December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

ID list status note.
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Currently I have information on the high tech methods for the following states: California Ct Florida Hawaii Illinois Maryland Mass Michigan NH New Jersey New york Oregon Penn Texas Virginia Alberta (Canada) British Columbia Military ID GB European Union Model In many cases, the information is insufficent, so I encourge anyone who hasn't to submit the information even if your state/prov./country appears on the list. The most important facts seem to be 1> State 2> Month and year of issuance 3> Is there a bar code? 4> Is there a Digitized photo or merely a polaroid? 5> Is there a magnetic strip? 6> Is there a hologram or such? 7> Was the license mailed or given on the spot? Anything else important you feel you should add. When I have around 30, I'll post the list. -uni- (Dark)

2 2

Re: Milgram & Authority (+Ethics)
by Jeff Davis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: sonny(a)netcom.com (James Hicks) > > > > I think that John Barlow and Mitch Kapor co-founded the Electronic > > Frontier Foundation. Yep. -- PGP PUBLIC KEY via finger! JAFEFFM Speaking & Thinking For Myself! * eagle(a)deeptht.armory.com email info(a)eff.org * *** O U T L A W S On The E L E C T R O N I C F R O N T I E R **** ***** Committed to Free Public Internet Access for World Peace *****

1 0

Re: You Will
by jamiel＠sybase.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

People seem to be enjoying the AT&T parodies, so here are more that floated back when the originals made the rounds where I work. >Date: Thu, 21 Apr 94 14:02:53 PDT >Subject: Re: You Will ----- Begin Included Message ----- > >I forwarded the You Will stuff around a bit. Got this sent back. > > >----- Begin Included Message ----- > >Subject: Re: You Will >Date: Thu, 21 Apr 94 3:33:27 PDT >X-Lines: 15 > > >Have you ever... > >gotten a bill for an increase in your health insurance rates along with a >form letter saying, "we've noticed an increase in your consumption of >meats, dairy products, and sugars as reflected in the online records of >your supermarket purchasing patterns..." ....? YOU WILL! > >Have you ever... > >had your car impounded as you try to pass through a tollbooth, and the cop >says, "our scanners correlated your license plate number with the database >of unpaid parking tickets..." ...? YOU WILL! > > > > >----- End Included Message ----- > > ----- End Included Message ----- jamie -- "Sure, people mistake me for straight, but when I do get someone in bed,that's when being a femme *really* pays off." -Bryna Bank, on Butch/Femme jamie lawrence jamiel(a)sybase.com

1 0

Gambler's Ruin, 15 out of 16, and a Probability Parable
by collins＠newton.apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Howdy Peter, OK, though it's been enjoyable, I won't try any further to convince you. I peppered this message with smileys to let you know that I think mathematical debates are about differing observations, not differing values. In such conversations, its easy to lose sight of that and take something the wrong way. Please don't; it has been fun and just because neither of us has convinced the other (yet) doesn't mean I think the less of you (or, hopefully, the reverse... I know to you, I must seem pretty `thick'). I, myself, would like a little more explanation of _your_ point of view (see my question below beginning with "Why?"). I will recapitulate the high points of my problems with your previous arguments so that you can clear them up for me in private e-mail. I also quote some equations that summarize the point I was trying to make, so that you can examine them and offer up alternatives that represent your point. I am cc'ing cypherpunks on this final message so that they can see these equations. Here we go :-) I wrote a conjecture: SC>A.1 As parishoners play and leave, the division of wealth approaches the SC> `odds' of the game. Which you agreed with: PH>I agree with both conjectures. I then repeated the conjecture in my argument: SC> [A.1] predicts that as ... the number of players goes to infinity, SC> ... the fraction of money won by the church approaches ... the probability SC> the church will win a single trial. Which you do _not_ accept as the statement you agreed with: PH>There is a slight difference between [A.1] and PH>this statement. [A.1] predicts that as ... the number of bets PH>goes to infinity the fraction of bets won will approach ... the PH>probability that the church will win a single trial. On the probability of the player's ultimate ruin you say: PH>Each parishioner has a high probability of losing their savings and a PH>low probability of winning everything owned by the church. It is PH>possible for any single parishioner to win everything, but it is PH>unlikely. Why? Why is the probability not almost `even', like the odds of the game, .51 vs .49? What other information influences this _new_ probability, the probability of the player going broke, if it is not---as I say---the difference in cash resources between the player and the house? I didn't ask you this question in my earlier messages---I thought I was supplying the answer---but you did provide an alternate explanation: PH>This player wins because he or she was fortunate enough to place the PH>first bet in the series [of sufficient consective bets lost by the house]. PH>The player needs to be lucky. To paraphrase my "Why?" question above: can you qualify `lucky'? How `lucky' does the player have to be? I submit to you that given individual trials where the players probability of winning a single unit in a single trial is p, the total amount of money at stake in the series of trials is C, the amount currently held by the player is d, the house C-d=D, that the ultimate chance for the players ruin is given by the equation (from [Weaver] cited in an earlier message): 1-p where r = --- p r^C - r^d R_d (prob. of ruin given d capital) = --------- r^C - 1 Though in the limit (a fair game) you would derive a friendlier form as: d R_d = 1 - - C ...and, of course, at the other extremes, where p=1, or p=0, the player never or always goes broke respectively. These equations are consistent the proposition that the probability of ruin depends on both the odds of the game _and_ the initial distribution of capital. Note their behavior as C increases with respect to d. Soon, this difference dominates even in the face of good `odds'. I invite you to experimentally verify, at your leisure, the `fair game' version with two players and different amounts of pennies where each bet is a single penny and decided by a coin toss. Finally, you offer me this comfort :-) PH>This can be very confusing. I've seen two professional mathematicians PH>and a futures textbook make this mistake. Thank you ;-) If I, two professional mathematicians, a textbook, a book I cited to you, and several other cypherpunks all erred similarly, then it must be a treacherously easy mistake to make; I don't feel any shame. But, I would also relate this little probability parable (again, from [Weaver])---of course drawing no comparisons: In the card room of the Quadrangle Club at the University of Chicago, years ago, a hand con- sisting of thirteen spades was dealt. The celebrated mathematician Leonard Eugene Dickson was one of the players. (Those who know his interest in bridge realize that the probability of his being one of the players was not far below unity.) At the request of his companions, he calculated the probability of this deal (It is roughly 10^-13.) A young know-it-all gaily reported at lunch the next day that he had calculated the probability of dealing thirteen spades, and had found that Dickson had made a mistake. Another famous mathematician, Gilbert Bliss, was present; he properly dressed down the youngster by saying, "Knowing that Dickson calculated a probability and got one result, and you had tried to calculate the same probability but got another result, I would conclude that the probability is practically unity that Dickson was right and you are wrong." Be happy and keep wondering---that's what makes us great, Scott Collins | "That's not fair!" -- Sarah | "You say that so often. I wonder what your basis 408.862.0540 | for comparison is." -- Goblin King ................|.................................................... BUSINESS. fax:974.6094 R254(IL5-2N) collins(a)newton.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. 5 Infinite Loop, MS 305-2D Cupertino, CA 95014 ..................................................................... PERSONAL. 408.257.1746 1024:669687 catalyst(a)netcom.com

