December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Remailer Musings
by jamiel＠sybase.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:26 PM 04/19/94 -0600, juola(a)bruno.cs.colorado.edu wrote: >X-Authentication-Warning: bruno.cs.colorado.edu: Host localhost didn't use >HELO protocol Just thought I'd let you know about this heading, in case you are debugging anything... >Subject: Re: Remailer Musings >Date: Tue, 19 Apr 94 16:26:24 MDT >From: juola(a)bruno.cs.colorado.edu >On the other hand, part of the rules of being a common carrier are that >one is *required* to cooperate with appropriate authorities to prevent >this sort of abuse and to catch said abusers if/when it happens. I >suspect that Mr. Templeton's lawyer could make a case that by setting >up a remailer where one cannot "trace calls," one is violating the >requirements of being a common carrier, and thus is responsible for >content. > > - kitten I wonder how this would jive with the factoid someone on this list (don't have the original handy) found a while back about the court ruling in favor of the right to operate under an alias in (constitutionally?) protected, at least in terms of publishing, etc.? I remember the case happening in L.A., I think. Anyway, what are the odds a case could be made that my 'anonymous identity' "fooperson" is a legal pseudonym? Stretching it some, but a possibility, and one case where similarities with publishing can work in favor of privacy. 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

Re: Press Release on Secure NCSA Mosiac
by Phil G. Fraering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Another question entirely: Might it be better just to use some sort of stream cypher that works by XOR'ing the stream against a large one-time pad where the used parts are deleted as it goes along? I'm thinking currently of telnet-level applications or larger-level ones based on telnet like HTTP (I know, technically there are better descriptions of HTTP and the like). It would be easy to pre-distribute the one-time pads via PGP or RSA. This has the advantage of not locking the whole infrastructure into a single public key system. Phil

1 0

Re: Money Laundering thru Roulette
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There was a more interesting case in, I believe, Australia. Someone who wanted to bribe a politician instead libeled him. The politician sued, and they ``settled'' out of court. Interesting also that in some states judgements are non-taxible. :)

1 0

Re: Black Net
by Phil G. Fraering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I was assuming it was a wet dream of a few 15 year olds. (ROTFL). He. Hehe. Hehehehahahahahahaha... pgf

1 0

ID list
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

WOw. I have recieved 4 replies in 2 hours. I propose the following for the list of ID types: Please incude the date and month of the card issuance, so it can be included in the list. Many people have states that let licenses go for 5 years so outdated information is a problem. The greatest concerns are the digitized photo, the magnetic strip and the bar code. Please include a yes/no for each of these at least. The type of card (laminated... not laminated... etc) is also helpful. I'm amazed at the response. The identity of contributers will not be put on the list, and anonymous submissions are encouraged. -uni- (Dark)

1 0

Re: Remailer Musings
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>On the other hand, part of the rules of being a common carrier are that >>one is *required* to cooperate with appropriate authorities to prevent >>this sort of abuse and to catch said abusers if/when it happens. I >>suspect that Mr. Templeton's lawyer could make a case that by setting >>up a remailer where one cannot "trace calls," one is violating the >>requirements of being a common carrier, and thus is responsible for >>content. > >I wonder how this would jive with the factoid someone on this list (don't >have the original handy) found a while back about the court ruling in favor >of the right to operate under an alias in (constitutionally?) protected, at >least in terms of publishing, etc.? I remember the case happening in L.A., >I think. Anyway, what are the odds a case could be made that my 'anonymous >identity' "fooperson" is a legal pseudonym? Stretching it some, but a >possibility, and one case where similarities with publishing can work in >favor of privacy. I believe it was stated (correctly, according to my understanding) that one may use any pseudonym, as long as the intention in using it is not to commit a crime. Copyright infringement _is_, like it or not, a crime. There is not, to the best of my knowledge, any such thing as "a legal pseudonym". -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

Re: Black Net
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>At 6:02 PM 04/19/94 -0400, killbarny(a)aol.com wrote: >>Has anyone heard of BlackNet? BlackNet is in the business of buying, selling, >>trading, and otherwise dealing with information in all its many forms. > > >The most recent Phrack (45) had an ad from them. If this is not what you >saw (and you think the info you saw is not related to the phrack bit), let >me know- I was assuming it was a wet dream of a few 15 year olds. Do _not_ mess with those BlackNet folks. You'll wind up face-down in a landfill, and spend eternity playing pinochle with Jimmy Hoffa. Trust Me On This. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

