December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

the Amusements of Cypherpunks
by hughes＠ah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Posting private mail you have received, however rude, onto the cypherpunks list is unwelcome and annoying behavior. Please do not continue to do this and other disruptive behavior. Eric

2 1

Re: put me in your kill file
by Dark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ld231782 -> BTW, there is no need to inform me that I am in your kill file. That would be rather pointless and defeat the purpose of defeating communication! <- Pointless is this entire endevor. And people wonder why cypherpunks has deteriorated. -uni- (Dark)

1 0

unsubscribe
by cdmorgan＠mosaic.uncc.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

please unsubscribe me cdmorgan(a)unccsun.uncc.edu

1 0

Info on Clipper chip and fabrication of it
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <9311092013.AA09822(a)vangogh.VIS.ColoState.EDU> nate(a)vis.colostate.edu writes: > Last I heard, hte model of the ARM series used in the Newton (the > ARM 610 processor) cranked out about 30,000 Drystones and used > _very_ little power. Oh boy, wait till the guys on comp.sys.acorn hear about this! I can tell why the arm was chosen: it comes as a drop-in circuit that manufacturers can use in their own designs. Not many of the other low-power fast CPUs are available like this. And its very small, and blindingly fast. G -- Personal mail to gtoal(a)gtoal.com (I read it in the evenings) Business mail to gtoal(a)an-teallach.com (Be careful with the spelling!) Faxes to An Teallach Limited: +44 31 662 4678 Voice: +44 31 668 1550 x212

1 0

Re: 'Resistance Is Futile'
by paul＠poboy.b17c.ingr.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Philippe makes another in a series of good points about our crypto coffee shop: it is vulnerable to disruption by "screaming children." Of course, not all usenet readers are screaming children; Tony Rippy, in a cogent post, proves that he belongs in that happy group. However, I present as counterexamples David Sternlight, John De Armond, and John Palmer. Those who have an interest in this subject will find the list, and we should welcome them here. USENET gatewaying makes it waaay too easy for the casual flamers and empty-headed arguers to drop in to visit us. Enjoy your coffee, - -Paul - -- Paul Robichaux, KD4JZG | Caution: cutting edge is sharp. Avoid contact. Intergraph Federal Systems | Be a cryptography user - ask me how. ** Of course I don't speak for Intergraph. ** -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLOD3ZiA78To+806NAQEs2gQAqvv4wO/rZitLagECTOkzND6K41V8gCny m21pebPdYyLmLlhaDVKV3zbBa4r+ZcrIe0Soc8r1xzC9PZq3CxD6rjjb6XzubzY3 42vwR/RJANuUnECJ7JV9nkftdNNvd+4N+Dq6U6HQQqbwHJb2YAOjS3uBmyD9jziV 4wr1+RC4phM= =Fz98 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

