December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Cypherpunks & math
by Nathan Zook 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I know I'll regret this, but... I've seen a lot of comments by folks that indicates a high level of mathematical sofistication. So I'm curious. Please e-mail me as follows: SUBJECT: nomath If you've not had some Discrete Math course. SUBJECT: discrete If you've had Discrete Math. SUBJECT: algebra1 If you've had semester course on algebra. SUBJECT: algebra2 If you've had a year-long senior level course based on Fraliegh or some such. SUBJECT: grad If you've been to grad school in math. SUBJECT: firstcourse If you've had the prelim algebra course. (Hungerford or such) SUBJECT: prelim If you've passed your algebra prelim. SUBJECT: orals If you've passed your oral exam. SUBJECT: orala If your oral had a significant algebra component SUBJECT: candidate If you are a candidate in algebra. SUBJECT: phd If you have a phd in math. SUBJECT: research If you have published in number theory. I'm an "orala". Thanks!

3 2

No Subject
by frissell＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This week's "Time" has a cover story on Internet and we're in it. "Spooks vs. Cypherpunks There is a group of hackers who believe that powerful encryption will set them free. Government spooks don't mind if these so- called cypherpunks use codes to lock up secrets, so long as the spooks hold the back-door key." DCF "I don't care what you say about me as long as you spell my name right."

1 0

Re: Triple encryption...
by DAVESPARKS＠delphi.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Johnson wrote: > Naturally, the two aren't mutually exclusive, but I'll not buy a vault > door for my house unless I've got a vault to put it on. Perhaps not, but I would not call a person who decides to do so, for reasons of his own, "rabid, clinically paranoid" - a phrase you used in your original post. While I might chuckle at his inconsistent approach, I wouldn't call the men in white coats to take him away. In fact, I DON'T KNOW whether his approach is "reasonable" or not until I have a chance to evaluate the perceived threat he's protecting against. If the potential burglar he's concerned about is an expert lockpicker who has a phobia about breaking glass, then your hypothetical "vault door" *MIGHT* make sense, to continue the analogy. The point being, I'm not in a position to make that decision for him. Technically, it might be easier to use the third degree on someone rather than attempt to break even a 384 bit public key, but sheer level of effort is not always the whole story. Let's say I stumbled across an encrypted message from someone I knew, not addressed to me, that I thought might be "interesting" to decipher. I *MIGHT*, hypothetically, be willing to write a program that would run in the background on my PC, even if it took many, many years, or even decades, to arrive at a solution by brute force. Breaking into the guy's house, or torturing his passphrase out of him might be "faster", or "easier" for me, but that's not the nature of the "threat" I'd pose, since I, as an "attacker" would also be weighing risks versus rewards. While I might be willing to wait years or even decades to satisfy my curiosity, the message is probably not valuable enough to risk a prison term for. Thus, a longer key, more layers of encryption, etc. might make more sense (for him against me) than buying an expensive safe to store his keyring in, or splitting it up as a "shared secret" so that a "rubber hose" attack on any one person would not reveal the entire key/passphrase. Also, the envelope of encryption protection needs to be "pushed". As processing becomes faster and cheaper, currently "secure" technologies could become vulnerable. What seems "clinically paranoid" today might seem "reasonable" in a decade or two, who knows? Why not get them tested and proven BEFORE they're absolutely needed, even if that testing is at the hands of people willing to risk being considered "paranoid"? /--------------+------------------------------------\ | | Internet: davesparks(a)delphi.com | | Dave Sparks | Fidonet: Dave Sparks @ 1:207/212 | | | BBS: (909) 353-9821 - 14.4K | \--------------+------------------------------------/

1 0

Re: Non-determinism forever. (was -- Re: GUT and P=NP)
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When I first heard about P and NP and such, I made a common mistake, one which I think underlies a lot of the misconceptions people have. I knew that P meant "polynomial time" and understood pretty well what that meant, but I mistakenly jumped to the conclusion that NP meant "non-polynomial time", the complement of P. It does not, of course; it means "nondeterministic polynomial time" as others have described. Basically, if you could _check_ an answer to a problem in polynomial time the problem is in NP, as others have described here. Hal

1 0

Censorship in Cyberspace in London Sunday Times
by frissell＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Last Sunday's Times (of London) had a cover story in the color supplement entitled "Lost in Cyberspace" by Stephen Amidon about the fact that you can't censor same. Included history of film and video censorship in the UK. Sober. No mention of TDPs (Terrorists, Drug-dealers, Pederasts). Said governments and major corporations were worried. Mentioned virtual sex. Suggested we try giving people other interests rather than censoring their inputs (since we can't anyway. DCF "If you think that those people are worthy or capable of ruling you then you're probably right."

