December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Tcl citations from Cyphernomicon
by bart＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: Richard Stallman of GNU on Tcl > Date: Wed, 05 Oct 1994 10:46:50 -0400 > From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)imsi.com> > > > Fascinating, but why are you sending this to cypherpunks? > > Harry Bartholomew says: > > > > On gnu.announce of 9/23, he writes "Why you should not use Tcl". > > Instead, those wanting to use the Tk tools are commended to a > > Scheme interpreter with it called STk. Available from: > > ftp.cs.indiana.edu:pub/scheme-repository/imp/STk-2.1.tar.Z > For the grep-impaired, see sections 4.5.4 and particularly 13.4.14 of Tim's opus for Tcl relevance to Cypherpunks.

1 0

Re: your mail
by nobody＠jpunix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)access.digex.net> wrote: > Anonymous scripsit > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > > > That being said let it be known that I consider the following as a > > > "Cypherpunk victory." > > > > > > 1. Complete freedom of technology, particularly encryption technology, > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > regulated only by market forces. This implies the lack of import/export > > > restrictions, and a complete absence of projects designed to limit > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > technology, or to standardize it for nefarious ends like Clipper. > > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > I think you overgeneralize. No limits on toxic waste incinerators, > >low-mileage automobiles, unsafe medical devices, genetically tampered food, > >or nuclear reactors? "Market forces" in such cases positively encourage > >dangerous technology (e.g. incinerators are superficially cheap) or are > >markedby their inability to distinguish the good from the crap (e.g. medical > >devices). > > It is you who have overgeneralized. No limits on technology certainly > does not mean allowing low tech and poor incinerators to continue operating. > The fact that low mileage cars still drive is a result of poor markets > than anything else (baring colletables). How would you argue that some > low mileage cars are the result of a no limitations on technology policy? A lack of mileage standards, which are regulations on technology, can be expected to result in technology that doesn't meet the standard. > Unsafe medical devices? I would say this is a problem with testing > technology, not a lack of limitation on technological advance. If medical devices are sold without ANY limitation, e.g. the requirement that they be safe and effective, the result is unsafe equipment. Improved testing technology isn't useful if there's no requirement to use it. And "the market" is composed of people who have neither the expertise to test the equipment before they consent to its use, nor (in the case of someone's who's bleeding or in labor) the time. > Genetically tampered food? Why is this dangerous? Have any evidence? > Most of the livestock/crops you eat today have been altered in one way > or another, be it selective breeding, low tech botanical splicing, or > genetic/hormonal therapy. You see this as a regression? In some cases, yes, I see problems in biotech. For example, hormones used in cattle in high doses are known to cause tumors in women in low doses. Whether people would choose to eat horemone-treated meat is debatable; I had thought that the right to make the choice was taken by cypherpunks as an article of faith. Without regulation on the technology, even an innocuous labeling requirement, the right to choose is taken away because consumers can't detect the difference between hormone-treated beef and organic beef. > You never make the distinction between regulation designed to promote and > regulation designed to deter technological advance. Technological advance is a means to an end. Regulations should properly be about insuring the public welfare. While we might reasonably disagree about what that welfare is, clearly technological anarchy doesn't promote it. > Market > forces are lathargic, sometimes they need a boost. I propose this boost > be accomplished with motivators like tax breaks, market assisters and > privatization. Either the market works or it doesn't. You can't decry all government regulation and then call for handouts to businessmen. > When Germany wanted to promote environmentally sound > packaging and manufacture, they started a program called Gruun Punkt (The > Green Point) They allow manufactures to place the green point sticker on > their products provided they meet XYZ specifications. Actually, I think this is a great way to proceed. ======================================================================= Crim Tideson Privacy is its own justification. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAwUBLpKieKvOblMnt4MdAQH72wP+NiE1e/wGy5t2XZla3gRXLRRGpCFeEX5J YtcKLqbym/pV9XRLBuEGIETnrsmJoOrWN+PDlzW02HXRmiad+Wbf1jp/QjPwXkQm 0ysSrrTIkZMsjIlY5ffxzwR8LzQZMhAMliFmFjhE8rAz/fLAqY1N+kT7NLiPyP54 TPOVSSyEhKU= =1dU3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