smuggling currency
by Dark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -> Interesting scenario. I buy one of these babies for $100,000 in Switzerland. I arrange to have it not yet "turned on." (Many of the new prepaid phone cards must be activated before they can be used.) I enter the US carrying a card worth $0. I order it activated. Suddenly I have a $100,000 cash card in the US without having imported $100,000 into the US. <- I wish it were so, Looks to me like this violates the following: 18 USCS 1001 18 USCS 1956 31 USCS 5316 The basic thrust is this: You can't transport a monetary instrument worth more than $ 10,000 without filling out the appropriate customs report. The real killer here is the title 31 code. Which reads liberally enough to bite you. Specific language reads something like "...shall not construct a transaction to evade reporting requirements...." The fine provision allows for $500,000 or twice the value of the monetary instrument. Hefty indeed. I think they take this seriously. If you bring the money in with the intent to avoid taxes, you have a second count, and could be in it for up to four times the amount you smuggled. I like the thinking, the court is less likely to. All your transaction does (unfortunately) is delay the importation of the "currency" until after the plane trip. You're still required to report the transaction, the card just makes it easier to get away with it. - -uni- (Dark) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLOHKfhibHbaiMfO5AQFlBwQAvubWG5DkEdILWMae3JGD4NG+fQaxcIpz T6GALRxZLRBxKGVpSYPLNH9j/4ys3c5Q/2mIc7RIa4ew4hb7Tlv9mKEnoi+7fMcs ihc6umAtJs+nMNTuL1qguw9hwtwslDt/jrPc+UefBw09ZIcsTiQ1WGOeRripwxw5 7tHsWSR9swY= =HYhE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Deconstructing DH/NII (was: Should we oppose...?)
by fnerd＠smds.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Godwin asks what Tim May is against when he says he's against the NII ("National Information Infrastructure"), or DH ("Data Superhigh- way.") Mike also points out that EFF is not into government funding or regulation, but (I paraphrase) as long as the govt is going to be involved, why not try to convince them to be involved in the right way? One way he mentions is providing incentives to steer the industry in good directions since we're going to [future tense] have *some* kind of data superhighway anyway. Mike is certainly right that there are directions it would be nice to steer the government in in these issues, and I'm sure grateful for his (and EFF's) efforts on that front. I think this "that's not what we meant...but why not..." situation that Mike finds himself in is due to the nature of "initiatives" like NII. We are afloat in connotations, suggestions and perverse pep. The phrases "National Information Infrastructure" and "Data Super- highway" do not conjure an anarchist vision. They do not suggest companies and people working independently in parallel, free from centralized interference. They do not convey the idea that the net is what you make of it, what your exploring and connecting bring together for you, out of a hodgepodge of methods, links, databases and groups of friends. The fact that NII and DH are new terms, and that they are talked about as future goals, does not convey the fact that the data superhighway is here today. I'm understating, of course. These terms connote all the opposite things. Centralization, government funding, premature standar- dization, regulation--and finally a decent data network as a result. I'm not being unfair. These connotations are there because that's exactly what many of the people using these terms mean. They want all the wrong things, and all the wrong ideas attach themselves to national project proposals like this. There's an additional misleading connotation, that there is some watershed mark that we're all talking about, some point--in the future--when we'll finally have "enough" or the "right" communi- cations underpinning*. This is partly just boosterism--Clinton and Gore wanting to be JFK going to the moon--but also there's the hint that once the big guys implement the right way to do things, we consumers shouldn't complain. I mean there's an implication in terms like "infrastructure" of experts knowing what is needed. And of course this discounts the efforts of the people who have brought us to where we are. There's a hint that what we've got is fine for hackers, but it's not, well, *organized* enough to be suitable for the real world. (Partly true but still an insult and a backhanded dismissal of the purposefulness of our anarchy.) (*There is no watershed. You can get a T1 line now. Prices will go down, bandwith up, ubiquity and commonness up, standardization and ease of use up, complication down, I hope--continuously for the forseeable future as they have been doing so far.) Still it's all only connotations and impressions, and anyone in particular may not mean this or that. But given that there are lots of people who really *do* intend the bad ideas, I wish people who come from a whole different point of view would make that really really clear. Starting by not using the same slogans. So, we need some alternatives. Slogans for how the real network is: Hmm, the anarchic data backroad (adb--nope, taken)... Or, "The Network's Fine" (as in, "Come on in...")--TNF. You Are Here---YAH... Or we can invent slogans for what the DH/NII really mean: Or, "Drag The Government Kicking and Screaming Into The Eighties" (or do I mean the seventies, a la ethernet and UUCP?)--DG8. The Federal Technical Catchup (FTC--oops, another one taken)... No, I know--the Federal Communications Catchup... Big Brother with a Human Face... Work with me on this, folks. -fnerd(a)smds.com quote me -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a aKxB8nktcBAeQHabQP/d7yhWgpGZBIoIqII8cY9nG55HYHgvtoxiQCVAgUBLMs3K ui6XaCZmKH68fOWYYySKAzPkXyfYKnOlzsIjp2toust1Q5A3/n54PBKrUDN9tHVz 3Ch466q9EKUuDulTU6OLsilzmRvQJn0EJhzd4pht6hanC0R3seYNhUYhoJViCcCG sRjLQs4iVVM= =9wqs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Personality BS (was: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?)
by doug＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Alan (Gesture Man) Wexelblat" <wex(a)media.mit.edu> said: >Hunh. Doug, I'm sorry to oppose you on this, but I think that the sort of >bullshit pry-into-your-personal-life stuff that companies are resorting [...] >[The questions have to do with all kinds of shit like "Have you ever had a >homosexual experience?" and "Have you ever shoplifted anything?" and "How >do you feel about XXX?". Totally unrelated to my job skills.] We're not in opposition, I very strongly agree. It's just that we're talking about slightly but importantly different things. The thing you're referring to is indeed outrageous. So are the presumption-of-guilt drug tests that I understand that 80% of all Fortune 1000 companies now require. (The latter is particular heinous, since all tests have a non-zero false-positive rate, for one thing.) But what I was referring to was the common interviewing strategy of trying to figure out whether someone will get along with the existing group, not by prying into their personal life or giving them personality tests, but just by the age-old method of discussing everyone's impressions of the candidate. This all by itself is what we were told is unacceptable discrimination (against the personality-challenged, presumably. :-) >It's a total load of crap and should be illegal. I, for one, am glad the >gov't is telling its contractors NOT to do that. Sorry, but I am pretty sure that giving personality tests is quite ok, so long as they are one of those bullshit Supposedly Scientific things based on Meyers Briggs or the Minnesota Multiphasic Aptitude Test or some such, and as long as they are uniformly given to all candidates. So they're outlawing the reasonable and allowing the unreasonable, the worst of both worlds. Doug

