December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re(2): Canon Copiers
by Harry Shapiro Hawk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------ From: Edward J OConnell, Tue, Mar 15, 1994 ------ @ interestingly, they are often loath to demonstrate this features, @ apparently, according tomy service man. I recently purchased one of these. The cost for the entire setup, was over $100,000. The salesman was VERY happy to show me all the features, including this one. /hawk Harry Shapiro Hawk Manager of Computer Services Warwick Baker & Fiore habs(a)uucp.warwick.com

1 0

Re: NY UNIX Clipper Article
by smb＠research.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > "When I saw that I said 'Wow. That is not right,' and I raised > > hell about that," Gore said in an interview Thursday. > > > I'm glad the VP jumped on this right away. 8-| Amazing, ain't it? Umm -- wasn't that story datelined February 11? My oppinion is that while Bill may or may not be guilty, he'd probably get away with it regardless... who in hell wants to be known as the person responsible for sending a president up the river? Think back 20 years -- it would have happened then, to history's most famous unindicted co-conspirator, had not Ford pardoned him for anything he might or might not (hah!) have done. (Fortunately, Agnew had already resigned.) Still, we did have to get rid of Bush and Quayle... :-I Yup!

1 0

re: re: digital cash
by Mark Hittinger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>Mark Hittinger says: >> Are you guys going to simply represent dollars with your digital cash >> or will you attempt to create your own currency that may simply be >> converted to/from dollars? Perry responds: >I can't for the life of me understand the difference between a >"representation" of dollars and something "convertable" into dollars. Actually there is a very important distinction. It has to do with time. Suppose digital cash is denominated in dollars. Digital cash then represents dollars. Suppose we have a year with 10% inflation. Your digital cash holdings are reduced in real value because of the behavior of the paper currency. Suppose digital cash is not denominated in dollars but instead is made to represent portions of gold stashed in a Swiss wharehouse. Dollars would then be convertible into digital cash at some market determined exchange rate. Again suppose there is a year with 10% inflation. Your digital cash would convert to a different number of paper dollars. The difference between representation of dollars and conversion into dollars is therefore one of time and one of governmental manipulations. These are very important differences for attentive capitalists. --------- I'd like a 250 Mhz 128 bit hybrid processor with 64 meg of 8 way interleaved memory, a 10 megabyte per second i/o channel, two 3 gig hard disks, two dat drives with compression, and a large diet coke. -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.3a mQCNAiz4FWMAAAEEALBCb7HZS7V4gbsp9yJ7Yty49jQ9wcgRhkLjNNgdyJbrJZCq 5/sv4Ljy/4AhVhjlJyZS8L3owS8l0ClZVzWw4/kO3KN7MPz4YPPR7+qIlPQVM0yv gWpJ43EZZ8b8cvAkE9HATCKWktY2ReRSX5DLnScDH/n5jivw+MD/UO8fURCVAAUR tCBNYXJrIEhpdHRpbmdlciA8YnVnc0BuZXRzeXMuY29tPg== =VbKi -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

4 3

my letter to Time's Editor re: Clipper
by Carl_Ellison＠vos.stratus.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: Time Magazine Letters FAX: (212) 522-0601 From: Carl M. Ellison Stratus Computer, Inc. 55 Fairbanks Blvd Marlborough MA 01752 FAX: (508) 624-7488 Re: March 14, 1994; Vol. 143, No. 11; p. 90 "Beware, Uncle Sam Wants to Listen In" Dear Editor: I enjoyed your article and was pleased to see that a poll of American citizens showed 80% opposed to Clipper. That matches my own informal count. However, the introductory paragraph of your article comes close to repeating a very common misconception by claiming that cryptography was secret and was dominated by the National Security Agency. These statements give the impression that cryptography was somehow the property of the government until recently, and that civilian cryptography is a recent development. The only thing which is new in this field is the personal computer -- making cryptography easy to apply without errors. Cryptography itself is as old as writing. David Kahn's history of cryptography, "The Codebreakers" (Macmillan, 1967), shows that cryptography strong enough to frustrate governments of the day has been invented and used by private citizens for the entire 4000 year history of cryptography. Cryptography has not been secret, either. As of 1931 when Herbert Yardley published "The American Black Chamber" (Bobbs-Merrill), there was no legal secrecy applied to even government uses of cryptography. There never has been secrecy applied to civilian cryptography. [A desire to do so was announced back in the late 1970's by the NSA's Bobby Inman about the time public-key cryptography was first published but that desire was soundly denied by Congress in the Computer Security Act of 1987.] The National Security Agency was created in the early 1950s, but strong cryptography in private hands in this country dates back to the country's beginnings. For example, the only provably unbreakable cipher (Vernam's one-time-tape) was put into public hands in about 1920, while a system cooked up between Thomas Jefferson and a civilian friend of his was strong enough that it was reinvented and used by the Navy in WW-II. "The Codebreakers" gives many more examples, through history, of civilian cryptography as strong as or stronger than that used by the military of the time and I recommend that your readers check it out in the local library. Sincerely, Carl Ellison

