December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files (Uni Doesn't Get It)
by blancw＠pylon.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> From: Dave Mandl: Could you send me some powerful handguns and silencers? Oh, and while you're at it, give me all of your addresses and precise travel schedules for the next two weeks. As an "amoralist," I'm sure you won't put short term morality before my long-term goal. Thanks. >From Uni: I fear what you request would probably violate many laws. Providing you with weaponry has little to do with providing you the information you might need to obtain and modify such weapons as you will need. ......................................................... Uni, if the laws did not reflect your own moral stand regarding the uses of technology, would you nevertheless not have any personal thoughts at all on the matter? Laws come from the mind of mankind, you know, not vice versa. (Unless, of course, one is mindless and absolutely needs someone else's decisions to guide their moral reasoning.) .. Blanc

1 0

Morality masks technical ignorance
by blancw＠pylon.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Responding to msg by rishab: I always thought the emphasis on this list was on _technological_ rather than _political_ or _legal_ or _moral_ means to protect privacy and free expression - including the current limitations. ....................................................... So Rishab - do you think there's any good reason why governments shouldn't require the implementation of key escrow (GAK) (I mean, aside from what something like the US Constitution would have to say about it), or any good reason why any cypherpunk should protest it? The key words in my inquiry are *reason why*. .. Blanc

2 1

Premier Rae of Ontario
by lmccarth＠freya.cs.umass.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- A week or so ago I incorrectly referred to Bob Rae as the Prime Minister of Canada, when he is in fasct the Premier of the Province of v Ontario. As a former resident of OttOttawa, I'm well aware of the division of Canada into provinces. I misunderstood not the nature of the office itself, but rather the identity of the individual involved. I appreciate being corrected, but now I *have* been corrected, I really don't need any more mail about the issue. Thanks BTW this message is full of typos because I'm using a typically lousy terminal emulator program on dialup from a PC to a Unix system, which does not offer any support (AFAIK) for the crucially-important backspace key/ character. Suggestions on any sort of packasge offering an improvement would be welcomed. The ones I have now offer me heaps of fancy features I never use, and hold my hand through many parts where I don't need it. Incompatible standards sauck. This is very annoying so I'm getting out now. (Not signing because this connection is terrible) - -L. Futplex McCarthy - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBLwKLzyoZzwIn1bdtAQEDwQGAje19PbaItVp7+fGPu7k/81IWixDxKsEE GKfVfoSKLxpLfGXv6cW2Vd9vSGIqXqxq =c1pZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Morality masks technical ignorance
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

blancw(a)pylon.com: > Responding to msg by rishab: > I always thought the emphasis on this list was on > _technological_ rather than _political_ or _legal_ or _moral_ > means to protect privacy and free expression - including the > current limitations. > ....................................................... > So Rishab - do you think there's any good reason why > governments shouldn't require the implementation of key escrow > [...] > The key words in my inquiry are *reason why*. And the key word in _my_ post was _means_, not _reason why_. I.e. that (in my view of the Cpunk position) one can protect privacy not through morals, policies or law, but through technology. There may be very good reasons why governments should not require the implementation of key escrow, or why people shouldn't pry into their girlfriends' secrets (which if you really want to know I find reprehensible). Unfortunately those reasons of morality need not prevent the actions. Which is why Cypherpunks discuss untraceable anonymous remailers despite occasionally (aka Detweiler, for instance) decrying their (immoral) misuse, and why they should discuss breaking Norton Encrypt (or DES, or Skipjack, or 16384-bit RSA keys), while giving sermons about immoral boyfriends. Nobody (the Single-Horned One included) thinks reading other peoples' mail is moral, but that should not preclude a legitimate discussion of crypto technology. As it so happens, hardly anyone here knew about Norton Encrypt so we got embroiled in this argument. If we were to adopt a consistently (and solely) moral stance, we would accept Detweiler's position that remailers are bad and should be banned because they can be easily misused. Well, I guess these are the glitches in discourse we have to face on a list that's for both technology and policy. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh "In between the breaths is rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in the space where we live" rishab(a)arbornet.org - Lawrence Durrell Voice/Fax/Data +91 11 6853410 Voicemail +91 11 3760335 H 34C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA

