December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

"The Book of Encyphered Names"
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Somebody asked me what the name "Cyphernomicon" means, another said it was not at all an obscure reference. And another asked if I was claiming that encyption is in some way "evil." I merely borrowed the name from the original "Cyphernomicon," also called "The Book of Encyphered Names." It came to us early this century via the Black Russian anarchist Peter Krypotkin, who had obtained his copy from Sheik Ibn al-Taz Khallikak, the Pine Barrens Horror. It apparently originated in ancient Sumeria, where the cuneiform writing lent itself to encypherment, and spread from the gates of Ishtar to the back alleys of Damascus. A knock-off of it was done by the Mad Arab Al-hazred, and translated by John Dee (better known for his work with Kool John Dee and the Rappin' Cryps). The Cyphernomicon was apparently the basis for the crypto system used by King Solomon for his "Keys of Solomon" (Solomon-Strasser primality test). The original manuscript is on display in the Crypto Museum in Twenty-Nine Primes, California (a few miles from the NSA SIGINT post at Zzyzx). I got this information from my friend Klaus! von Future Prime. --Tim -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Cyphernomicon in compressed forms
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've put two versions of the FAQ up in compressed forms, labelled "compressed" and "gzipped" (with the .Z and .z suffixes). These can be handled in the normal way, with "uncompress" (at your end) and "gunzip" at your end (I'm not sure the trick of forcing the gunzip at my end will work, with the chmod bits I set...that's a reason I left it in uncompressed form). I'm doing this because someone said their VAX won't take files bigger than 1 MB. This may help, as the compressed files are around 450K each. But please don't ask me for other versions. In particular, I can't help the CompuServe users, etc. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

RE: CONTROL FREAKS
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From 1) Samuel Kaplin & 2) Sandy Sandfort: The senario that I see, is [1] the borders being closed.... [2] All of the firearms and weapons being removed from private hands.... [3] The U.S. economy being isolated from the rest of the world.... [1] If they stopped foreign businesspeople and tourists, the economy suffers. Without Mexican "guest workers" the price of agricultural products go through the ceiling. The US can[not] afford to close its borders. [2] . . . Gun ownership is *growing* not declining. These folks are *serious* about keeping their weapons. . . . . [3] The US economy is broad, but not that broad. Without world trade (especially for petroleum) we would grind to a halt. . . . ...................................................................... ........... Although I can't see the US arriving at Samuel's scenario completely, neither can I prevent from seeing the threat which does rear its ugly head; the trend is towards the proposal & acceptance of more controls. It may not succeed 100%, but still there is an intervening time to consider during which the "legislators" attempt to accomplish just these things. 1) The suffering of the economy has not stopped the big G in the past from preventing "guest workers" or others from crossing the borders, or at least giving them & their US employers a hard time in the process. 2) Gun ownership may be increasing (among the "inner city youth" mostly, it appears sometimes), but nevertheless there are many other groups building up their campaigns against the possession of certain weapons and against "violence" per se. 3) There are always groups in govmt & private industry who wish for protection against the vicissitudes of world trade problems; if it were not for the efforts of those who constantly oppose them it is conceivable that the US could be closed to most areas of trade (even if only temporarily, until the pain becomes too great). It isn't conceivable that the US would ever become 100% isolated and totalitarian, but it is true that there are many people who would support such measures as would arrive at that stage eventually, if they could have their way. Sandy & others (including myself) may be able to reason that it wouldn't work to do such-and-such, because of the adverse consequences and because it wouldn't make economic sense, but it doesn't follow logically that the members of Congress & their supporters will also reason along the same lines. Unfortunately I am constantly reading in the news that just such restrictive, constraining ideas and interests are being proposed in Congress and applauded by private groups. I think that there may be a big tug-of-war between the growing contrasts in the political/philosophical inclinations of the citizenry of the US. The lines between them are becoming more clearly demarcated (to myself, anyway). (Oh - and of course, there will be a role in there, in between, for crypto, what with all the secret messages they will all want to send to each other.) Blanc