1 0

Re: anarchy and sobatage! cryptos beware...
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Sobatage"? What's that, the destruction of machinery through the use of Japanese buckwheat noodles? -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

Re: digital cash
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hfinney(a)shell.portal.com writes: > Perhaps a digital cash system like Magic Money could serve as the > basis for digital promissory notes. You send me money, I'll send > you a certain amount of digital cash. That particular denomination > and issue date (determined by the exponent) will be redeemable in > one year for X+delta dollars. You can hold the note and redeem it > in a year, collecting the interest, or you can pass it on or even > sell it. Issuers of scrip ("a certificate of a right to receive payment later in the form of cash or stock") will get the attention of Treasury if it is not convertible (by the issuer) to a fixed number of dollars. An easy way for the government to make scrip less useful is to refuse to enforce the contract. It would be interesting to know if there are also punishments and if they can be extended to digital scrip. The laws regarding money can get pretty strange. For instance, it is illegal for a U.S. citizen to hold options in a foreign currency market. The only plausible reason for this is to prevent U.S. citizens from buying insurance against government irresponsiblity. Option rights in a domestic options market are easily abrogated. Mark Hittinger writes: > The global monetary system is notbased on immutable metals prices. > You cannot guarantee that gold will track the inflation of the dollar, > which itself can only be measured relative to other currencies. Even > during times of widespread inflation, some things don't track Commodities have, historically, been more stable than currencies. Over decades they become cheaper as improved means of discovery or production are found, but currencies generally devalue more quickly and unpredictably. I don't have the numbers right here, but I believe even gold is more stable than the dollar. Gold has to be found and dug out of the ground. Currencies are devalued at the whim of the government. A basket of commodities would probably be more stable than government currencies. Unfortunately, governments don't seem to like it when you try to use things other than official measures of value. It would be nice to know exactly what kinds of laws govern the establishment of a digital "bank" which doesn't lend money and which doesn't pay interest. If the only service provided is to make payments, does banking law apply? For instance, U.S. banks are required by law to turn over transactions on an account if an intelligence service wants to see them. The employee of the bank approached is not allowed to indicate in any way that this has happened and the penalties for violation are severe. Would this law apply to a digital transactions bank? Peter

1 0

Don Listwin, flaming idiot of the month
by Paul Traina 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'd like to nominate Don Listwin for the first 'Flaming Idiot of the Month' award, since he has not fucking clue what he is talking about. Suffice it to say, most all of us are in favor of things like anonymous remailers and devices on the net to protect anonymous activities and keep us free from the clutches of big brother. Unfortunately, I happen to work for a company who's vice president of marketing likes to hear his fucking gums flap and who doesn't have enough of a brain to match his oratory complex. Little does he know that cisco's already been infiltrated by avid cypherpunks, cypherpunk friends, and proto-cypherpunks (before John's first meeting). Sigh... anyone got a deal on some lead pipe suitable of embedding in the empty skull of a certain suit? Paul

