December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Applied Cryptography (correction to typo in email address)
by Richard Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From the keyboard of: NetSurfer <jdwilson(a)gold.chem.hawaii.edu> > Softpro - softpro(a)csns.com That should be: Softpro - softpro(a)cscns.com ^ The 'cscns' stands for Colorado Springs Community News Service. Richard

1 0

Re: [butthead] and PGP
by D.C. Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > > > > I would like clarification on [butthead's] contention that PGP violates > > RSA's patents. My understanding is that PGP < 2.4 does not so long as > > its use was private and non-commercial. > > > > In other words, isn't the patent issue a fabrication of [butthead] to > > attack PGP? > > > > Or did he really have a point? > > Can we please can this crapola? The only thing more wasteful of human > effort than listening to the moron is listening to people recount what > he says. If you want to do this, please do it privately. Many of us are > sick and tired of this certified net.wacko, and speaking for myself and > any others of like mind, take it up privately on your own time. Check > out alt.security.pgp and alt.fan.[butthead]. Better yet, find out where > he lives and camp out on his front lawn. > > The only point he has is the one on his head. > > =D.C. Williams > >

1 0

Excerpt from E-d-u-p-a-g-e 06/05/94
by NetSurfer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CP's, for your edification: Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 00:09:30 -0400 From: E-d-u-p-a-g-e <info(a)ivory.educom.edu> E-MAIL AT THE WHITE HOUSE Both the Bush and Clinton administrations have tried to restrict public access to White House e-mail, but later this year the National Security Agency will publish "White House E-Mail," a book-length collection of e-mail messages. The book includes Iran-Contra affair communications to and from Oliver North, who used e-mail because he thought it could be easily deleted. One message from him reads: "Oh lord. I lost the slip and broke one of the high heels. Forgive please. Will return the wig on Monday." (So who needs the Clipper Chip?) (New York Magazine, 6/6/94 p.20) ----------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^--------------------------------- I guess the spirit of J. Edgar Hoover lives on at the Whitehouse <hehehe> -NetSurfer #include standard.disclaimer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == = = |James D. Wilson |V.PGP 2.4: 512/E12FCD 1994/03/17 > " " " |P. O. Box 15432 |finger for key / Viacrypt Reseller > " " /\ " |Honolulu, HI 96830 |====================================> \" "/ \" |Serendipitous Solutions| Also NetSurfer(a)sersol.com > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

1 0

No Subject
by nobody＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Can a registered crypto FTP account at RIPEM.MSU.EDU be accessed via a USA-based FTP-by-mail server, assuming the correct account ID and password are used, and the FTPed file is destined for the original, USA-based email address? Or will the use of the intermediate server cause the request to be rejected because the host ID does not match the original one specified when the account was opened? If so, can PGP 2.6 be FTPed from another anonymous FTP site, either in the USA or abroad? Thanks. ====

3 2

Re: REMAILERS: standard xx-To: line
by ghio＠cmu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>cp's, >matt just mentioned that remailer@soda doesn't accept "Request-Remailing-To" >header lines (which explains why i thought it was dead) and i note that not >all other remailers accept "Anon-Send-To:". anarchy has it's place in >our lives but, it would be nice to cut down on sode come in remailing and >ping scripts. the three close to standard headers seem to be >"Anon-Send-To:", "Request-Remailing-To:", and "X-Anon-To:". it would be >more convenient :) for all remailers to either allow all three or settle >on one standard (nfl). My remailer (ghio(a)kaiwan.com) supports all three, and also Anon-To. All of the remailers support Request-Remailing-To, except soda. I'm not completely sure which support Anon-To and which use X-Anon-To. Soda.berkeley.edu is the only one which requires Anon-Send-To.

