December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: The un-BBS
by sdw＠meaddata.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Mike Ingle writes: > > > There are occasional waves of actions against BBSes. The most recent ones > > are for porn. Before that it was pirate software and phone codes. The next > ... > > > What we need is a totally decentralized BBS. It would be something like > > running Usenet over UUCP. There would be newsgroups or SIGs or whatever > > you want to call them. Anyone could leave their computer and modem on, > > and anyone else could call them and get an update. There would be no BBS > > to call and log into. You'd just call your friend's computer and update > > your newsgroups, and someone would call yours and update his. The network > > would grow outward, with no organization or structure. Anyone could create > > a new newsgroup, and if his friends chose to take it, it would spread. > ... I'm pretty perplexed: What's wrong with the current Netnews (Usenet...), Email, etc. setup? It's very flexible and you can get access for very reasonable amounts of money (even for a server). The software's free, the net is huge, etc... I dislike BBS's alot compared to standard Internet services. It's only expensive if you want online, realtime access, gigabytes/mo. of traffic, etc. > This is FIDONet (or FidoNet). In most essential features, this is what > FidoNet has been doing for the past half dozen years. Distributed, > decentralized, dial-up lines, banyan-type architecture (sort of), etc. > > Tom Jennings, one of the main architects of FidoNet, was once on our > list, as were a couple of others, but they don't seem to be any > longer. > > There are some interesting issues here, which I'll just list: > > * since the FidoNet is not subsidized by others the way the Internet > is, operators of FidoNet nodes (I don't know the exact term) often end > up subsidizing the costs themselves. Most systems/people on the Internet are not subsidized. This is well known. The critical mass of users has obviated the need for it. I've been grappling with what features I'd like in the perfect communications / BBS / Internet / online system. Does anyone have strong opinions about which features are important? For instance: I find that my Unix Internet mail/news tools are an order of magnitude more efficient than any BBS message base reader I've ever encountered. sdw -- Stephen D. Williams Local Internet Gateway Co.; SDW Systems 513 496-5223APager LIG dev./sales Internet: sdw(a)lig.net OO R&D Source Dist. By Horse: 2464 Rosina Dr., Miamisburg, OH 45342-6430 Comm. Consulting ICBM: 39 34N 85 15W I love it when a plan comes together Newbie Notice: (Surfer's know the score...) I speak for LIGCo., CCI, myself, and no one else, regardless of where it is convenient to post from or thru.

3 5

Re: Today's Dumb Question
by Matt Thomlinson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David Merriman <merriman(a)metronet.com> writes: What Happens If, instead of using prime numbers or logarithms for the basis for a public-key crypto system, we instead generated out public key thus: 1> pick an arbitrary bit stream (large [pseudo?]random number, binary representation of selected chunk of text or data file, etc). 1024 bits or more (in 256 bit chunks?) 2> enter a passphrase 3> XOR the bit stream with the binary representation of the passphrase, cycling the passphrase as necessary. This makes the 'large' component of our public key. 4> hash the passphrase to 128 or more (in blocks of 64?) bits. This makes the 'small' component of the public key. 5> We then use these components as in normal public-key algorithms. ---------- (matt says:) Okay, you're forgetting one thing. In public key systems, the two numbers you have are related -- the algorithm you use needs a pair of numbers that create a function and inverse function pair. The pair you suggest above [((random #) xor (passphrase)), hash(passphrase)] have nothing in common. Good, as you point out, since you can't create one from the other, but also bad for a public key system, since you can't use one to decrypt what the other encrypted (they're not inverses)! mt Matt Thomlinson University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. phone: (206) 548-9804 Check my home page -- ftp://ftp.u.washington.edu/public/phantom/home.html PGP 2.2 key available via email, or finger phantom(a)hardy.u.washington.edu

