December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Proof that tmp@netcom.com is Detweiler ?
by usura＠vox.hacktic.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Who/what is Detweiler ? > > From: Stanton McCandlish <mech(a)eff.org> > Message-ID: <net-community/orgs-list_769514754(a)rtfm.mit.edu> > Date: 21 May 1994 10:06:51 GMT > Expires: 25 Jun 1994 10:05:54 GMT > Reply-To: Stanton McCandlish <mech(a)eff.org> > Approved: news-answers-request(a)mit.edu > Supersedes: <net-community/orgs-list_767656298(a)rtfm.mit.edu> > NNTP-Posting-Host: bloom-picayune.mit.edu > X-Last-Updated: 1994/05/03 > Originator: faqserv(a)bloom-picayune.MIT.EDU > > Archive-name: net-community/orgs-list > Version: 3.13 > Last-modified: 94/04/08 > > > (This document has been brought to you in part by CRAM. See the > bottom for more information, including instructions on how to > obtain updates.) > > === [massive deletia] > === > CRAM: the Cyberspatial Reality Advancement Movement > > In an effort to bring valuable information to the masses, and > as a service to motivated information compilers, I > (L. Detweiler) will help others unfamiliar with Usenet > `publish' their documents for widespread dissemination via the > FAQ structure, and act as a `sponsor' knowledgable in the > submissions process. This document is being distributed under > this arrangement. > > I have found these compilations tend to appear on various > mailing lists and are valuable enough to deserve wider > distribution. If you know of an existing compilation of > Internet information that is not currently a FAQ, please > contact me and I may `sponsor' it. The benefits to the author > include: > > - use of the existing FAQ infrastructure for distribution: > - automated mail server service > - FTP archival > - automated posting > > - a far wider audience that can improve the quality, accuracy, > and coverage of the document enormously through email > feedback > > - potential professional inquiries for the use of your > document in other settings, such as newsletters, books, > etc. > > - with me as your sponsor, I will also take care of the > technicalities in the proper format of the posted version > and updating procedures, leaving you free of the `overhead' > to focus on the basic updates alone > > Send comments relating to the *distribution* of this document > (particularly relevant newsgroups not currently covered in > its current distribution) or inquiries on other documents to > <tmp(a)netcom.com>. > > The choice of who I `sponsor' is entirely arbitrary. You always > have the option of handling the submission process yourself. > See the FAQ submission guidlines FAQ in news.answers. > -- Exit! Stage Left. Alex de Joode <usura(a)vox.hacktic.nl>

1 0

List
by tim werner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Sun, 29 May 1994 15:02:13 -0700 >From: Ryan Bushby <oxhlodo(a)hebron.connected.com> >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Precedence: bulk > >Send List. cornflakes razor blades light bulbs ham national enquirer cheese bread spaghetti sauce soap

