December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Yet more number theory
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Well, I'm the person posting all the number theory stuff anonymously. Well, not too anonymously since I am signing each post... ;) I thought I'd try out Matt Ghio's service. I'm not sure exactly what will happen, but hopefully you will able to reply to this message and reach me! Anyway, I got my copy of "Elementary Number Theory and its Applications" by Kenneth Rosen just now, and checked Miller-Rabin primality testing, and pseudoprime primality testing. Eric pointed out some recent work (by Pomerance I presume) and it does indeed junk the notion that for pseudoprime testing, the failure rate is 2^-n, n being the number of trials. However, Miller-Rabin isn't susceptible (it uses strong pseudoprime testing) - and what it even better is the latest bound is 4^-k! That is, if you pick k integers and perform M-R on n for each, the chance a composite will pass is less than (1/4)^k. And, there is no analogy of a Carmichael number for strong pseudoprimes. So I guess the bottom line is M-R is the way to go. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLas39YOA7OpLWtYzAQETVQP/YzHMudKp/ehgcG0MkBeoyhQsItAlAvXL VVj2VN2ac7KjlqtyP/Frjq+6s/T0ai4MhojboaWKBJfuUvZT1hBj0c0PvkaHVeiQ H1eJpEXEqbFoouRX/M7ZYLmwfeJenKn0th408gJBf6yDHwdv9dyo7//Hhd/GreWJ K+9nHl4k3kU= =9zRl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Anonymity and the US Supreme Court
by greg＠ideath.goldenbear.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Adam Lake's question about the legality of pseudonyms sent me trolling about Westlaw today, in search of some case law supporting the rule I learned (somewhere .. sigh.) - that pseudonyms are OK as long as there's no intent to defraud. No luck there yet, but I did find an interesting passage in an opinion which found a LA city ordinance void which required that any handbill have upon it the "true name and address" of the persons responsible for it. "Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all." It later says "Even the Federalist Papers, written in favor of the adoption of our Constitution, were published under fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes." Cite is _Talley v. State of California_, 362 U.S. 60, 64-65, 80 S.Ct. 536, 538-539 (1960). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLas8qH3YhjZY3fMNAQGHogP+KZKWULNE7wftUNKGVJmdaJ4zpjaVywfS IQqpu0duzbORLyKVIV4ZtAGrAnItMV/ZDNwg2KyDoHasUUNKQeBMKYXp+4KpxFL2 flreCRCe/ZqKQ4+EJzNQXT4HtQglbDO3Tl3aM411urnhFLhTCorrbTW4NChhd3S8 6TIdKCFnD4Q= =Bp6d -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Pseudonyms and Reputa
by dork39＠wov.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: dork39(a)wov.com Hf> This is true, but the main purpose of this technology is to prevent Hf> users from creating large numbers of pseudonymous accounts. No Hf> technology can stop people from cooperating in an on-line forum, and Hf> the use of friends' or family members' accounts is also very hard to Hf> prevent. So collusion at some limited level will always be possible. Hf> But at least it should be possible to prevent the massive use of nyms. Hang on a mo. I'm new here and so I don't know how this started. If you would be so kind, what is the "problem" here about "massive use of nyms?" Seems to me that is a kind of self-limiting bookkeeping job for the user of nyms: like which ones are for what. Have you guys ever tried to DO a system of nyms for any important purpose? It is NOT a whole lot of fun: much more resembling hard work. You see I think there are plenty of reasons that reasonable people would agree are valid for some people to use nyms, even large numbers of nyms. For example I know a lawyer who uses a lot of nyms (and anon PGP keys) to create "clusters" of people involved with individual legal cases. It strikes me as a very well organized system for a good purpose. The people involved in a given case can all talk to each other about it, and outsiders or people in other cases don't get to peek in, or even know what the group is about or who's in it without going to a LOT of trouble. Since Phil is going to release the story to the Wall St. Journal anyway, I guess I can mention that the encryption method of CHOICE for the valiant fighters against SLORC in Burma (who are the worst kind of bad guys by any measure) is PGP and they are, of course, ALL using "nyms" and sterilized anon keys and so on. They are by FAR the heaviest PGP users in this part of the world. Full time trainers and the works. But you can surely see how they might not want to tell the thugs where to come to get them and their families for a course in extended torture. Now you guys with "ID" fetishes are seeing this as a PROBLEM? Excuse me very much, but I think I need to see a LOT of explaining about that. Note this principle: people with a NEED for anonymity are NOT going to want to get permission from, or even talk to, some Central Authority first. There is no way that you or anyone else is going to be able to decide if any use of anonymity is "legitimate" or not. If there are "problems" with that, it seems to me that your efforts are best directed into figuring out how you can live with it, and not about how you can "control" or "prevent" it. (Hey I am ever so sorry to hear how some people used nyms to cheat in a game. But somehow my reaction was "so what?" and to bang my [Enter] key right smartly. There are people in the world without the time or inclination to play games. Perhaps sometime in the next century I might personally get enough slack and curiosity to take a look at some computer game myself--who knows? But, you know, even if I do, I kind of think I will have a real hard time working up a lot of anxiety about possible cheating.) In the meanwhile not only do I support nyms and other anonymity, but I intend to use plenty of them, and will resist any attempts to preclude that in every way I can. GENERAL ADVICE TO ALL ONLOOKERS: Since it looks like self-appointed "ID police" are working hard to prevent you from using anonymity, I suggest that if you ever think that you might ever have a NEED for anonymity at any time in the future, that you take a little time off and set up a supply for yourself of nyms and so on and embed them in the system before these guys get their prevention systems in place. Do that NOW, because this kind of thinking is a THREAT to you.