1 0

Patent searches
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hfinney(a)shell.portal.com: > A little while ago someone posted about a new company that would do patent > searches via email requests. For another week they are doing free searches > as an introductory offer. I did a search on blind-signature based cash > systems, and these are the patents it found. This might be useful for those > considering implementing electronic cash. Full text of patents are available > for $4.95. The kind of search I did for free will cost $149 after another > week. People are allowed 3 searches per day for free until then. I seem to remember that the USPTO provides full texts of patents for $3... Anyway, those who plan to perform many such services at $149 might consider purchasing the 10-CDROM database for $5,000 (?) Also, you can WWW to wais://town.hall.org:210/patent for full WAIS searches in real time for keywords. I'm not sure whether Town Hall has old patents (possibly only for the current year); but is does have many relating to electronic cash, cryptography, signatures and so on. (Note: most of these are software patents, not applicable outside the USA. An average of 80 software patents a week were issued in the first quarter of 1994.) The home page (http://town.hall.org) connects to many other services, including the SEC EDGAR documents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh "What is civilisation rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in but a ribonucleic Voicemail +91 11 3760335; Vox/Fax/Data 6853410 hangover?" H-34C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Green Card Post
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: svb3(a)namaste.cc.columbia.edu (Sarah Victoria Birnbaum) Newsgroups: alt.tv.seinfeld,alt.tv.melrose-place,alt.tv.bh90210 Subject: Mr. Green Card Gets Nailed!! Date: Wed Apr 20 00:31:13 EDT 1994 Organization: Columbia University Lines: 8 Thought you might all like to know that that fool who posted the Green Card Lottery thing to every known newsgroup has been busted for disobeying netiquette. His server in, I think, Texas, has cancelled his account! Check out the New York Times Business section of today, 4/19/94, for a terrific article. It's great to see he got his just deserts. Unfortunately, he seems perfectly happy and says as soon as he gets a new account, he'll start advertising again! What can we do? <- I got a kick out of this, especially considering the distribution.

1 0

WWW page on crypto export issues
by Stanton McCandlish 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

EFF Board member and Cygnus Support co-founder John Gilmore has set up a World Wide Web page on cryptography export issues, including information on how to apply for export clearance, exchages with Commerce Dept. on export licensing, legal documents on networking issues in relation to export of technology and crypto, and more. The URL is: http://www.cygnus.com/~gnu/export.html -- Stanton McCandlish * mech(a)eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist "In a Time/CNN poll of 1,000 Americans conducted last week by Yankelovich Partners, two-thirds said it was more important to protect the privacy of phone calls than to preserve the ability of police to conduct wiretaps. When informed about the Clipper Chip, 80% said they opposed it." - Philip Elmer-Dewitt, "Who Should Keep the Keys", TIME, Mar. 14 1994

1 0

Re: FYI (fwd)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

That message was originally posted as an April Fools Joke. How it ended up getting posted on Gay-Net by someone without a clue is beyond me...

1 0

Re: cryptophone ideas
by pcw＠access.digex.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>They are capable of doing 2 data moves, a 16x16 multiply, a 40 bit >>accumulate and a prefech of the next instruction all in 100ns. > >This is where a DSP really shines, since it's the fundamental >operation in digital filtering; indeed it wouldn't be a DSP if it >couldn't do a multiply/accumulate in a single clock cycle. > >But I wouldn't be too surprised if general purpose CPUs eventually get >the same capability. And once they are, the distinction between a >"DSP" and a "general purpose" CPU will pretty much vanish. DSPs are >notoriously harder to program than general purpose CPUs, and being >lower volume items they won't be able to compete in price or clock >speed with general purpose CPUs made in the millions. > >Phil How hard is it to reprogram the DSP that comes with a cellular phone right now? I've never opened one up. Can you just unsolder a rom, read it, insert your own code for DH key exchange, add some encryption, burn a new ROM and have a secure phone?

3 3

Sorry, unicorn...
by Phil G. Fraering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey, unicorn, I was *joking*. I use that signoff sometimes while joking. I dislike smileys. I recall reading that Ames used rather conventional mail drops to deliver his stuff. He was compromised and working for the Soviets way before internet access was nearly as available as today. Get a clue yourself. pgf

1 0