1 0

Warrentlesss SEarches (fwd)
by Llywelyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry about resubmitting it y'all but I discovered the line feeds were wierd so I just re-formatted it. Ben. > Think about it. The cops are out-gunned and out-manned. What would you > do? And don't tell me that you would just go in there. I consider myself pretty > brave, but I don't think even for a second that I would be able to even > consider going in there, not without a nice, warm, cozy M1 Abrams Tank > surrounding me. And even then I wouldn't be truly safe. > These cops are doing the best that they can, and everyone in the U.S. > are worrying more about the "rights" of these gang-bangers and drug-dealers > than they are about the rights of the innocent people that are trapped in these > buildings. > And don't even start to tell me that the "innocents" can just leave, > cos these CHA buildings are the only place they can afford to live. > You folks are to busy yelling about the illegal searches to even think > of coming up with an alternative. > > Maybe if you spent a little time thinking about what it's like to live > in a place like this, you might shut up about the cops not doing their jobs. Ok, Let me respond 1)I live in this kind of neighborhood at home when I'm not at school. That's right, I live in West Oakland, California. I was born and raised in the inner city. Don't tell me how these places are, don't tell me how they're run, don't tell me how dangerous they are. I've lived it. Have you? All you know is what you see on the news, on the television shows, and what is portrayed in mass media. 2)I know the value of a gun in this environment. I know how many times our home has been kept safe because my father has been willing to wield a gun against either intruders or against 'undersireable' characters coming around(read drug dealers, crack heads, you name it). Our part of the block has a reputation for not being somewhere for these pepole to hang out because my father and our neighbors have taken a stand against such scum. 3)Not everyone who lives in these neighborhoods is bad simply as a result of their economic conditions. We don't want these people around any more than you people do in your neighborhoods. It just happens, and I know this for a fact, that it takes Oakland Police(OPD) a lot longer to respond when we call them, than when people in Skyline(a rich white neighborhood) call them. 4)My family has not broken any law simply by trying to protect ourselves. There is no way in hell that the police can be everywhere at once, even if they are as efficient as you in the 'burbs seem to think they are, keeping out and harassing all the minorties that come your way. Until they get there, the only way we can protect ourselves is with our guns. We havne't broken any laws, we're not the ones who have severed our contract with society by choosing to live outside of it, its not us, its the people who prey upon us in our homes and in our schools, and it is not us who should lose our rights, but them. By simply lumping us in with them by sheer virtue of where we live and how much we earn is not only sheer folly but is also classist. 5)Yes we worry about the rights of the accused. I do. I've been arrested and harassed when the only crime that I committed was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and not having the right skin color. Yes, I worry about those rights, because for me, it might be that one day, that it is I who is on trial, it is I whose rights are being questioned, and it is I who wants my day in court, and unless we protect the rights of the accused, even if they don't look like us, it reaps a beneficial result to society as a whole. Thomas More in the movie _Man for All Seasons_ makes an excellent point when he asks young Will, if he would cut down all the laws in England to catch the devil. When Will responds in the affirmative, More asks him, "And what would you do when the winds rage about you?" You see, if you don't protect the rights of the accused today, there might come a day when you're in their shoes and you'll wish that you still had those rights--remember the 5th amendment? The 4th's prohibitions against unreasonable seach and siezures? What about the 14th's due process clause? It is the rule of law, not of decree that makes this nation great, and there's no way in hell, I'm going to sit idly by and watch this nation become an autocracy simply because some people in suburbia decided that it would be easier to do away with the rights of the accused in their racist, xenophobic fears. Any comments? Ben.

1 0

licence plates seen
by tim werner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 11:16:38 -0700 >From: mdbomber(a)w6yx.stanford.edu (Matt Bartley) > >I don't have an ASCII chart available. What does this one mean? If you were running Unix, you could have said 'man ascii'.