1 0

Re: Running PGP on Netcom
by SAMUEL.KAPLIN＠warehouse.mn.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: Re: Running PGP on Netcom (an >> But keeping it on your home machine, the bad guys could break into your >> house, set up a keyboard monitoring program, and get it that way. Or if >> they wanted to, grab you and force you to reveal your key. It's highly doubtful that they could physically get to my computer without my knowledge. I service alarms for a living. I work for the company who monitors my alarm. I am the only person who knows the specs on my alarm. It would be pretty tough to conceal a court order to suspend the monitoring from me. Someone would tip me off. Plus the system will communicate with me via 2 other methods that no one knows about. Pretty doubtful. >> It's not black and white. There are degrees of security. I keep my >> encrypted secret key on dunx1, a UNIX box used by many other people. >> Anyone who has the ability to can either watch my keystrokes, probe throug >> memory to retrieve my key or message, or probably a few other things I >> haven't thought of. The benefit, though, of being able to decode messages >> as soon as I receive them, and being able to send encrypted messages when >> I'm not at home is major. For me at least, it's a fair trade-of I guess it depends on your level of paranoia or guilt. :) If I was just putzing around with the software, then I wouldn't be too concerned. If I was actually doing something illegal or confidential with the software then I would be greatly concerned. But under no circumstances would I consider that arrangement secure. If the cops nail this guy, he has no one to blame but himself. He hanged his own ass. >> There isn't anything I send right now that I would find particularly >> embarassing should it become public knowledge. If I did get into that >> situation, I'd probably create a second key pair for use only at home, and >> keep both in use. Then you have the possibility of people sending you secure messages on a compromised key. (The one on the Unix Box) In most cases, its not the technology that nails you, it's human error. Take for example the recent Tiffany's robbery. The police hadn't a clue who pulled it off. I heard statements of grudging praise from many members of the NYPD police department. It was very close to the perfect robbery. They received a tip from a citizen that someone was selling rings matching the description of the stolen merchandise on the street. They busted this individual and he sang. If they would have left the goods sit for a couple of years, they would have gotten away with it. Human stupidity compromised the whole operation. >> The bad guys will almost always be able to get your key. Even if they hav >> to get you to get it. The goal is to raise the difficulty such that they >> aren't willing to do it. This is probably true, but in most cases they won't have to take it from you. Somehow someone will screw up and hand it to them on a silver platter. Instead of John the Baptist's head, its yours! ;{ --BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.1 mQCNAy5pUekAAAEEAKrDj64Zj9AJU+gC7/Ivdk8b1ef6a1T9K5CGFeu1yFDSXLyD DLIdGunZR/4ilosLMxdlZcNqPwZ3HgxL+Gk3y2SwYfqKpeWExWPgb696lgzf2BRC tED15ZAwi3UDIkcouv2PBiDwPNUUmnLb5diDXdA3qtALb+XzlwpnimeWAf3FAAUT tCFTYW11ZWwgS2FwbGluIDwrMSAoNjEyKSA1MzAtNzMxNj6JAJUCBRAuaVLjQqfV nzRSzxkBAcXuA/47yIN+sltMyIRqCgUZz/gubdI6LUcpFsTcXsFWppROpAWFPJv0 J9z/UoP1kjJ+nrAAizuKuhmC5eg5OOxUE+tUgSPl6hAtu2xJYmKtCbQpxF0sG8ni 4e8I8Zsk5vcopO5Vub96CiVgPjI5vITCb32kcLKI1yyFaztbHdtOasUthg== =M8Dh --END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fido: Sam Kaplin 1:282/1018 | "...vidi vici veni" - Overheard Compuserve: 75240,131 | outside a Roman brothel. samuel.kaplin(a)warehouse.mn.org | 75240,131(a)compuserve.com | Change is the only constant in the For confidential communications use PGP | Universe..."Four quarters, please." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- =========================================================================== Processed by WILDUUCP! v1.00 for WILDCAT! ===========================================================================

1 0

Re: E.C.T.
by macorp!moonlight!ken＠uu4.psi.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

First, I like the idea of running important social engineering experiments, like ECT, in cyber-simulations. It gives pretty realistic feedback. But Second, I worry about discovering clever ways to "charge" the play money for general internet services. This will condition people to accept paying in all kinds of novel ways for services that were once freely available. After that, the folks who are trying to figure out how to charge for internet use the way phone companies charge will find little resistance from the net users. Ken

1 0

Re: reputation credit 1-3
by macorp!moonlight!ken＠uu4.psi.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In my varied experience with performance appraisals, I have found that one person's "respect 50%" is another person's "respect 90%". Collecting reputation endorsements from many people would have to include this wide margin of error. In practice, when the reputation system reached critical mass, it would develop a norm for how much to trust the average respect number. In fact, the stabilization of this reputation norm is one criterion for reaching the critical mass. Ken

1 0

Re: PRIVACY REGULATIONS
by No Taxes through No Government 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Yes, physical resistance to authority is, more often than not, a bad idea, and hopefully most of us know why (even if you're right and even if you're being attacked, they're not above planting a gun/drugs/other thing on you to justify beating/killing you). But the Supreme Court has said, most emphatically, that there is no "requirement to identify oneself", regardless of whether an officer has probable cause to stop and question the individual. Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47 (1979). I'd repost the relevant excerpts from this great case again if I hadn't already posted it so many times to so many different fora. Suffice it to say, regardless of whatever else may be at issue, the "ruling establishment" (i.e., the highest legal authority in the country) has stated that there is no requirement to identify oneself. Just had to get that off my chest. We now return you to our regularly scheduled stuff.

