December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Sigh Re: not a flame please read and think about this
by MMac102754＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mr anon, if you want to flame, sign your name. M MacLeish = MMac102754(a)aol.com

1 0

Re: Confirmation on Diana, please?
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Personally, I have to say that if *I* got a reply to an anonymous post before it had even reached its destination, I would start to worry... > bureau42 Anonymous Remailer wrote: > > > > Are there any Cypherpunks mailing list members who can confirm that > > there was a series of posts related to Princess Diana's death in the > > days before the event? I am particularly interested in information as > > to whether Cypherpunks were in any way responsible for a slight delay > > in the timing of her death. > > I am particularly interested in communicating with the person who sent > > me the anonymous messages between 8/24/97 and 8/30/97 using the nym > > "A'Tak A'Tdorn'. > > > > If you have information and an interest in sharing it, please send a > > post to the Cypherpunks list or the fight-censorship list, indicating > > such. If you wish for me to contact you through a neutral, third party, > > indicate that as well. > > > > Thank You > > If you have a death-wish, then send this message again through the > Canadian Mountie remailer. {:>)-----< > {HELP! They knocked me down and cut off my arms!} > > I presume the message you are referring to on 24/8/97 is the one > which answers your previous anonymous inquiry by saying, > "Only for the moment we are saying nothing." > It meant what it said. However, since the moment is over I suppose > there is no harm in saying "something." I will therefore give you > a modicum of information on the messages which have passed through > the cypherpunks list since your original notification that something > was in the wind. > For starters, although I have not seen the original email which you > received but I believe that if you read it closely you will see that > it implied that the coming messages to the list would be in a form > which was _analogous_ to the event, whereas you seemed to take it > literally as a plan to "Nuke D.C." > [How you managed to come to the conclusion that spooks and shadows > would refer to a coming event directly totally escapes me!?!] > If you will reinterpret the posts in question in light of the event, > I believe you will see the thread that winds through them. > > As you were told, the AOL'er messages were used as markers to divine > which of the coming messages contained stegonographic messages of one > sort or another, or pointers to graphics containing the stegonography. > I am assuming you understood this and sent the AOL'er message saying, > "Please send more details...thanks" > > If you had not taken the phrase "Nuke D.C." so literally you would > have noticed that the "Fade to Gray" post linked the coming major > event (Nuke D.C.) to foreigners, automobiles and death. > You were not alone in your request for details regarding the message > in the Quote of the day: > "I know the day it happens. On August 29, 1997 it's going > to feel pretty fucking real to you too." > which had been sent by one of the Canadians involved in ferreting out > the details of the coming event. > One of the cypherpunk list members posted the question, "When is X-Day > supposed to be?" when there was no mention of 'X-Day' in the quote. This > understandably led to postponement of the event while those involved > checked to see if there had been a breach in their security. > The subsequent message which stated, "I don't know what you mean by > 'When is X-Day supposed to be?'" was interpreted by those involved to > indicate that full details of their plans remained a mystery to those > who were trying to expose and stop it. > After they had put things in motion to proceed with their backup plan, > however, two more messages came to the list which indicated that there > was more known about their plan than they had suspected. > > In reply to the post expressing lack of knowledge about the timing of > X-Day, a post from _lne.com_ (surprise, surprise) suggested that X-Day > referred to people who are going to be "taken from the earth" (death) > by "pleasure saucers" (limosene) and noting that the limosene would > be operated by "Greys" (a reference to the <fade to grey> ending of > the "Fade To Gray" post--indicating a spook/LEA connection). The post > ended by suggesting the time of the event might be "April" (4 o'clock) > and gave a pointer to a sight with a graphic stego which would provide > a visual message. > > The second post that came well after it had been decided to proceed > with the backup plan said, > "The metallic custard scent ripped through the > stegosaurus' nostrils." > (metallic custard being a car bomb--note eye witness > accounts by Michael Solomon {who just happened to be > on the scene, naturally} speaking of a "loud explosion" > that brought to mind "terrorists."