1 0

Re: Ever buy encryption software? YOU WILL!
by smb＠research.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I found this on comp.dcom.telecom and have elided some marketing material. My editorial comments are enclosed in brackets. Amazing. _AT&T_, the same folks that were trying to bring us Clipper, are going to sell DES over-the-counter. I'd be happier with triple-DES, but this blows my tiny little mind. Disclaimer: I'm speaking for myself, not AT&T. I've said this before, but it's worth repeating. For the most part, corporations exist to make money. They don't take moral stances. (Aside: I'm not saying that this is good or bad; rather, I'm saying that it just is.) If you offer a company a way to make money, it will probably do it. Unified visions, of the sort you're implying AT&T had on encryption, are generally seen as long-term ways to make money, i.e., if the company picks some standard, it will be easier or cheaper to make or sell some future set of products. In the case of Clipper, there was a clear market: the government wanted to buy Clipperphones. AT&T already sells secure phones (STU-III's) to the government; the question here (and I wasn't privy to any of the discussions) was whether or not it would cost more to develop the phone than the potential profits. But Clipper isn't, and can't be, the be-all for encryption, even apart from the moral questions. See if you can dig up AT&T's response to the proposed key escrow FIPS. I suspect you'd be surprised. I don't think I have it handy, but it points out things like the unsuitability of key escrow for software implementations -- and the products you describe are exactly that. Yes, AT&T as a company thinks that there is a market for privacy devices. (And it's no secret that the defense market is drying up, due to budget cuts.) Clipper can't fill certain market niches. DES -- or triple DES, or IDEA, or RC2, or whatever -- can.

1 0

hearing on Nov. 15 at 10 am in Gilmore v. NSA case
by Lee Tien 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Many of you know of John Gilmore's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against NSA, which was written up in WIRED. In September, Judge Henderson dismissed the case, ruling that there was no claim for an injunction against NSA for its regular, routine failure to respond to FOIA requests within the time limits provided by the law. John has moved for reconsideration of the dismissal on a variety of legal grounds. The hearing on Monday 11/15 10 a.m. is in Courtroom 12, on the 19th floor of the U.S. Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco. Lee Tien

1 0