretend that they are *real* that I object. Society actually tolerates anonymity and pseudonymity. They say, `if you are not willing to affix your name to your opinions, they WEIGH LESS than if you do.' (some may say they are `worthless' -- but that is their opinion, and they are entitled to it!) We cannot ever change that. That is a Universal Law. If I volunteer to be responsible for everything I write, that automatically carries far more intrinsic weight and `reputation capital' than any monster's tentacle or Medusa's snake. Identity, reputation, and value are interchangable! And the choice of whether I am responsible for my writing and actions *can* be made, recorded, and enforced! It is not allowable that anonymous opinions be *globally* censored, but it is entirely acceptable, and necessary, there be the capability for individual, *local* filtering. Many cypherpunks denigrating the value of *real* identity and blurring the distinction of real and imaginary identities are casting out wretched lies. They intrinisically recognize the implicit existence of the fundamental distinction between real and imaginary identities, and the extreme value of *real* identity between the two, while at the same time denying it all. The PSYCHOPUNKS seek to STEAL REAL REPUTATION with PSEUDOSPOOFING of IMAGINARY IDENTITIES. they would gain no profit if no one trusted any identity (the philosophy they simultaneously advocate and defame)! they only gain so long as the system of trust they rob from is in place! If no one trusted the system (as they exalt and defame, again, as the context suits them), they would no longer be able to rob from it! In their deceptive sham and confidence game, they *lie* that they are accountable for their opinions! And defraud all the investors who believe it! They understand: the distinction of real and imaginary identities is a an extremely powerful mechanism that involves intense levels of trust. And wherever there is value and trust, the criminals zoom in on! ``we can steal real reputation with imaginary identities by corrupting any system that distinguishes between real and imaginary identities.'' Nothing but the ancient criminal refrain, ``we can steal money from honest people with criminal means by corrupting any system that protects honest people's money.'' Or, in the root form, ``we can steal money by tricking honest people.'' pseudospoofers are nothing but REPUTATION THIEVES. of course they exalt the system they rob from! and deny that there is any way to embezzle gold from the treasury! they even deny the gold has any value! why, they are providing a valuable public service by relieving everyone of their gold who is too ignorant to realize it can be stolen! What utter, shameful, poisonous hypocrisy. I hope you all choke on your own poison. I have news for you, psychopunks, THE TREASURY IS BARE.

1 0

Private and Public
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com A >the government: it protects us, provides free schools, etc etc, in A >exchange for which we have to pony up a fair share of our earnings. You should know that there are people out there who would use deadly force to resist government attempts to provide *their* children with free schools. To avoid a political argument which some may feel would be inappropriate for cypherpunks -- you should consider that social systems are dependent on the power relationships among individuals and groups in society. As technology changes, this balance of power changes. Social systems which depend upon the people being weak and the government strong, cannot survive an increase in the physical powers possessed by the people. This is a technological phenomenon. One of the public services that groups like cypherpunks can perform is to give both the rulers and the ruled some advance warning of the transformations that are on the horizon so that both groups can adjust their plans. Rather than debating whether or not the people owe the government information about themselves, you should argue about whether or not the government has the technological capability to discover information about people. In the absence of such capability, government "rights" to have the information are merely rhetoric. Duncan Frissell --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165

1 0

Re: ID of anonymous posters via word analysis?
by cfrye＠ciis.mitre.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike McNally writes: >Though I agree with some other contributors that iron-clad >identification may require substantial amounts of material, I think >Mr. Ghio's point is correct to the extent that a party can satisfy >itself informally that a particular anonymous post is from some >well-known identity. Though the evidence may be useless in a legal >sense, that's not a problem in some contexts. > >For example, if Bob Scum is posting anonymously some risky notes to >a particular mailing list or newsgroup, it may be quite unfortunate >for Bob if mere suspicion arises that the notes are from him. That >suspicion need not be based on admissable-in-court evidence; if it's >noted by someone that both Bob and the anonymous author routinely use >the word "copacetic", things could heat up for poor Bob. If the risky >notes involve some socially unacceptable topics like drug use or >pornography, the fact that Bob can't actually be convicted is >unimportant. True, though the probability that two individuals would (over)use a particular word or phrase is high enough where "heating things up" would be unjustified, especially if spoofing were involved. Consider the reverse of the analytical process -- I want everyone to believe I'm Joe X, so I do a text analysis of his messages, write my own, analyze my message in comparison with Joe's, and modify it until the (or an) engine's algorithms spit out a score indicating that I'm Joe. Spoofing deluxe! I don't mean to say that informal analysis doesn't have its place, but we need to be careful about jumping to conclusions and potentially "heating things up" for innocent individuals or "convicting" them in the Court of Net.Opinion absent sufficient proof. I would agree that these analyses might form the basis for a reasonable suspicion that a particular individual is resposnible for bothersome anonymous posts, providing grounds for sysadmin notification. Curtis D. Frye cfrye(a)ciis.mitre.org "If you think I speak for MITRE, I'll tell you how much they pay me and make you feel foolish."

2 1

Re: (fwd) Clipper and Tipper on Route 666
by Clark Reynard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I must say I had never considered the possibility that the Data Superhighway itself might be a scam; but it's an interesting possibility. With all the hideous legislative work they cribbed from the Bush clan, a former CIA chief; how surprised would you be to find that the Data Superhighway AND Clipper Chip proposals were intended to be enacted almost simultaneously; to rein in the Internet. Perhaps the spooks have, as we all know, been buying CD-ROMS and grepping 'em. It could be a conspiracy to establish complete government surveillance of all computer equipment. I may simply be being paranoid, here, but in political situations which smack of unlikely coincidence; one must occasionally ask the rhetorical question _Cui bono_? In this case, a number of people stand to benefit; and, oddly, the people seem to be predominantly in the government. I'm not entirely serious about this theory, and I do present it semi-satirically, as a perspicacious few may have noted; but perhaps the topic shall stir up a bit of debate. "Route 666." I like that. How does one get hold of Pat Robertson's people? And get him to think we're good Christian boys, so they'll do it? I think Pat's _already_ pissed about this Clipper thing, and he'd be happy to talk about evil liberal perfidy in the White House. Anyone have their FAX numbers and addresses? ---- Robert W. F. Clark PGP Key Available Upon Request rclark(a)nyx.cs.du.edu clark(a)metal.psu.edu

4 3