1 0

Zimmermann statement on PGP 2.6
by Philip Zimmermann 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The following message may be reposted to all interested newsgroups. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: Philip Zimmermann, author of PGP To: People interested in PGP Date: 28 May 94 On 24 May 1994, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology released PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) version 2.6. PGP is a software package that encrypts electronic mail, using public key cryptography. Over the past three years, PGP has become the worldwide de facto standard for email encryption. PGP 2.6 is being published under the terms of the RSAREF license from RSA Data Security, Inc (RSADSI). This is a significant milestone in PGP's legal development. Export of this software from the US or Canada may be restricted by the US Government. PGP version 2.6 is being released through a posting on a controlled FTP site maintained by MIT. This site has restrictions and limitations which have been used on other FTP sites to comply with export control requirements with respect to other encryption software such as Kerberos and software from RSA Data Security, Inc. These special mechanisms are intended to preclude export of cryptographic software from the US. The MIT FTP site that carries PGP is net-dist.mit.edu, in the pub/PGP directory. This new freeware version of PGP is for noncommercial use. For commercial use, you may get ViaCrypt PGP, available on a variety of platforms. ViaCrypt may be contacted at 602-944-0773, or via email at viacrypt(a)acm.org. PGP 2.6 is as strong as earlier versions. It contains no back doors. It can read messages, signatures, and keys from PGP versions 2.5, 2.4, 2.3a, and 2.3. Beginning in September, a built-in software timer will trigger PGP 2.6 to begin producing messages, signatures, and keys that cannot be read by earlier versions of PGP. It will still retain its ability to read things from earlier versions after that date, so that users who upgrade to 2.6 will not be inconvenienced, particularly if everyone else upgrades by that time. The reason for the change in format is to grant RSADSI's request to MIT to encourage all users to stop using older versions. ViaCrypt's new products will support the new formats used by PGP 2.6. Details of the compatibility issues and their reasons are outlined in the PGP User's Guide, included in the release package. See also the official statements released by MIT for further details. Version 2.6 also has some bug fixes and improvements of the version 2.5 released by MIT on 9 May 1994. Both the 2.5 and 2.6 versions were produced in a joint project between myself and MIT. Both versions were released by MIT after extensive review by MIT's administration and their legal counsel. I am told by MIT that MIT's legal counsel believes that both versions 2.5 and 2.6 do not infringe the RSA patents in any way, and they both comply with the terms of the RSAREF licenses that each were released under. But regardless of the noninfringing nature of version 2.5, I urge all PGP users in the US to upgrade to version 2.6, to help move toward eradication of earlier, pre-RSAREF versions of PGP. This will improve the overall political and legal landscape surrounding PGP. MIT will publish details on the simple format change so that earlier European versions of PGP may be independently upgraded by the Europeans. This note does not attempt to answer all the questions you may have about the implications of this new release of PGP. For further details, see the information released by MIT, or see the PGP User's Guide in the new release package. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLegMXmV5hLjHqWbdAQE0NAQAiTafSwM8eNfYYvkslNR6bun/GIelvziA M/9h5fn3zUQt2Bc6rkuz1TBlnMZUoduufinI9eSr+cdXbfhxNIQmRArhw3EJd1f+ siZaPmTR3YXvUwuXMcruMbUvEYpSBmtBVrxTzxNSIwx3/hJJB2z9sT1/B+UZdFwi EZX1O/mpiZw= =ULD1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: The Assault on Unicorn has Begun
by dmandl＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Some random and unorganized thoughts on this whole issue from the list's token anti-capitalist: Bob Black (the anarchist) has declared that he has a standing "no first use" policy regarding the state. He won't sic the cops on anyone unless they do it first. Noam Chomsky has publicly stated that, on principle, he won't sue anyone for defamation or libel no matter what they do--and he's had plenty of opportunities. I feel the same way (though I don't see completely eye-to-eye with either of those guys). I would have to be harmed in a VERY serious way before I'd consider calling the cops. As for lawsuits, pretty much the same thing goes, and I almost can't imagine suing anyone for something they _say_ about me. This is something I never think about; it seems absolutely basic to my anarchist views. Unicorn: If you choose to be involved with the straight business world, you've got to deal with the heat. MY views could potentially get me in much more hot water than yours could, but I (grudgingly) accept the risk. I'm not dying to have the capitalists I work for see my rants, but if they do, I've got to live with it. They know me and know that I've never screwed them, and they can believe what they want to believe. I'm not thrilled about this, but c'est la vie. You wimped out at the very first sign of heat, and invoked the LAW (i.e, the state) as your first line of defense. I don't think you specified exactly what the settlement with tmp was, but what could it have possibly been? Payment to you? How would that have helped assuage the concerns of your business associates? An apology from tmp to the associates? Big deal. The guy's obviously a nut-ball, and you could have explained that; presumably the associates have some amount of trust in you. If it _was_ a payment, that's just sleazy and greedy, the standard ambulance-chaser cliche ("You've done irreparable damage to me, but maybe if you agreed to pay me $3,000..."). And how could the tiny amount tmp could afford compensate for the "millions" of dollars you've lost? If the settlement was for an apology, again, big deal--do the associates take this anonymous net.lunatic seriously enough that an apology would make everything all better? And you now look silly, because he's reneged on that part of the deal anyway. So in this case, using the lawyer weapon has had much the same effect as the standard statist weapon ("I know: we'll pass a LAW! _That_ will stop them!")--that is, no effect at all. Tim May (who I have certain obvious philosophical differences with) has been completely consistent on this issue, and his word carries that much more weight because he's been subjected to Detweiler's most relentless battering. THIS is the real world. Your anarchist principles have just been put to the test, and you buckled, immediately falling back on a statist solution. "Right-wing" anarchists are always bashing liberals and "P.C." types for being thin-skinned and unable to stand up to harmless name-calling. Well, you've shown yourself to be just as thin-skinned. The only difference I see is that there's MONEY involved. So? Liberals are wimps for trying to sue you for calling them names, but you're justified in suing because the name-calling has cost you money? And all because you're dealing with straights who can't handle reality? And meanwhile, YOU'RE the one who messed up and blew your own cover? Hmmm... It's very late, and I'm groggy, so I apologize in advance if any of the above seems unnecessarily blunt. It's not intended that way. --Dave. -- Dave Mandl Planetary Work Machine, Brooklyn Branch dmandl(a)panix.com