2 1

HACK ATTACK
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Was I the only one who saw ``Hack Attack'' on the Discovery Channel? The promos were typically sensationalistic. `In cyber- space, there is no privacy.' `Teenage hackers can read, change or destroy your computer files.' `No one is safe.' Yada, yada, yada. Phyber Optik was interviewed in prison. A number of events were illustrated using `dramatic re-enactments.' Cop types told scary stories that, more often than not, ended with a statement like, ``The meltdown was caused by a programming error, but it could just have easily been done by a malicious teenage boy in his bedroom.'' They did do a fair job of defining and distinguishing the terms: `hacker,' `phreaker' and `cracker.' However, I don't recall ANY mention of encryption as a means of protecting privacy. Anyone else see it? S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3 2

Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files
by Matt Hewn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com From: Matt Hewn <matthewn(a)uiuc.edu> > Black Unicorn writes: > > > Person A requests information. > > Person B says no, because the use of the information is unsound in > > person B's view. > > Censorship? You tell me. > > Not unless person B is trying to force other people not to give out the > information. Failure to release the information himself is not censorship; > it doesn't matter what his reasons for doing so are. Person A requests information from Group C. Person B is a member of Group C. Person B does not ignore Person A. Person B does not speak with Person A. Person B responds to Person A by addressing Group C. Why? If the last sentence I quoted is true, then why tell _us_ why he won't release the information. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQBFAgUBLwL4cofkdnX+hcrBAQG+bAGAiXtYzCTQ2+3OOyi+CZg8aAQOS3Yw0w4R OqzDaiy03wyj+CviwvYQl/0GpoOG0d4B =TRQR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Matt Hewn <matthewn(a)uiuc.edu> -- Information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth. Truth is absolute.

1 0

Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Gentlemen don't read their girlfriends' mail, either..... On the other hand, if the original poster was telling the truth, he _did_ at least say he was trying to read his girlfriend's files, rather than saying "I used Norton Encrypt on some files for a project last year, and I've forgotten the password - is there some way to recover it?" which would have been sleazy and not started a flamewar. Or, if he wasn't telling the truth, maybe he's really trying to break his business competitor's files, or some government's, or he's really L..D.. in yet another disguise. Bill

1 0

Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files
by TheElusiveMatthew 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Sorry to mail this twice, but I realized I munged the attributions, and wanted to get it right. Ken Arromdee wrote: > Black Unicorn wrote: > > > Person A requests information. > > Person B says no, because the use of the information is unsound in > > person B's view. > > Censorship? You tell me. > > Not unless person B is trying to force other people not to give out the > information. Failure to release the information himself is not censorship; > it doesn't matter what his reasons for doing so are. Person A requests information from Group C. Person B is a member of Group C. Person B does not ignore Person A. Person B does not speak with Person A. Person B responds to Person A by addressing Group C. Why? If the last sentence I quoted is true, then why tell _us_ why he won't release the information? TheElusiveMatthew -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQBFAgUBLwMDqIfkdnX+hcrBAQG5gwGAmsK9B5hFkxrre8bvaMEl428irlLSHFZf zXocaI55xpr4ZvImCPpI/BNpKhUI0o6f =sBQJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

rfcs 1750 & 1751
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FYI, RFCs 1750 & 1751 have been issued. 1750 discusses generating strong random numbers. 1751 standardizes a means of converting a 128 bit number to a set of English words. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

RE: rfcs 1750 & 1751
by p.v.mcmahon.rea0803＠oasis.icl.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> FYI, RFCs 1750 & 1751 have been issued. 1750 discusses generating > strong random numbers. 1751 standardizes a means of converting a 128 ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > bit number to a set of English words. Both are informational, and don't represent standards of any kind - although RFC1750 has been subject to extensive review and scrutiny within the IETF security area. - pvm

1 0