1 0

Re: "The Book of Encyphered Names"
by pcw＠access.digex.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Somebody asked me what the name "Cyphernomicon" means, another said it >was not at all an obscure reference. And another asked if I was >claiming that encyption is in some way "evil." > >I merely borrowed the name from the original "Cyphernomicon," also >called "The Book of Encyphered Names." It came to us early this >century via the Black Russian anarchist Peter Krypotkin, who had >obtained his copy from Sheik Ibn al-Taz Khallikak, the Pine Barrens >Horror. This book can't exist because Arthur Clarke proved that the world would end when all "Nine Billion Names of God" were listed. Of course, he didn't deal with the technical point of what would happen if they were encrypted. If the nine billion names were merely a list of all possible combinations of a certain length of a certain alphabet, then the encrypted list should be equal to the regular list if the encryption carries the set in an arc that is one-to-one and onto itself. I.e. automorphic. But I seem to remember that the monks in the list had certain rules about the combinations of their letter. That would make it still a very interesting question of what would happen if the 9 billion names came out encrypted. If no one knew the key, then the world is still safe. But what if one guy knows the key? What if that guy is a mute? What if he's merely an obstreperous hermit? What if he sets out to decrypt the list for his own personal communion with G*d? (Is my email listing the common "G*d" bringing us one step closer to glory or one step closer to destruction?) What if he has access to the neat Cray/SRC machine about which I carried on so intently? So many questions! (?)

1 0

Distribution of FAQ to CompuServe, American Online, etc.
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've had two messages this afternoon asking if people could/should post the Cyhernomicon on AOL and CompuServe. I replied in a negative way to each request, but maybe I need to explain further. My "Crypto Anarchist Manifesto" has been spread to many boards. Which is good, I guess. What's not good in this electronic age is dealing with the dozen or so messages I get in most weeks asking questions, challenging the assumptions, requestiing explanations of terms like "MIPS" and "ISDN," etc. ("Like, dewd, anarchy is like cool..heh heh heh" or "I'm writing a paper for my Poli Sci class and I have some questions...") I just don't have the time to do this kind of "outreach." Some of them I tell about the Cypherpunks list--some of you may've joined via this sort of thing--but others I just thank, telling them I can't engage in a letter-writing process with them. Back to CompuServe and AOL. The FAQ I wrote has a lot of Cypherpunks-centric material in it, and is not intended as an "outreach" document (as, say, some short libertarian books by Hazlitt and Karl Hess were intended to be). I don't even plan to announce it on Usenet, so announcing it on CompuServe, AOL, etc., seems like a bad idea. On the other hand, putting it on these services and then announcing it only to Cypherpunks is OK...just another distribution channel. But don't advertise it to non-Cypherpunks, for these reasons. I just can't handle the questions that would arise. I hope you all can understand this. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2

Cnet's stance on content filters
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 12:48:48 -0400 From: Lauren Gelman <gelman(a)acm.org> To: declan(a)well.com Subject: Cnet's stance on content filters >Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 17:40:12 -0400 >To: chris_barr(a)cnet.com >From: Lauren Gelman <gelman(a)acm.org> >Subject: Cnet's stance on content filters >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >with regard to: http://www.cnet.com/Content/Voices/Barr/072197/index.html > >First, I think there are a number of problems inherent in any content >filtering system, some of which you discuss in your column. > >Given that, I think the main problem with the Internet Content Coalition >approach is how, and who, will determine what is a "real news >organization" is and what "bona fide news sites" are. Is this the job of >the ICC? You completely ignore this issue both in the column and on the >ICC web site. What are the criteria that categorize Cnet as a "news >organization? Would EPIC and the ACLU (cited in your column) also fall >under that category? What about listservs where news is disseminated? > >The U.S. Public Policy Office for the Association for Computing (USACM) >web site http://www.acm.org/usacm disseminates news about computer policy >related issues as well as USACM position pieces on those issues. It also >archives back- issues of the "ACM Washington Update", a bi-weekly >electronic newsletter. Is the USACM web site a "bona fide news sites"? > >I believe these are important questions which need to be addressed before >Cnet endorses any content-filtering approach to censorship. "Privilege" >needs to be defined before Cnet or any other group can seek "to make sure >that only real news organizations claim this privilege." > > >-Lauren Gelman >Associate Director >USACM > > /\ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Association for Computing, + http://www.acm.org/usacm/ Office of U.S. Public Policy * +1 202 544 4859 (tel) 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE Suite 302 B * +1 202 547 5482 (fax) Washington, DC 20003 USA + gelman(a)acm.org

1 0