6 7

Re: Chomsky (thread from hell)
by nobody＠jpunix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "Gary Jeffers" <CCGARY(a)MIZZOU1.missouri.edu> wrote: > I remember Chomsky being quoted (I think in a Mother Jones issue) > something to the effect that the opposition to "political correctness" > was not legitimate. Apparently, Chomsky finds at least one kind of > oppression to be not distasteful. > At a Chomsky lecture that I attended, Chomsky described himself as a > left libertarian. I surmise that he finds that grassroots oppression by > the left to be ok. I realize, of course, that "political correctness" > has great mass media & State support. Please post direct, in-context quotes from Chomsky to substantiate your claims, or stop making them. This demonization of Chomsky is so tiresome. ======================================================================= Crim Tideson Privacy is its own justification. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAwUBLpKaIavOblMnt4MdAQEwdQQAu1ztK8Wn9DRaANtklfbXBLZUAw0jRvKI f80gO3YLPZgOqUQV9j9AvoDl8Zqrsonm00gXxo2m7EIoZQtG5MIq9722kzEsxUzS aDipQM3bS9VRDtRrU4UhI5pl730yP6SulcpxRXv65OcSTJOsPNj40U0wC9tipeTk jiPoRSZ71Yg= =2CWO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Chomsky quote (thread from hell)
by nobody＠jpunix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > jamesd(a)netcom.com (James A. Donald) wrote: > > >Noam Chomsky, in a 4/16/94 e-mail response to a question from Steve > >Shalom, says: > > > > In my opinion, not only mainstream intellectuals but also others > > who produce a constant stream of lies, distortion, racist screeds, > > etc., should be permitted freedom of speech. The state should not > > have the power to stop them. The same freedom extends to > > hypocrites, like faculty senates who choose one particularly and > > usually quite marginal example because career and power interests > > are served thereby, while ignoring vastly more significant and > > awful cases because the opposite is true. And Congress, of which > > the same is correct. > [utterly specious reasoning deleted] > Thus he is actually making a misleading and spurious > argument *against* freedom of speech at the same time as he > is piously declaring himself to be in favor of freedom of > speech. Leaving aside the fact that you've somehow managed to "prove" to yourself that Chomsky means the opposite of what he clearly and consistently says, what has this to do with cypherpunks? ======================================================================= Crim Tideson Privacy is its own justification. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAwUBLpKchqvOblMnt4MdAQGl2wP8DpmSTLSR+H3xQJY/ygEbVzABPZu436eV vAiJNcNV+PoPw5Bg6p3IBowP40JcYoqjn6Va0PomkLxdWyluwGFlNnorsb2Lq8e8 KOhzMlmnX1CIlXYfxXQxN3wCSYVqDfdhbw/9l/ZLVLWLLT+TH/NFNrj3WIhEmuWJ yXHkKKcHWwM= =ot7V -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Remailers in the uk papers
by Jonathon Fletcher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Today's OnLine in the Guardian (techy bit every thursday) has an article on anonymous remailers. It's not bad, nice introduction to the concepts, listing of some remailers (penet, the hacktic crowd, soda), a little practical instruction for the use of vox.hacktic (what headers to put in and how to delimit them). It introduces chaining, so mailings can be "super-secure". Quite a pro-remailer article - it's nice to read something like this in a public forum. There's a section on Julf and the amount of traffic that get's passed through penet, as well his address in case the reader wants to help sponsor (or donate something) a faster machine and a better connection to make it run faster. As a small quote, the last three sentences read: "Anonyous remailers can be fun, but try not to react like a child with a new toy. Use these services responsibly. Remember, some people need them badly" - OnLine, the Guardian, October 6th, 1994 The author is "Steve Harris <steveha(a)cix.compulink.co.uk>" -Jon -- Jonathon Fletcher. j.fletcher(a)stirling.ac.uk WWW Home Page: http://www.stir.ac.uk/~jf1