1 0

RE: Warrantless searches -- Sorry to start this again....
by tim werner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 15:16:22 -0400 (EDT) >From: GERSTEIN(a)SCSUD.CTSTATEU.EDU > You see, Jim, the drug deals go on inside the apartment buildings. How >easy is it to do surveilance (sp?) on an apartment that is run by gangs, >surrounded by their other apartments, on floors that are run by the gangs? > > In many ways, the situation has gotten better since the searches >started. I AM NOT SAYING I AM FOR THE SEARCHES, I am merely saying that they >are being productive. I challenge you C'punks to come up with a better >solution. Given the circumstances that those involved are dealing with, it's >pretty good for now. Well, for one thing, if the drugs they are dealing were not illegal, there would be no high-anxiety drug deals going on in the apartments. tw

1 0

Re: Warrentlesss SEarches
by GERSTEIN＠SCSUD.CTSTATEU.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My comments are in the brackets -< >-. Before I start commenting, however, I would like to take this opportunity to once again say I DON'T AGREE WITH THESE SEARCHES!!!!! Many of you have taken that to be my tone, and that's not right. I was just expressing the opinion that I think that since all the other choices they have are blocked, and the residents don't seem to mind, then it's the right solution FOR NOW. I'm not trying to say that this should become policy, I'm just saying it's the only way that things could be done (at least from what I know of the situation). I don't profess to be an expert on this whole mess, I was just expressing my opinions. They are mine. Not yours. If you don't like them, either acknowledge that you don't agree with mine politely and civilly or just shut up. I have _NO_ time or tolerance for people who think that they are right just because they have such-and-such opinion about something. If you can't take the time to see both sides of the story, don't take the time to comment on just one side. Opinions are to be shared. If you don't like mine, then just don't read it. This is not aimed at anyone in particular, I'm just saying something that I feel (my god, another opinion!). -------------- From: dwomack(a)runner.jpl.utsa.edu (David L Womack) Subject: Re: Warrentlesss SEarches To: samman(a)CS.YALE.EDU Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 17:09:52 -0500 (CDT) Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > > > > Think about it. The cops are out-gunned and out-manned. What would you > > of coming up with an alternative. [snip] > > Maybe if you spent a little time thinking about what it's like to live > > in a place like this, you might shut up about the cops not doing their jobs. > > Ok, Let me respond > > 1)I live in this kind of neighborhood at home when I'm not at school. That's > right, I live in West Oakland, California. I was born and raised in the inner > city. Don't tell me how these places are, don't tell me how they're run, > don't tell me how dangerous they are. I've lived it. Have you? All you > know is what you see on the news, on the television shows, and what is > portrayed in mass media. [excellent points all] -<Indeed these are excellent points. However, many people get their information from the mass media. I also go to school in new haven, so I have the same sources for information that you do. I am more than willing to admit that most of my info is from what I se and read in the papers and on the news. But at least I make the effort to stay informed. Also, you say that you "live in this kind of neighborhood at home." That's at home. You are here in New Haven. And it's only like CHA. You don't live there so don't expect me to think that you are right just because you live in an area that is similar. Unless you have actually _lived_ in Cabrini Green, I will take your thoughts with a grain of salt.>- > 2)I know the value of a gun in this environment. I know how many times our >home has been kept safe because my father has been willing to wield a gun >against either intruders or against 'undersireable' characters coming >around(read drug dealers, crack heads, you name it). Our part of the block >has a reputation for not being somewhere for these pepole to hang out because >my father and our neighbors have taken a stand against such scum. [Bravo! Would that more people took personal responsibility!] -<I didn't say that you didn't. And I too applaud the neighborhood responsibility. There is always safety in numbers, be they people or a cypher. But I wasn't saying how important these guns are except that the gangs have a hell of a lot more than the cops do.>- > 3)Not everyone who lives in these neighborhoods is bad simply as a result of [snip...with regret] -<I never said the people who live in these neighborhoods are bad. I also never implyed it. I was only talking about the gangs. Never mentioned where they get their members, never mentioned where they get their guns, or drugs, or whatever. I was only saying how the people in the CHA buildings were fed up with the bs that was going on and decided to do something about it.