1 0

Re: Leaving the Country
by frissell＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:24 AM 7/19/94 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >Precisely! For those of us whose assets are already "visible," in the >form of real estate or stock or the like, the prescripions of some on >this list to "ignore them and they'll be powerless" (a paraphrase of >this scofflaw approach) is not at all persuasive. Tim, you have the *easiest* situation not the hardest. The hardest situation is a high-income professional in a licensed profession who has to work and can't really move. Since you are in the "great army of the unemployed," you can move easily and your assets can be fairly easily converted to cash. You might lose on your real property (depending on when you bought) but that has always been the downside of property. Marc Rich certainly earned a lot of money in a reasonably conventional way and is living comfortably in Switzerland. Switzerland is lovely this (or any other) time of year. Proof: http://martigny.ai.mit.edu/photos/photo_album.html - Photos of Swizerland I know you like the Bay Area (as do I) but the net is there in Switzerland and the interface improves from year to year. If you want to do things strictly legally, expatriate, secure a second citizenship, renounce your US citizenship, wait ten years, and you'll be able to visit the US for up to 180 days a year. You could take this step given your situation but I know it can be a big one. Consider though if your US citizenship is worth so many $thousands/year plus a hefty chunk if you die (extropians isn't the same without you). One can always take small steps the first one of which should be to internationalize your investments and yourself. If you practice living "outside the jurisdiction" you might find that you like it. I know you like the Bay Area (as do I) but the net is there in Switzerland and the interface improves from year to year. I'm not advocationg a particular course here just pointing out possibilities. The best way for an ordinary working stiff to minimize the tax consequences of his earnings is to work on a contract basis so he has no investment in a particular asignment and his job cannot be used to control him. >Having been invited in to "chat" with my regional IRS officials in San >Jose on a couple of occasions, and seeing my stock broker's wonderful >computerized statements being forwarded to these same folks, I don't >hold out much hope for escaping. When the IRS knocked on the gate of Heinlein's place at 5000 Bonny Doone Road (or was that 26000?) above Santa Cruz, he told them to get lost and write to his attorney. >Now I suppose some might say this is my fault, for not having acquired >the assets in a foreign tax haven like the Cayman Islands, or not >having lived my life by leasing my cars, only renting houses, etc. >These were not options. It's not too late. >While it is certainly true than I can easily hide modest amounts of >assets, hiding large amounts is usually a one-way street. That is, the >legal and jurisdictional repercussions have to be very carefully >considered, as they can't be reversed once taken. Mighty oaks from little acorns grow. The habitual practice of disobedience in small things helps you disobey in the large things when your life may depend on it. >Maybe they exist. I'm sure some people have hidden assets from the tax >collector and still lived in the U.S. or other high tax rate states. Those who become PTs often live (serialy) in high tax states with perfect legallity: ftp://furmint.nectar.cs.cmu.edu/security/perpetual-traveler.html >But I'm not at all convinced by arguments that because some people >have piled up unpaid traffic tickets, or have no assets to seize, and >are hence "judgement proof," that this helps me or anyone else in my >position (a bunch of my Silicon Valley friends, concretely enough). It is not a matter of tax planning but a matter of psychology. They have convinced you to manage your own oppression because it is cheaper and easier if you do it than if they do it. They have pushed all your primate buttons employing techniques that they and their "ancestors in oppression" developed even before the invention of agriculture. It is possible to reprogram yourself to disobedience. I am not particularly a "tough guy." On a day-to-day basis I'm reasonably chicken. But their culture of oppression infuriates me more than anything. I can use that fury to turn down the job of self-jailer that they offer to each of us. I may suffer from actual oppression from time to time but it won't come from *me*. They'll have to spend actual resources. It will cost them big bucks for nothing. Those who *have* met me know that facing my mouth and taking the abuse therefrom will not be fun. (It really pisses people off when you call them copraphagic cretins and they know they've been insulted but they don't know exactly what you've said.) Let me give you an example of self-oppression and the ease of resistence in a less threatening realm. It is common these days to assign employees to re-education and self-crticism sessions to cure the modern sins of racism, sexism, bigotry, and homophobia. Like the Chinese techniques from which they were derived, these sessions count on the "sinner" listing all his many sins and purging them by begging the community for forgivness. As a contractor, I am unlikely to even have the opportunity to experience one of these things but I pity the poor "facilitator" assigned to re-educate me. They might have a hard time handling: "Since you, yourself, have discriminated on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, age, alienage, previous condition of servitude, sexual or affectional preference, handicap, marital status, and veteran status in the selection of friends and sexual partners, you have a whole hell of a lot of nerve telling me that I can't do the same thing in *my* associations." >I'm sure the judgement-proofing Duncan Frissell talks about has worked >for him, in his situation, but I've seen no convincing way to get from >"here" to "there" in a way that I am remotely comfortable with. We are still in the Rev 0.99a Alpha testing stage. The interface is a bit rough and since it's a Windows app we do have "General Protection Fault" problems. When you're out on the "bleeding edge" of technology, you sometimes bleed. Once enough people notice that they are free, it will be like Checkpoint Charlie at 2200 hrs (+1) on 09 November 1989. You know how it is. You remove a cage from around a zoo animal and it takes him a while to notice he can leave. He will continue to pace his old path until he discovers his freedom. >I'd suggest that if Duncan really knows a way to do this--one that >takes into account people's _current situations_, as opposed to >suggesting that they should have chosen a different path in the >past--then he should have no problem earning a million dollars a year >as a tax consultant. I don't know where you got the idea that I have focused on people's past situations in my analysis. Since you have day-to-day control of your assets and your own time, you can change your social arrangements whenever you like. I realize that friction exists but I am talking options not mandates. No universal coverage here. My problem with conventional analysis of tax, investment, and life strategies is that it ignores the full range of possibilities. Since individual human power and range of choices are both increasing, people should at least be made aware of what can be done. They need some options to blind obedience. >Not having had the pleasure of meeting Duncan, I can't judge whether >he's now earning rates like this. (If so, congratulations--and give me a >call and I'll hire you. If not, why not?) What I try and do is give people the sort of analysis that they would get from a lawyer or an accountant if that lawyer or accountant were willing to treat government as just another entity with no magic status. A matter-of-fact approach. I also direct people to nuts-and-bolts practitioners (say Ron Rudman in Denver for a Foreign Asset Protection Trust) if they decide they would like to take some particular action. The hardest thing to find is an advisor who doesn't have a conflict of interest (who doesn't serve the state in addition to serving you). DCF "Can it ever by moral for the group to do something which is immoral for a *member* of that group to do?"