1 0

Re: Why it is legal to export PGP under ITAR
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>The US ITAR law exempts many things from export restrictions, among them, >materials availiable in public libraries. It gives no special definition for a >library. My American Heritage Dictionary defines "library" as, among other >things, "An orginized collection of recorded data arranged for ease of use." >IOW, an ftp site. Which means that if a program is available from a public ftp >site, you're legally allowed to export it. :) Congratulations on outsmarting the United States Government. No doubt they'll shrug their shoulders and pout while you go right ahead and export all the stuff you want. Perry, what was the name of the fellow who proved that the IRS couldn't collect taxes from him? How many bullets did they put in him? -- Lefty [gYon-Pa] (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

WNSTORM on ftp.wimsey.bc.ca
by rarachel＠prism.poly.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've just ftp'ed this to ftp.wimsey.bc.ca... it's in the /uploads/WNS210 directory.

1 0

Re: (None)
by kentborg＠world.std.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jeff Gostin <jgostin(a)eternal.pha.pa.us> writes: >kentborg(a)world.std.com (Kent Borg) writes: > >> Related note: when was the last time you successfully explained how to >> use PGP to a "normal" ( <- be honest here) person? > Interestingly enough, just yesterday. I assure you, the person who >needed the explanation was hardly what one could consider 'techno-savvy'. I suppose your student only knew basic command line navigating, maybe how to create a directory, fire up emacs, etc.? Um, that is a pretty far from the mark I had in mind. Imagine the 'techno-savvy' score of the next person on this earth to pick up a phone, a person who doesn't know how to dial an international call. I want everybody on this earth to have secure crypto (so I can talk to them), and if the current PGP is as easy as it gets... -kb, a Kent who can't be trusted, for he likes Macintoshes! -- Kent Borg +1 (617) 776-6899 kentborg(a)world.std.com kentborg(a)aol.com Proud to claim 28:15 hours of TV viewing so far in 1994!