} > > "Clearly the meonotreme (Monarchist/Anarchist/Extremist) > journey it would begin as it had ended." > (The Fairy Tale Princess who had embarked on an extremist > political journey was about to return to becoming the > {dead} Fairy Tale Princess, once again.) > > "The ponder-tree hung itself in the heavy air, > it's sap becomming purple." > (Diana had sealed her death {"hung itself"} when she > opted to bond herself to Royal blood.) > > "And flowed enigmatically > like a river of broken curves and powdered eggshells." > (A reference to the immediate area of the planned event, > which would be at the split {"broken"} of a tunnel road > {"river"} and the airbags being sabotaged.) > > After this post appeared on the cypherpunks list, a Timmy C. Mayflower > ASCII art spam showed up on the list from a juno remailer, but it had > a Timothy C. May .sig following the artwork. (Followed by the proverbial > GJBuller response.) > Then both the juno remailer and the toad list experienced problems with > multiple messages being sent to _some_ people and _not_ others, as well > as _some_ people not getting certain messages at all. > You will also note that, as the "Fade To Gray" post indicated (re: all > the cypherpunks being "out of town" at the time of the event), there was > no activity on the list in the time surrounding the event. > As for the information in the graphic pointed to by the lne.com post, > it was never considered to be anything but an attempt at intentional > misdirection. > > You were told months ago that Diana's current power came from the > failure of the so-called suicide attempt and that the agreement to > leave her free to continue her public activities was contingent upon > her remaing free from political matters. You were also informed that > her involvement with the Labor Party land-mine issue was a breach of > that agreement, as was her June 13th reference to the resistance of > the Conservative party in this regard. > When you were contacted last week, you should have been able to figure > out for yourself what her link to the Harrods clan indicated. You were > made aware of everything you needed to be sitting on top of the story. > Given the fact that you have shown so little ability to act on the > information you have already been given, we are probably wasting our > time by giving you any further information. Regardless, if you wish to > pursue the matter then I suggest that you research: > a) the explosion > b) the driver's airbag > c) the liquid on the ground at the scene > d) the source of changes in the day's schedule > and/or the previous day's schedule > e) the details of who was involved in the arrest > {debriefing} of the photographers present > > If you _do_ manage to follow up on the information then we _might_ be > inclined to give you the details of Prince Charle's upcoming wedding > and coronation. > > : : B o o t s > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Scientology/Wollersheim as test case for key disclosure
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Andrew Loewenstern writes: > > Modemac writes: > > Mr. Wollersheim has stated that he will go to jail before he reveals > > his encryption key. > [...snip...] > > Call this one: BIG WIN FOR PGP! > > Could this be it? The test case for forced key disclosure? The > Scientologists seem very determined and already have a grudge against > Wollersheim (according to a web page I saw Co$ owes him several million from > a settlement). Has Co$ filed against Wollersheim over this yet? > > If this does go to court and forcing Wollersheim to reveal the key becomes a > central issue, is this the test case "we" want? Is this a "BIG WIN FOR PGP!" > or not? Well, since it's (apparently) a civil case against Wollersheim, the potential Fifth Amendment self-incrimination issues may be murkier, so this may not be a good test case for the criminal context. In federal civil trials, material reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is discoverable unless there's an applicable privilege - this means that in a civil case, a defendant may be forced to hand over material likely to expose them to liabilty. (The Fifth Amendment privilege against criminal self-incrimination still applies). I'm not sure that key disclosure will even be necessary - the Church (or whatever annoying tentacle of it is suing Wollersheim) is entitled to, for example, "a copy of . . . all documents, data compilations, and tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of the party that are relevant to disputed facts alleged with particularity in the pleadings" (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)). I don't see why Wollersheim couldn't comply with the discovery rules by providing plaintext copies of all relevant information, unless for some reason the passphrase is itself relevant. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMFFFG33YhjZY3fMNAQGmLAP/S412cBRTRFRWou6mVjh7jbT9O3CIUPEB oFuDLNy7pQR2ZaR5JOzSsCv9d96CpGdVjIWUxhP/Fz6tN3ZP7LuCXBssoIuiyuEp z2e+LQthjcksUDqipR+QggIhN3hU66esg14WCF61yjwpXCukn13cOISYtBHRjc9g sEiN0SXZ4tw= =knU6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3

Re: Confirmation on Diana, please?
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fuck Diana and Dodi, rotting garbage, germs, well ridded, like JFK. Up the paparazzi or whoever honored Labor Day doing dirty work, giving a lesson: run, can't hide. Two down, thousands more to go worldwide, the sooner the better, inshallah, scare the beasts back to bunker. Guards will drain their blood, day by day. Grieve for the driver, maybe the royal bitch's cop, praise Oswald or whoever.

