December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Can someone look this up? (fwd)
by Ray Arachelian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 21:48:14 -0500 From: Salvatore Denaro <sal(a)panix.com> To: 'Ray Arachelian' <sunder(a)brainlink.com> Subject: Can someone look this up? Can someone on the list look this up? *************************************************************** If the government has no knowledge of aliens, then why does Title 14, Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations, implemented on July 16, 1969, make it illegal for U.S. citizens to have any contact with extraterrestrials or their vehicles?

3 2

Re: Can someone look this up? (fwd)
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Can someone on the list look this up? > >*************************************************************** >If the government has no knowledge of aliens, then why does >Title 14, Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations, >implemented on July 16, 1969, make it illegal for U.S. >citizens to have any contact with extraterrestrials or their >vehicles? Very SETI/UFO-mysterious. Here's what's listed (three times) at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html [Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 14, Volume 5, Parts 1200 to end] [Revised as of January 1, 1997] >From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access [CITE: 14CFR1211] [Page 75] TITLE 14--AERONAUTICS AND SPACE CHAPTER V--NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION PART 1211--[Reserved] ---------- That's the entire entry.

1 0

Re: Predicting cipher life / NSA rigged DES? / Destroying encrypted data (Tangent to Re: Burning papers)
by jim＠mentat.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Randall Farmer skribis: > Been thinking, most applications for ciphers assume solely based on cipher x's > keysize that data will be secure for a certain length of time. ... > My idea ... is averaging the remaining lifetimes in > analysis-hours of broken ciphers which survived as many person-hours of attack > as the one in question. Doesn't seem terribly likely. Typically ciphers will look strong until someone discovers a chink. The chink will sometimes lead to a serious break, but not always, and not always quickly -- but at that point the cipher looks weak. Your best chance at encrypting stuff that needs a long shelf life is with a cipher that's had a lot of analysis and plenty of intrinsic key, like 3DES. > Am I just going crazy, or is it kind of obvious that NSA knew the s-boxes they > provided for DES weren't secure? The former. The S-boxes they replaced were bogus, and the ones they came up with were good against differential cryptanalysis -- better than random ones. There's no a priori reason to believe they knew about linear cryptanalysis, and in any case Matsui's l.c. attack on DES is better than brute force only in situations where you have a great deal of known or chosen plaintext. So how come you claim they aren't secure? DES isn't suitable for long-archived info, but is still OK for short-lifetime data against a not-too-motivated attacker: its only known weakness for this application is its key-length, not its S-boxes. > Anyhow, these two (or three) values are XORed together to form the key used to > encrypt the volume. When your adversaries, armed with their trusty rubber > hoses, come knocking at and/or down your door, you hit a hotkey to start > destroying those 24 bytes on disk, which can be done faster and more > effectively than a wipe of every sector in the volume. The folks with the I like it! Jim Gillogly Trewesday, 8 Solmath S.R. 1998, 00:27 12.19.4.15.17, 8 Caban 15 Muan, Second Lord of Night

3 4

waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=3424713596+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 14, Volume 5, Parts 1200 to end] [Revised as of January 1, 1997] >From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access [CITE: 14CFR1211] [Page 75] TITLE 14--AERONAUTICS AND SPACE CHAPTER V--NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION PART 1211--[Reserved]