>- > 4)My family has not broken any law simply by trying to protect ourselves. >There is no way in hell that the police can be everywhere at once, even if >they are as efficient as you in the 'burbs seem to think they are, keeping out >and harassing all the minorties that come your way. Until they get there, the >only way we can protect ourselves is with our guns. We havne't broken any >laws, we're not the ones who have severed our contract with society by >choosing to live outside of it, its not us, its the people who prey upon us in >our homes and in our schools, and it is not us who should lose our rights, but >them. By simply lumping us in with them by sheer virtue of where we live and >how much we earn is not only sheer folly but is also classist. [And, even in the finest 'burbs, the police cannot be everywhere! Indeed, if you study police doctrine, it very clearly states that police and DETER crime, they can APPREHEND criminals, but they cannot PREVENT crime. Even a 5 minute response time will not solve the problem. Indeed, a 1 minute response would not...because someone must call them first! Still more significantly, the criminals are not stupid. They go where the money is...and if it is easier to steal Rolex's and 'Benzs in Suburbia...guess where they'll go? The city manager (!) here in San Antonio found this out when he was robbed in the driveway of his house. <no, he doesn't live in the inner city. >] -<I never said the cops could be everywhere at once. I only said that the cops were outgunned and outmanned. You were the one who started on about that. And don't assume that I'm from the burbs. To tell the truth, I am. But what if you had been wrong? I knew that I had life different than others the whole time I was growing up. I like to beleive that I give others a chance to prove themselves no matter who they are because I know that my life and education has been different. Just because I grew up in a 'burb doesn't mean that I'm an elitest jerk-off. Remember what they say about assuming things....>- > 5)Yes we worry about the rights of the accused. I do. I've been arrested and > harassed when the only crime that I committed was being in the wrong place at > the wrong time, and not having the right skin color. Yes, I worry about those > rights, because for me, it might be that one day, that it is I who is on >trial, it is I whose rights are being questioned, and it is I who wants my day >in court, and unless we protect the rights of the accused, even if they don't >look like us, it reaps a beneficial result to society as a whole. Thomas More >in the movie _Man for All Seasons_ makes an excellent point when he asks young >Will, if he would cut down all the laws in England to catch the devil. When >Will responds in the affirmative, More asks him, "And what would you do when >the winds rage about you?" [Elegant! My apologies for the bandwidth, but this quote needs to be repeated daily by the administration <and every citizen too>] -<You seem to want to turn this into a discussion about race and class. I never started in on this, and am going to leave the whole thing about black/white and upper class/middle or lower class alone. I refuse to touch it.>- > You see, if you don't protect the rights of the accused today, there might >come a day when you're in their shoes and you'll wish that you still had those >rights--remember the 5th amendment? The 4th's prohibitions against >unreasonable seach and siezures? What about the 14th's due process clause? >It is the rule of law, not of decree that makes this nation great, and there's >no way in hell, I'm going to sit idly by and watch this nation become an >autocracy simply because some people in suburbia decided that it would be >easier to do away with the rights of the accused in their racist, xenophobic >fears. > > Any comments? > Ben. [I'm as xenophobic as the next guy ;-), but I don't think the problem is necessarily suburbia; rather, it often seems that people in general, and irregardless of socioeconomic status, are eagerly discarding rights in order to escape personal involvement. Merely voting is (seemingly) too tedious; and anything more demanding is (again, seemingly) completely out of the question. Who was it who said "He who would trade a little liberty for a little security deserves neither"?] -<Allright, I don't want to say it again, but I have to. I am not for these searches, I only said that they seem like the right thing for the CHA police to do considering their circumstances. Last time I checked, this country was a democracy. The guy who started the searches had to get permission from the people living in the apartment to start the searches. If most of the people in the building thought it was a good idea, then the majority can't be wrong, right? I know the Bill of Rights also, and I'm not saying they should abandon it. But until they can come up with something to deal with these gangs, I think that the searches are appropriate. Adam Gerstein