3 3

Loompanics: SECRETS OF A SUPER HACKER
by walter kehowski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cypherpunks: I recently received the recent Loompanics catalog and read the review of SECRETS OF A SUPER HACKER in it. I wondered if the book was just hype ("Approaching Zero" comes to mind) so I'm glad to read in Timothy May's "Books, Loompanics, and other weird stuff" that the book might actually be worth reading. I've appended the review. Thanks, tcmay! Walter A. Kehowski <wak(a)next0.math.pitt.edu> ###################################### SECRETS OF A SUPER HACKER by The Knightmare, introduction by Gareth Branwyn, 205 pp., 8 1/2" x 11", ISBN 1-55950-106-5, March, 1994, Loompanics Unlimited, Box 1197, Port Townsend WA, 98368. Price: $19.95 plus $4.00 for shipping (includes a copy of their must-have 280 page catalog of unusual books). Credit card orders to 206-385-2230 (phone) or 206-385-7785 (fax). This is a very good practical book on breaking into computer systems. It's readable, interesting, informative, balanced, and accurate, with a nice spirit of fun and swashbuckling! Here's the contents: Introduction: Hackers: Heroes or Villains? I: The Basics II: The History of Hacking III: Researching the Hack IV: Passwords and Access Control V: Social Engineering VI: Reverse Social Engineering VII: Public Access Computers and Terminals VIII: On-Site Hacking: The Tresspasser-Hacker IX: Hacking at Hope: Dialing Up Computers With Your Modem X: Electronic Bulletin Board Systems XI: Borderline Hacking XII: What To Do When Inside XIII: This Lawful Land XIV: Hacker Security: How To Keep From Getting Caught XV: Conclusion Further Reading Glossary 8 Appendices The Knightmare covers lots of clever technical tricks for gaining access, but he shows most glee with scores of hilarious "Social Engineering" scams for seducing legitimate users into revealing their passwords. The striking thing about these spoofs is, just reading them, you realize through the laughter how often these simple Social Engineering techniques will produce results and how the credulity of non-security- minded naive users is the weak point of any security system. Sometimes while reading, I wished the book provided more specific info about phone numbers, brand names, specific techniques that work on specific bulletin board systems, etc. But I recognize that such information would go quickly out-of-date, or would be fixed in response to the book's publication, or could implicate the author. The Knightmare is presenting concepts that won't go out-of-date soon, giving the interested non-hacker a comprehensive and comprehensible survey of the field, and tipping off the potential hacker with just enough details to get him/her started and steered in the right direction and minimize the chance of getting caught. On this final point... a few times during the early chapters I thought The Knightmare was being cavalier about personal safety, favorably reporting (for example) Social Engineering advertizing scams that would likely bring the cops to one's doorstep. But The Knightmare was saving his warnings for 2 chapters towards the end, 22 sobering pages that make very clear the risks involved and what definitely NOT to do. A very balanced presentation. As usual with Loompanics books, this one can be read backwards, and pages 167-168 are directed specifically to System Administrators interested in beefing up security. I also appreciated all the hacker philosophy and pragmatic do-no-damage hacker ethics. The Knightmare disdains and derides "crackers" who break into a system in order to wreak havok; for him, "hackers" are peaceable, non- destructive puzzle-solvers and liberators of information. In a world where the govco is ever working to extend and centralize its control over financial data, encryption techniques, cyberspace, and every aspect of people's lives, the hacker may emerge as a modern-day Robin Hood.

1 0

Re: CIA@funet.fi ?
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Graham Toal cypherpunk regular said: The trouble with the cypherpunk remailers is there isn't a single one of them I'd trust. The overwhelming credo of the sort of person I've met in this area is that they want extreme absolute privacy for *themselves* but sneak and spy on everything they possibly can about everyone else. (Oops - that sounds bad - I don't specifically mean the people who run cypherpunk remailers; I mean people who're obsessive about secrecy in general and hackers in particular. Secretive hackers being the worst.) <- It's interesting to me how double standardized (is that a phrase in english?) the concept of privacy is in general. One seems to have to do some snooping to make sure one's privacy and security is assured. In doing so one is invading the privacy of others. I have met very few privacy purists. Most tend to feel that privacy is not a general responsibility of the collective to assure. The collective in this sense is either the government, or the people as a whole. Phrased another way, most of the privacy advocates I have met and discussed with seem to feel that what is not protected is fair game. They lay the burden on the individual to secure his/her own privacy and scowl at those who are too lazy to do it. (note that this message isn't signed because I'm too lazy to do it) In addition they seem to snarl at any attempts to collectivze privacy and make it a function of government to enforce privacy on the ground that there exists a conflict of interest. Unfortunately, while there exist SOME tools for the individual today to provide for his or her own privacy, (stong encryption) many of the other tools are provided by smaller collectives. (the remailers for example) Indeed it is a collective of perhaps 2 (the operator of the mailer and the system admin if seperate) but a collective none the less and one which the user must rely on. Are remailers then a departure from the "secure your own privacy" doctrine? It stands to reason that all remailers should provide for double blind double encrypted remailing. (Provided you subscribe to the theory, ) Just as a side note, I tend to think that laying the burden on the individual is the best approach. -uni- (Dark)

1 0

Is this list alive?
by danisch＠ira.uka.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is this mailing list still alive? I do not get any message for about one week. Thanks Hadmut

2 1