December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

LPC for speech (fwd)
by jerry＠terminus.dell.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message:

3 2

cryptoanarchists ingfo request
by mrw＠ukc.ac.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi there d'you think youcould email me some background info on cryptoanarchism? i've been interested in situationism, and related things for a few years now, and i'd be interested to learn more. Thanks m a t t h e w

1 0

HELP: EFF BBS Project needs your support!
by Stanton McCandlish 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please pardon the wide cross-posting (some of which are actually mailing lists), but all of these newsgroups involve issues with which EFF deals, and we hope the readers of these groups will support EFF's BBS project. EFF needs to set up a bulletin board system, to be called "Outpost - EFF Online", to help spread the word to people in the BBS community, most of whom do not have access to the resources of the net, on: cryptography privacy activism civil liberities online networking national information infrastructure open platform principles censorship laws that affect computer users ITAR restrictions telco/cable mergers internet access many-to-many communication virtual communities cyberspace digital telephony bbs seizures online resources and more... WHAT WE NEED: We need donations of funds and equipment. We already have BBS software (Digital Dynamics has donated their Synchronet BBS package), but still need a platform to run it on, including basic PC system, modems, tape backup, monitor, hard drive, etc. If you'd like to contribute to this project, please contact mech(a)eff.org (Stanton McCandlish, EFF Online Activist/SysOp, 202-347-5400 voice, 202-393-5509 fax, EFF - 1001 G St. NW, Ste. 950 E, Wash. DC 20001) All donations are tax deductable, and any donations of funds or hardware worth $40 or more will get the contributor a one-year membership in EFF. All contributors will be listed in a "thank you" note in an upcoming Effector Online (EFF's electronic newsletter), and permanently on the BBS itself. Great advertising! Thanks for reading, and thanks for your assistance!

1 0

Mosaic: ftp site?
by walter kehowski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cypherpunks, I'd like to get Mosaic - I read about it in the NYT. I got several responses to my inquiry: Where can you get Mosaic? (Thanks). However, when I tried ftp.ncsa.uiuc.edu and zaphod at same, there was no /Mosaic directory - looked in index, etc., couldn't find it, basically. Any other sites or did I miss something? (I'm on NeXT (4.3BSD) so I was looking for the unix version.) Walter A. Kehowski <wak(a)next0.math.pitt.edu>

1 0

Re: LPC for speech (fwd)
by loki＠nately.UCSD.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

:Forwarded message: :>From jp12745(a)coewl.cen.uiuc.edu Fri Dec 10 14:46:07 1993 :From: Jeffrey Wayne Porter <jp12745(a)coewl.cen.uiuc.edu> :Message-Id: <199312102045.AA16812(a)eehpx21.cen.uiuc.edu> :Subject: LPC for speech :To: jerry(a)terminus.dell.com (Jeremy Porter) :Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 14:45:49 -0600 (CST) :X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] :Content-Type: text :Content-Length: 948 : :Did you know that using LPC (linear predictive coding) on speech can :near-telephone quality at only 8 k BITs/second? With a signficant :decrease in quality (but still very understandable... probably better :than radio) you can get the rate down to 2kbps. If you don't mind :sounding like a speak&spell, you can go to 600bps or less. : : :Using LPC, you could send real-time voice over the :internet. It would even work (maybe just barely) over a SLIP :connection. According to my professor, LPC can be implemented :in a simple DSP chip, so I figure a 486 ought to be able to :handle it, too. Sound like an interesting (granted maybe not :too useful) project? It would be a way of providing secure :voice communications -- LPC code the speech, encrypt the data :stream, transmit via v.32bis modem, etc. :-- :-------------------------------------------------------------------- :Jeff Porter :jporter@uiuc.edu TA: ECE 290..."ph Jeff Porter" for office hours : : :-- :Jeremy Porter ------------- Systems Engineering -------- :Dell Computer Corp. ------ jerry(a)terminus.us.dell.com ---- :--- 70 4F BD AE 6D E9 D2 66 48 18 8B E7 64 7F 59 8F --- :Support your Second Amendment rights to encryption technology. : I am working on this very thing. We will be using LPC encoding for compression, IDEA for encryption, and DH key exchange for key handling. We plan to use something better than DH ASAP (something less vulnerable to man in the middle attacks). We plan to use 14.4kbps transmission speed. Lance

2 1

Improved DH system.
by loki＠nately.UCSD.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have been told that there is a new improved version of DH key exchange, which is authenticated. Could someone give me the reference, and/or tell me what it is all about?........ Diffie?? I was not clear on what it is that I am working on. We are trying to build a cheep secure phone for the masses (read brainless). We are looking for black box brainless operation. I will provide more info about the project on request. ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell who does not speak for CASS/UCSD loki(a)nately.ucsd.edu PGP 2.3 key available by finger or server. "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ----------------------------------------------------------