6 6

chip-0.1 / driver for MARALU chip-card-reader/writer v1.0
by schulte＠thp.uni-koeln.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have placed chip-0.1.tgz on ftp.thp.uni-koeln.de(134.95.64.1):/pub/linux/chip/chip-0.1.tgz It contains an alpha version of a rudimentary loadable device driver and a sample application (get information out of the telephone cards used by the German Telekom) to be used with MARALU's chip-card-reader/writer. In principal, the reader/writer should be able to access all types of I2C-cards and other formats. I'll try to provide more functionality if there's interest in the net. Please mail comments, suggestions and questions to chip(a)thp.uni-koeln.de. If you don't have ftp-access, drop me a note and I'll mail the code to you (in uuencoded form (about 8k), if nothing different is specified). Martin PLEASE NOTE, THAT NEITHER I NOR MARALU TAKE ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FUNCTIONALITY OR RELIABILITY OF THE PROVIDED CODE AND INFORMATION. -- -- Mail submissions for comp.os.linux.announce to: linux-announce(a)tc.cornell.edu Be sure to include Keywords: and a short description of your software. Ed Carp, N7EKG/VE3 ecarp(a)netcom.com 519/824-3307 an88744(a)anon.penet.fi If you want magic, let go of your armor. Magic is so much stronger than steel! -- Richard Bach, "The Bridge Across Forever"

1 0

Re: Warrentlesss SEarches (fwd)
by norm＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 17:21 4/24/94 -0400, Llywelyn wrote: ... > >Ok, Let me respond > ... >2)I know the value of a gun in this environment. I know how many times >our home has been kept safe because my father has been willing to wield a >gun against either intruders or against 'undersireable' characters coming >around(read drug dealers, crack heads, you name it). Our part of the >block has a reputation for not being somewhere for these pepole to hang >out because my father and our neighbors have taken a stand against such >scum. > ... >Any comments? Thanks for your perspective. I have imagined that if I found it necessary to live in such a place that I might favor choosing a building with some sort of covenant, explicitly agreed to by all tenants, that allowed searches for weapons. I take it that you would not find that to be a good idea. Do you have other ideas along such lines?

2 1

warrentless searches
by dwomack＠runner.utsa.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam appears to be of the opinion that we are a democracy...technically, we are a representative republic. A minor quibble, perhaps, but it leads to larger issues. The entire purpose of the structure of our government (seperation of powers, varied election schedules, powers reserved to the states, the bill of rights and so forth) is to prevent the suppression of the rights of a minority by the majority. At least, that is the ideal! Guarantees of freedom are not required for popular positions. Is freedom of the press required for journals extolling the "lovely weather here in our most perfect of all possible worlds!"? Hardly. Such things could be safely written in the most authoritarian society. The majority of the people in the projects wants warrantless searches....it seems so very reasonable to say, ok, the gangs are out of control, the majority wants these searches, lets just go ahead! But, remember, you still have a minority of people who *_don't_* want these searches and seizures. Are we, in the name of expediency, to abandon the rights of this minority? A minority neither of race nor of money, but of opinion? If the majority of people decide that ownership of firearms is counter to the interests of society, will we take away this option? If the majority feels that safety will be enhanced, are we to be required to carry "papers" everywhere? This is a slippery path...if the same majority decides that decent people don't need privacy, then the days of the Clipper debates will remind us of what we have lost. Let's really bring this home...if society decides that "old people", say those over 75, cost too much to keep alive, will we let the same majority invoke forced euthanasia? Why not, the *_majority_* is all for it! No Adam, I'm not accusing you of anything, save the most terrible action of all...the willing subordination of liberty for an elusive safety that probably won't come anyway. Keep in mind that there are antisocial acts even in totalitarian states. And, if the North Koreas of the world have less gang violence...are we ready for such a trade? Again, the elimination of hard won freedoms is a terrible price. I predict that within a decade we will all regret the first step we take toward abolishing the rights our founders willingly gave their all to win. regards....

1 0

RE: Warrantless searches -- Sorry to start this again....
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-> Well, for one thing, if the drugs they are dealing were not illegal, there would be no high-anxiety drug deals going on in the apartments. tw <- And if the government housing projects weren't there....

1 0