1 0

"lifeguard(?)": bullet tracking system???
by rarachel＠prism.poly.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey guys, I heard a blurb on the radio a few days abo about something called "lifeguard" which can track the source of gunfire. My guess is that they use acoustics for this. I don't know how they can claim that it wouldn't be confused by non-gun noises, nor what silencers would do to this thing. They also mentioned that some models can be fitted with guns so as to auto matically return fire... Is this bullshit? Anyone else hear about this? I wish they'd given out more info on this thing... I heard this on WCBS (AM) in NYC... This can have some serious big brother is watching effects in bad neighborhoods. Such a beast could be fitted with a machine gun to simply fire wherever it hears a bullet come from, potentially killing anyone else who happens to be near the source of the fired gun, more likely a hostage with a gun to his head than the holder of the gun... :-( Ugh, if this is what the crime bill means, I'm all for legalizing drugs just to get the cops and criminals out of business... Shit if every pharamacy sold cheap drugs, or every liqour store, there'd be a gigantic drop ib drug related murders. Sure, the ammounts of stick ups and burglaries that liquor stores would suffer would rise, but, if the FBI, CIA, ??? are already involved in drug runnimg, they may as well make it legal and stop hiding their activities. (Of course if they did their economic strangleholds would drop)

5 5

digital clearinghouse idea
by brookfld＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am a crypto-novice, so perhaps you can develop these ideas better. But, here goes. Right now, if you want an anonymous transaction done and a small amount of money is involved, you can go down to a bank or Seven Eleven and purchase a money order for cash. You mail the money order, and it is very hard for anyone to find out who you are. The money order has introduced anonymity between you and the payee. My concept is similar, but it would seem that any such concept must work with your existing checking accounts, to be useful today. So, to establish an ecash digital clearinghouse, how about the following: 1. Set up an Ecash Clearinghouse (ECH) in bank secrecy haven, such as Bahamas, Liechtenstein, etc. 2. Subscribers to ECH pay $2/month plus small transaction charge (say $.15/transaction) 3. Each subscriber authorizes his bank to accept electronic checks from ECH as debits to his account. Electronic checks are currently handled by the U.S. banking system as Automatic Clearinghouse transactions, and are used by organizations such as Checkfree(tm) and by insurance companies to automatically take money out of your account each month for premiums, etc. 3. Ecash is emailed to ECH. 4. ECH issues an electronic debit to payor's account. This debit clears, so now the money is in the account of the ECH. 5. ECH issues an electronic payment to the payee's account. This electronic payment is from the ECH, with the ecash number as the "backup" for the transaction. 6. Now everyone has gotten paid. Weaknesses perhaps you can address: the ECH "knows" who is the payor and payee for each transaction. Similar to anon.penet.fi, in that there _is_ a list somewhere which could be seized and use to reconstruct the transactions, e. g. for "law enforcement" purposes. Perhaps ECH subscribers could open an ECH account as a "numbered" account, but even so, since the ECH would have each subscribers' regular checking account number, this wouldn't be much protection. Without the ECH knowing your checking account number, ecash isn't convenient. Any ideas? BROOKFIELD ECONOMICS INSTITUTE (U.S.A.) Limited ----------------------------------------------------------- Do you want to subscribe to our newsletter? Send email to brookfld(a)netcom.com, with the words SUBSCRIBE BBA your_first_name your_last_name as the subject of the message. Do you have a business question? Send it to brookfld(a)netcom.com. Questions which Brookfield determines are of common interest will be answered in the newsletter. Submissions become property of Brookfield Econcomics Institute. Copyright (c) 1994 Brookfield Economics Institute (U.S.A.) Limited. Rights are granted for use or duplication of this information by subscribers and individuals, but all commercial rights and rights of resale are reserved. Other use or duplication is prohibited. Brookfield is not engaged in rendering professional advice. In business and legal matters the advice of an attorney or other competent professional should be sought.

3 2

Re: "lifeguard(?)": bullet tracking system???
by cfrye＠mason1.gmu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just saw something about this on CNN -- they actually showed the Lawrence Liverm Livermore computers doing the tracking. The FBI spokesdroid said that in a military situation, return fire would be automatic, though one would need to be a bit more careful in a law enforcement situation. Then again, if they want to put the National Guard in the Anacostia district of DC, maybe that area or the U-Street corridor in DC will qualify??? Curt

1 0