1 0

Prime number tests
by nobody＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, there is one prime number test which NEVER fails, and that is that (n-1)!+1 mod n is zero for all primes, and non-zero for all non-primes. ;-)

1 0

Re: CyberPsyOps and Media
by schirado＠lab.cc.wmich.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is it really fucking necessary to write long, involved essays expounding on the exact reasons one is placing someone in thier killfile? Not only is it unnecssary, it's extremely rude.

1 0

Re: Prime number tests
by Peter Murphy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Would you be able to show me a reference? Peter Murphy <pkm(a)maths.uq.oz.au>

1 0

MATH: number theory
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- All right, more people have joined the number theory fun! Somebody other than myself posted: > Well, there is one prime number test which NEVER fails, and that is > that (n-1)!+1 mod n is zero for all primes, and non-zero for all > non-primes. ;-) To which Peter Murphy asks: > Would you be able to show me a reference? I can, and I'm sure the original poster can as well. Any book on number theory should have Wilson's theorem; the second theorem isn't too difficult to prove. The first part of the above statement is a direct result of Wilson's theorem, which I posted in an earlier statement. A recap: Wilson's theorem: for any prime p, (p-1)! = -1 mod p ==> (p-1)! + 1 = 0 mod p See "Elementary Number Theory and its Applications" page 185. As a consequence of Wilson's theorem: for a composite number n, (n-1)! = 0 mod n, except for n = 4 (for n = 4 you get 2) ==> (n-1)! + 1 != 0 mod n For a proof, see "Number Theory and its History" page 261. Hm. hope nobody is getting confused between the factorial notation and C language "not equals" operator. More extensive bibliographic information is available (authors, publishers, etc.) if you want. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLatmAIOA7OpLWtYzAQFGLAQAlFv9mBD1+T4S8QB7zb+KZlhUtsIzEFH5 CvNw45V1kzbEMp4ydopbcyI9AmkODMZZdaW+lexUPJANqMCf7irb9bG0Jom//711 mvPEZmyVSMTBz33eAA6RSu+mQaaL7Ek1BE64iDXCJFkSyUy2x18Q9+APQ29AaMpH NG6FIbO/Ex8= =FjqL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

No Subject
by anonymous＠extropia.wimsey.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: Any cypherpunks building encrypted phone? Hello everyone! I'd like to know if anyone on the list has made any attempt to construct a true encrypted phone, something at the level of the AT&T DES phone. I think that it ought not to be too difficult to build a couple, using existing modems and basic hardware design. If all the commercial phones are going to be Clipper-based, we'll have to build the real ones ourselves. Lady Ada, Queen of Engines

5 4

US Constitution online
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jeff Davis <eagle(a)deeptht.armory.com>: > For one thing, I suggest that everyone have a refferance with the > Constitution with in arms reach of their terminals. Or *on* their terminals: ftp://wiretap.spies.com/Gov/World/usa.con The same directory contains constitutions and charters of many countries, from Chian to Slovakia, as well as the covenant of the Hamas, and the Magna Carta. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh "What is civilisation rishab(a)doe.ernet.in, rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in but a ribonucleic Voicemail +91 11 3760335; Vox/Fax/Data 6853410 hangover?" H-34C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Quants vs Congress
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Big hearings in Congress today about how evil derivatives and the quants who build them are. They are a threat to government as we know it. Don't tell anyone but the "intermediation of political risk" was one of the greatest invention of the 1980s. Combine same with strong crypto and you almost have to feel sorry for the public employees in our midst. Watch out for a little downsizing. To show that I'm a charitable guy, I have some free advice to anyone reading this who is involved in "taking the King's shilling": I understand that there is a bright future in computer maintenance technology. A word to the wise.... DCF "Buddy can you spare an EXPTIME-complete encryption system?" g' 5O--- WinQwk 2.0b#1165g' 5O

4 3