1 0

NATIONAL CRYPTOGRAPHY POLICY
by fhalper＠pilot.njin.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I saw this in Edupage, thought I'd pass it along. Reuben NATIONAL CRYPTOGRAPHY POLICY The National Research Council is conducting a comprehensive study of national cryptography policy, including such topics as: the availability of cryptography technology to foreign and domestic parties; the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers and users of such technology; U.S. national security and law enforcement interests; relative merits of various cryptographic technologies; demand for information systems security based on cryptography; the impact of foreign restrictions; the extent to which current policy is adequate for protecting U.S. interests; relative merits of current key escrow implementation schemes; feasible policy options; and recommendations for the process through which all interests are balanced in the formulation of national cryptography policy. Send comments and other correspondence to crypto(a)nas.edu. (NRC Release)

1 0

Re: Impact of Free Strong Crypto (Essay of sorts)
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Carl Ellison scripsit > > Your message signature was bad, BTW. > Oh? Anyone else on the list have this problem? If so I will be happy to re-up with a new sig. -uni- -- 073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig!

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - ---- Ignore any slobber between above and the PGP line. I just obtained a copy of Doug Floyd's data haven code. I am working on a workable implementation. The address of the data haven will be put on the list as soon as I make SURE the stuff is reliable. Until commands are finalized, they will not be revealed. When the site is up, please don't store much as I do not have that much disk space, and ENCRYPT your files. I fear that someone will send me some stuff that is very illegal, and leave it in the clear. So, I will try to see what is sent, and possibly post it if its not encrypted with something. Heck, use crypt or something better than rot13. I hate to appear as a snooper about people's files, but when this is up, I will demand encryption to protect my DH, and your stuff. PGP is easily available, use it, or DES, or crypt if you live on the dangerzone. Sorry for my prattling, but I am new to this. PS: Doug, use cb. Your code smells like a ten year old dead turkey with its looks. At least its relatively bug-free, and does the job well. Another thing, should you use SHA instead of MD5 for hashing? SHA has more bits, and there is a less chance for two files to collide. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAwUBLpOhhf8zicXJ5vudAQEk1QP8CG+JmzMPnrjRMPzomt/yWvWfWUwQktgS UXwTkLocL5+KkD3/0OHaZ8Eg3jWZnm9D4oPOhBljJX/yOBa7/5opN9nDwUeAmDOs +ULyrEEpfehmrit8wAQcVHvwtQdxaUz8Sg6XRWd0QOOCs71MmLx9JCxR2p2fJyin GPQ9djI7NIU= =1I2L -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Digital Telephony vote TODAY 7PM Eastern
by gnu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

According to EFF staffer Jonah Seiger: The bill is expected to be voted on in both the House and Senate TODAY! The House is expected to vote at about 7:00 pm (ET) and the Senate shortly there after (although it is still possible that they may not vote until tomorrow). The bill IS expected to pass both bodies. Do what you think is best. John Gilmore

1 0

crypto game idea
by jim＠bilbo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Crypto-Magic: The Gathering I was recently introduced to the card game Magic: The Gathering. Today over lunch, I realized that this game could be transformed into an ideal networked crypto-game. Why ideal? Magic is a really popular game right now and a network version would require a lot of the crypto technology discussed on this list. So, it's ideal for the purpose of getting crypto into popular use. Brief description of game: Magic is entirely based on cards. There's no dice or board or game pieces. Each card represents a creature, an artifact, a magical ability, or something else (like land). Some cards a common, some uncommon, some very rare. Players each have their own deck of cards which they assemble from a larger collection of cards before the start of the game. They take turns drawing cards from their deck, revealing some (invoking their power), keeping others in their "hand" until later. A player wins when they kill their opponent's "army" (or render it leader-less). Where's the crypto? In my mind, the cards must be handled kind of like digital money. You have to have a way of authenticating cards (can't have players forging new creatures) and you have to have a way of preventing players from duplicating powerful, rare cards. These constraints imply there is some bank-like agency that creates and signs "official" game cards. They could sell them for real digital cash, or Tacky Tokens, or whatever. The "bank", or another third-party service, might have to participate in the play of a game to enforce the constraints. It's not really like digital money, of course, but it would require protocols at least as sophisticated. I haven't thought about this beyond what I've just described, but it seems like a promising idea. Somebody could probably make money at it, if they wanted to. Too bad I'm to busy. Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

4 3