1 0

Tax Free In Cyberspace Only
by Vincent.Cate＠FURMINT.NECTAR.CS.CMU.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Encryption will have a profound impact on society as we move further into the information age. In particular, some things that are currently taxed will be very hard to tax in the future. Encryption lets non-tangible things move around like the ghosts they are. Since this movement is ininvisible, it will be impossible to tax. So things which can exist in cyberspace will tend to move around tax free. This will include things like: Securities - stocks, bonds, mutual funds Savings - cash Profits - Information - newsletters, magazines, databases Software - This non-taxability comes from the fact that only the parties exchanging something in cyberspace even need to know about the exchange - and they can encrypt everything so that nobody else knows. It also comes from the fact that the entities involved in commerce in cyberspace can be located anyplace in the physical world and there are many places that do not tax companies. Tangible things within the territory of some government will always be taxable by that government. This is especially true for things where it is desirable to have a government issued "title". Major tax categories will still include: Real-estate - land, houses, buildings, factories Vehicles - cars, boats, planes Tangible goods - any objects bought or sold Fuel - gas, diesel, jet fuel People - poll tax Companies - annual registration of corporations Income for self employed information workers will be hard to tax. However, for a number of years yet, most incomes will still be taxed. So governments will have to rework their tax base. National sales taxes or VATs will probably be more common. Taxes on dividends, interest, capital gains, etc., will fade away. This change will be difficult, and probably the technology will move faster than the governments can comfortably react. Instead of adapting to the changes, many governments will probably try to prevent them. These attempts will fail - probably not even slowing things down much. The cyberspace economy will be very close to pure capitalism. Regulation of cyberspace trade will be impossible. It will not be possible to even determine if two parties are doing business, let alone to stop them. Initiation of force in cyberspace should be less and less of a problem as computer systems get more secure. Impersonation is easily prevented with digital signatures. This new tax base may not let governments operate in the manner to which they have become accustomed. Each government will be faced with the choice of either printing more money (causing painful inflation), or making painful cuts in programs. This will no doubt cause some protests and unrest, but certainly need not result in anarchy. -- Vince Cate This file should end up in: ftp://furmint.nectar.cs.cmu.edu/security/cypheressay

1 0

Cyberspace is by nature crime-free
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Bradley W. Dolan" <71431.2564(a)CompuServe.COM>: > [Seabrook's rant against flaming] > project, told me, "You won't have a Waco in Texas, you'll have > a Waco in cyberspace. You could have a cult, speaking to each > other through encryption, that suddenly erupts in society - > well programmed, well organized - and then suddenly disappears > again." Therefore, in an effort to balance the good and bad Excuse me? Will the cyberspace Waco abuse children with paddles in basement 'punishment rooms' - maybe by posting their names to alt.basement.punishment? Will the cyberspace Waco be able to _physically_ intimidate people into acting against their will? The major difference between cyberspace and the world of brick houses is that no _physical_ crime is possible - no matter what anti-porn kooks say, you _can't_ rape with words; or murder, or torture or kidnap. Even the pedophiles (98.3356% of the Net's population, apparently) cannot go beyond _communication_ on the Net... Even if one agrees with the debatable criminality of consensual sex with minors, the act itself has to be _physical_! The crime cannot be in discussing it. What's the FBI going to do? Jail people for _talking_ about murder, or jail _murderers_? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh They came for the Jews, and I was silent because I was not a Jew; rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in They came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not protest, because I did not Voice/Fax/Data +91 11 6853410 belong to a trade union; Voicemail +91 11 3760335 They came for the Catholics, and I said nothing because I was not a Catholic; H 34C Saket And then they came for me. New Delhi There was no one left to say anything... INDIA ----Father Niemoeller

3 2

Tim Merlin's Holy FAQ
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May said: [ I've re-ordered his para's ] > to invade North Korea for the "sin" of doing what our "friends" like South > Africa, Israel, and even Risha[b]'s own India have been doing for 20 years Actually Uncle Sam frequently makes noises about India's arsenal, and India responds with cries of "hypocrisy! global disarmament!"... > I've stayed out of this thread on what's criminal and what's not, > mainly because I'm spending all my waking hours (and more) trying to > finish up the %&*#$%^$ FAQ, but I perk up when my name is mentioned: > ... > Enough on anarchy for now. Back to the FAQ. Well, we are _really_ expecting a 5 Mb FAQ now! Every week adds another meg ;-) > --Tim May ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh They came for the Jews, and I was silent because I was not a Jew; rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in They came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not protest, because I did not Voice/Fax/Data +91 11 6853410 belong to a trade union; Voicemail +91 11 3760335 They came for the Catholics, and I said nothing because I was not a Catholic; H 34C Saket And then they came for me. New Delhi There was no one left to say anything... INDIA ----Father Niemoeller

1 0

(None)
by Jeff Gostin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in writes: > discussing it. What's the FBI going to do? Jail people for _talking_ about > murder, or jail _murderers_? Actually, United States law has something "Conspiracy". That's where you talk about committing a crime. There are certain limitations to it, but essentially, idly chatting about killing someone might be construed as a Conspiracy to do it. Therefore, yes, you _can_ go to jail for _talking_ about murder. --Jeff -- ====== ====== +----------------jgostin(a)eternal.pha.pa.us----------------+ == == | The new, improved, environmentally safe, bigger, better,| == == -= | faster, hypo-allergenic, AND politically correct .sig. | ==== ====== | Now with a new fresh lemon scent! | PGP Key Available +---------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

CP Criminal & Strong Crypto gphx. and shirts
by Stanton McCandlish 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1) who designed those graphics, and what redist. requirements if any do you have on them? 2) where are my t-shirts? >:)

3 2