1 0

Re: ID card from hell
by frissell＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:53 PM 7/17/94 -0400, David Mandl wrote: >How much do I get for identifying that quote? It's from the song "1984" >by the band Spirit, a single released in late 1969. > >I'm really impressed, Duncan. > > --Dave. Any libertarian "of a certain age" should know the song. Not much strictly libertarian rock out there. No extra points. DCF "Avoid possible future war crimes prosecutions -- disobey."

1 0

Time goes mainstream w/ Internet hype
by paul＠hawksbill.sprintmrn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Greets, fellow tentacles. Just a quick note to alert you to the recent Time issue with the cover: "The Strange New World of the Internet," subtitled "Battles on the Frontiers of cyberspace." Actually, it's a decent article for the neophyte. It goes into detail on the Cantor & Seigle (boo, hiss) 'Green Card' spam and even mentions cypherpunks by name. - paul

1 0

Re: Schneier
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim Werner wrote: >Speaking of Schneier, I have an upbeat note. > >I ordered his book, when it first came out, from the local Borders book >store. When I went to pick it up, they told me that if I decided to buy it >I could not return it, since it was not a book that they would otherwise >stock. > >Today I was there checking out the computer books, and they had a copy on >the shelf, so I guess it was in enough demand that they decided to stock it. > >tw I have been trying to buy a copy at my local Barnes&Noble for about two months now, but everytime I go back to check, they "just sold the last one". They have sold out three shipments in two months! -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> PGP public key by finger Please write to clipper.petition(a)cpsr.org and tell them you oppose Clipper.

1 0

GUT and P=NP
by nzook＠math.utexas.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(flashing mathematical credentials) Okay, I was hoping this would die quietly, but sinces it isn't.... GUT is a physical theory. If true, it is believed, it would be possible to manufacture a computer which excedes a Turing machine in several important ways. In particular, it is believed that a "quantum computer" could perform certain NP tasks (factoring) in P time. BUT, as I read it, this has _nothing_ to do with the P/NP question. It simple creates a new area of inquiry, the QP/QNP/QNP-complete area. (The first qu question being wheather some of these sets are empty.) The P/NP question is a question about Turing machines, and as such, would not be affected by the creation of a non-Turing computer. As for boundaries... GUT _might_ give us a single equation that contains all physical laws. But so what? We can't even solve the three-body problem for gravity! Chaos is an emergent process. Have fun.

5 5