1 0

ALERT: FBI's Wiretap Bill is Back!
by Stanton McCandlish 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Digital Telephony Threat Returns According to FBI Dir. Louis Freeh, the development of sophisticated digital telecom and networking technology threatens the ability of the Feds to wiretap. In a Dec. 8 speech at Washington's National Press Club, Freeh annouced a renewal of the FBI's 'Digital Telephony' legislation scheme: the return of the controverial 'Wiretap Bill'. The bill is strongly opposed by organizations and individuals concerned about privacy, as well as the telecommunications and computing industries at large. The FBI's 'need' for this legislative action is under review by the Administration as part of it's examination of security and encryption issues. The reappearance of this Bureau effort contradicts statements by Special Agent Barry Smith of the FBI's Congressional Affairs Office, who stated less than a month ago that the 'Wiretap Bill' had been tabled. According to classified documents released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the FBI and the Electronic Communications Service Provider Committee or ECSPC (an ad hoc industry working group, which formed in March), are attempting to decide if technical solutions can be found to satisify law enforcement. According to a Nynex representative co-chairing the group, Kenneth Raymond, no solution has yet been found, but that FBI has yet to prove any solution is needed at all. Raymond likened Freeh's tactics to "yelling out the window" - an attention-getting move that needs some sort of clarifying followup. Though the ECSPC claims to be attempting to evaluate the problem and to solve it "in some reasonable way that is consistent with cost and demand", Raymond indicated that the group considers one 'solution' to be building wiretap access into future telecom hardware - like the Clipper chip backdoor, but a 'feature' of all switch specifications for phone and data lines. This news was just received, and a more detailed analysis and statement from EFF will follow soon. -- Stanton McCandlish mech(a)eff.org 1:109/1103 EFF Online Activist & SysOp O P E N P L A T F O R M C R Y P T O P O L I C Y O N L I N E R I G H T S N E T W O R K I N G V I R T U A L C U L T U R E I N F O : M E M B E R S H I P @ E F F . O R G

1 0

Re: USENET on a tape
by Alexander Chislenko 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jeremy Porter writes: > ... Usenet traffic being rated at some 21gigabytes a year > (traffic through UUnet) considering the low information value > of the vast majority of it, no one will be interested in storing it. Wait a minute... How much would it cost to store all this info? a few hundred thousand dollars a year? This seems to be the cheapest (per byte) archiving opportunity in the history of civilization; storage cost is many orders of magnitude lower than the efforts spent creating this info. Many times as much is spent on archaeological/historical research projects that 1) can wait and 2) get much, much, much less information, while the hugest ever information traffic disappears without a trace. This is unbelievable! Apart from regular merits of any archive and far-fetching perspectives of Internet archives becoming a part of global intelligence, this traffic can be invaluable for studies of evolution of languages and subcultures, development of particular concepts, detailed biographical material (there are many historical figures whose biographical data collection took a lot more resources than is needed to store all net traffic), and so much more... In general, I would expect that if people spent a 1000 dollars worth of efforts to write messages, it should be worth it to spend another penny to store them forever... It's likely, though, that some agencies do keep full net archives; if even not, much of the traffic may be recoverable from partial archives scattered all over the world; the attempt will sure be made some day - but at what cost? > In usenet no one can hear you scream... :-( ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Alexander Chislenko | sasha(a)cs.umb.edu | Cambridge, MA | (617) 864-3382 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: value of privacy?
by baumbach＠atmel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> example, it doesn't _hurt_ me to get targeted junk mail, but I find it > unsettling that direct marketers know enough about me to send the 'right' > mail. I see it this way; 'they' make decisions about me and initiate a > relationship with me without my knowledge or consent. The relationship is > artificial and uneven; 'they' know more about me than I know about 'them'. An idea that I have never used, but was suggested to me by my father, goes like this: RING RING me: Hello ??: Mr. Peter Baumbach, I am calling from ICK inc. to offer you .. me: Excuse me, but I am busy right now. Could you give me your name and home phone number, and I will call you back later? ??: Huh? I can't give you my home number, that's private. me: But you know my name and number. This hardly seems fair.

1 0

Re: value of privacy?
by Dave Hart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I use a variation on the below whenever I get a telemarketer calling -- but instead of asking for the home number, I just ask for their number, meaning work number. Amazingly, it's very effective. Apparently outbound telemarketers often don't want to get inbound phone calls. ---------- | From: <netmail!baumbach(a)atmel.com> | | An idea that I have never used, but was suggested to me by my father, goes | like this: | | RING RING | | me: Hello | | ??: Mr. Peter Baumbach, I am calling from ICK inc. to offer you .. | | me: Excuse me, but I am busy right now. Could you give me your name and | home phone number, and I will call you back later? | | ??: Huh? I can't give you my home number, that's private. | | me: But you know my name and number. This hardly seems fair. | |

1 0