1 0

Re: EPR, Bell, and FTL Bandwidth (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Eric Cordian <emc(a)wire.insync.net> > Subject: Re: EPR, Bell, and FTL Bandwidth (fwd) > Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:30:56 -0600 (CST) > No. Doing something to the first photon does not do anything to the > second, much less change its polarization. The operators for > polarization for the two photons commute, so they are simultaneously > measureable. This is the last I'm going to respond to this. The photons are 'entangled' which means their states are linked and co-dependant. [rest deleted] ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Can someone look this up? (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 19:16:36 -0500 (EST) > From: Ray Arachelian <sunder(a)sundernet.com> > Subject: Can someone look this up? (fwd) > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 21:48:14 -0500 > From: Salvatore Denaro <sal(a)panix.com> > To: 'Ray Arachelian' <sunder(a)brainlink.com> > Subject: Can someone look this up? > > Can someone on the list look this up? > > *************************************************************** > If the government has no knowledge of aliens, then why does > Title 14, Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations, > implemented on July 16, 1969, make it illegal for U.S. > citizens to have any contact with extraterrestrials or their > vehicles? It is of some interest to note that in the movie 'Andromeda Strain' the code that trips Wildfire is a '1211'... ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: EPR, Bell, and FTL Bandwidth (fwd)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Eric Cordian writes: > Anonymous writes: > > > Tim May knows no more about quantum mechanics than he does about > > cryptography. He is wrong about the nature of the correlation between > > the two photons. > > Tim is right. Please put this lovely cone-shaped hat on and sit on > the stool in the corner. So, you agree with Tim May's statement that: > All that is revealed is a _correlation_, a kind of structure built into the > Universe. Interesting, but not so weird as it seems. (And this is not any > kind of "action at one site instantaneously changing the state far away." > No more so than sending two envelopes out, one with a "1" inside and the > other with a "0" inside changes things instantaneously.....) You agree with the foolish statement that the behavior of correlated photons is no more weird than sending out two envelopes? I thought you had more sense than that. Are you under the impression that opening envelopes can in any way violate Bell's inequality, as measuring correlated photons can? Please! How do you explain the violation of Bell's theorem in QM? What is your nice, cozy, friendly, un-weird explanation? I'm curious whether you are going to sacrifice locality or reality. Somehow I think you'll have to go beyond what is necessary to explain the behavior of envelopes.

2 1

Re: Can someone look this up? (fwd)
by jim＠mentat.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ray Arachelian skribis: > Can someone on the list look this up? > > *************************************************************** > If the government has no knowledge of aliens, then why does > Title 14, Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations, > implemented on July 16, 1969, make it illegal for U.S. > citizens to have any contact with extraterrestrials or their > vehicles? An authoritative-looking message from Ken Jenks of NASA appears at http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8148/quaranti.html . It says this section was repealed 26 Apr 1991, and that the intent was to allow for a quarantine after the Apollo missions. The full text appears on that page. It talks about exposure to lunar material from NASA space shots, rather than UFO contacts. Jim Gillogly Trewesday, 8 Solmath S.R. 1998, 01:13 12.19.4.15.18, 9 Edznab 16 Muan, Third Lord of Night

1 0

Earn $20 Per Signup
by Webmaster 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Webmasters: Are you tired of wondering if the hits you are sending to your sponsors are being counted ??? Are you really sure whether the hit you sent was a RAW, a UNIQUE, or something else ??? Well MoJo Money eliminates those problems all together. We will pay you a flat rate of $15 for every FREE weekly membership you send and $20 for every other membership type !!! That's right... $15-$20 for EVERY signup !!! Check out our benefits to you: - No Raw/Unique hassles...You are paid for every signup you generate. - Your commission checks are prepared BI-WEEKLY by payroll processing firm ADP... No bullshit waiting for checks to be written by hand. And no minimum balance required. You will receive your check regardless of your commission. - You are offering a FREE membership to a GREAT site... Your signups will go through the roof with this program !!! - Real-Time on line stats! When a sale is approved you get INSTANT credit for it on your stats page. This is an actual stats page for one of our participating webmasters. Goto http://www.freshteens.com/mojomoney and see why over 600 webmasters have already joined the program !!!

1 0

Why This List Is A Security Risk
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Setting policy on national security risk for the entire USG, the DoD proclaims a trustworthy person does not engage in the following: Sec. 147.14 Guideline L--Outside activities. (a) The concern. Involvement in certain types of outside employment or activities is of security concern if it poses a conflict with an individual's security responsibilities and could create an increased risk of unauthorized disclosure of classified information. (b) Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include any service, whether compensated, volunteer, or employment with: (1) A foreign country; (2) Any foreign national; (3) A representative of any foreign interest; (4) Any foreign, domestic, or international organization or person engaged in analysis, discussion, or publication of material on intelligence, defense, foreign affairs, or protected technology. ----- >From 32 CFR Part 147 published today.

3 2