3 2

Re: 15 out of 16 times (math, not laundry)
by collins＠newton.apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Pretend the casino is run out of a church. "Parishioners" arrive and >enter a confessional to place their bets. The "priest" cannot see who >is placing each bet. Each "parishioner" plays until he or she is >broke. "Parishioners" arrive at a steady rate and will do so >indefinitely. Let me just make sure I understand what you mean. I believe you are saying: Conjecture A: A.1 As parishoners play and leave, the division of wealth approaches the `odds' of the game. Thus if the odds are .51 house (of God), .49 parishoner, then eventually the house will end up with 51 cents out of every dollar `played'. Just as it would if the church were playing against one very wealthy parishoner (i.e., the `world'). A.2 Since there are a large number of parishoners, enough games can always be played to make the distribution match the odds. If this is _not_ what you mean to say then I apologize for missing your point; read no further---just send me explanations to clear up my mis-understanding. If Conjecture A is accurate statement of your belief, then please step across this line. ---------- Let me walk through your model, one parishoner at a time. Please read this with an open mind; it could be true. >Each "parishioner" plays until he or she is broke. Lets say the odds of the game are .51 to .49. Each parishoner has $100. Each parishoner plays until broke. At some point in play, the distribution of wealth with respect to _that player_ may be arbitrarily close to c=$51, p=$49. What, though, is the distribution at the _end_ of that game? Since each game only ends when the p=$0, the distribution is c=$100, p=$0. On to the next parishoner. After the 9th, but before the 10th parishoner, the distribution must be c=$900, p[10]=$100. It can't be worse than that for the church, or we wouldn't have moved on to the 10th parishoner. It can't be better for the player because each has only $100 to wager. After the n'th, c=$100n, p[n+1]=$100. Conjecture A predicts that as n, the number of players, goes to infinity, c, the fraction of money won by the church, approaches C, the probability the church will win a single trial. But in fact, the model shows that as n approaches infinity, c goes to 1. Where could one disagree with this interpretation of the model? a. Maybe the church has 10 confessionals, or 1000, or 10,000. Serializing the players might be a `paper' advantage to the church that doesn't occur in reality. b. Players can have any amount of money, not just $100 dollars. c. What if the church goes broke? (a) Imagine that the church has at most k confessionals, and thus can play no more than k simultaneous games. Fill all k. All other players are waiting in line for an open spot. The next parishoner can't play until an existing player goes broke. The distribution of wealth during play by the (k-1+10)th player is exactly as before, except now it is +/-$100(k-1). (b) has no impact. As above, at the end of each game the fraction of money won by the church with respect to that player is 1 (assuming it's the player and not the church that `went out'). (c) If the church goes broke, all bets are off, literally but not figuratively. The distribution of wealth is c=0, P=1 (P for all players as opposed to p for a single player). This also does not match the expectation of .51. >The chance of the "church" to win or lose is the same on every >bet, regardless of who places it. That is true. But the only way the player can realize his mathematical expectations is if he is allowed to continue playing even after he is out of money (i.e., so he can climb back out of the hole). Ok, the first player goes out, but the infinity of players after him can make up for that, right? Wrong, because on his way to winning back the first players money, if the second player goes broke, _his_ game is over. Now its up the third guy, ad infinitum (literally)..... just because the series is infinite doesn't mean the sum is. No set of players, all of whom go broke, break the church. Therefore, for the series to end it must be instigated by a set of players that includes at least one who doesn't go broke (i.e., the church goes broke instead). In fact, a single player who doesn't go broke ends the series without any help from other players. Thus, to stem the tide of pious donations (i.e., the church's winnings), a single player with enough money to `outlast' the church is required. Hope you found this interesting but not insulting, 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

2 1

Hello
by Neal M. Goldsmith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My friend has been forwarding some of your material to me. I'd like to learn more about what you do. Is there some overview piece describing your varied interests. Are you a you or a group? Thanks, Neal

1 0

Re: ID list
by Graham Toal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

: Please incude the date and month of the card issuance, so it can be : included in the list. Many people have states that let licenses : go for 5 years so outdated information is a problem. : The greatest concerns are the digitized photo, the magnetic strip : and the bar code. Please include a yes/no for each of these at least. : The type of card (laminated... not laminated... etc) is also helpful. I missed the original request. Are you asking about driving licenses? My current one was issued in 1979 and expires in 2029. American bartenders find it rather confusing :-) Green paper, no photo at all, digitized or otherwise. G

1 0