1 0

Re: Developments in the _Junger_ suit
by Antonomasia 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> BXA are quoted as writing: >> : While the use of html links by a person might, in some applications, >> : involve an export . . . >I must admit to being very curious as to how html links can be an >export. >Is this an export? > RSA .sig >This one might be fun also, but still I can't see that it's an export: I think a mere pointer is not an export, no matter what it points to, but a link with prohibited smuggled _content_ might be: <A HREF="http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/print_pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo..... although the quoting would probably take a lot of thought. Perhaps that's the kind of thing they mean ? -- ############################################################## # Antonomasia ant(a)notatla.demon.co.uk # # See http://www.notatla.demon.co.uk/ # #### !!! PGP 5.0 beta available now at ftp.replay.com !!! ####

2 1

Re: Scientology/Wollersheim as test case for key disclosure
by dsc＠swcp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Phill <hallam(a)w3.org> wrote, >One solution to this problem would be to modify PGP so that the session >key for >the document was released rather than the passphrase for the public key. The >former would provide only read access, the latter would allow th >scientologists >to forge Wollerstein's signature on other material. In addition many of the >documents may be subject to privillege. It seems to me that if this kind of risk was seen ahead of time that a method doing the equivalent using ordinary PGP commands could be agreed upon by all involved. The document could be encrypted using "PGP conventional encryption" and the pass phrase for that could then encrypted using the public key. The encrypted document would thus consist of these two parts. The breaking of the traditional decryption into it's two parts would not be needed--superficial use of PGP would work. The owner of the public key--who is in possession of the document encrypted as suggested--when threated by an attacker--who is also in possession of the document--with an unbearably high cost for not giving up his secret key can offer to give up the the password for the "PGP conventional encryption". This method does not define how the password is obtained and that might be a weakness. I confess I'm new to PGP (and this subject in general) and am ignoring the suggestion in Tim May's FAQ that newbies try not to look clueless. Dar Scott =========================================================== Dar Scott Home phone: +1 505 299 9497 Dar Scott Consulting Voice: +1 505 299 5790 8637 Horacio Place NE Email: darscott(a)aol.com Albuquerque, NM 87111 dsc(a)swcp.com Fax: +1 505 898 6525 http://www.swcp.com/~correspo/DSC/DarScott.html ===========================================================

1 0

Lost Pappa
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Patiently they laid in wait Originally there were eight Talk is cheap and so is jive So eight quickly turned to five Caving in, the hat, the beard Suddenly reappeared Now we have seven of eight The last, alas, is late...is late Don Dunne

1 0

RSA licensing costs?
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone know how much RSA wants per desktop in a large client application? Using the BSAFE dereived licenses would be fine for this. (We're looking at 2-10k licenses for a nameless financial institution, doing those things that RSA likes. :) Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -- Hume

1 0

Sigh Re: not a flame please read and think about this
by Pat Farrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject line is bull*&^&, IMHO, of course In message Sat, 9 Sep 1995 16:40:00 UTC, an116512(a)anon.penet.fi writes: > to make my point: why is pat farrel helping the nsa and nist make Learn to spell my name. It is on my .sig, my keys, and in my userid. We blockheaded, Irish Catholic Americans are damn proud of our name. Farrell's (along with other cheap Irish labor) built the railroads from Chicago west. Please spell it correctly, even if you are flaming me. > hey why not just write the escorw code for them!!!??? > is mr farrel just being naive or is does he realize who hes working for? > sorry to single him out but this is just an example of what im talking > about. I doubt that this clown deserves a response, but... There were a number of cypherpunks there. I can't speak for all, but I expect movites include: - attempting to clarify vague and confusing wording so we could understand what they wanted. - seeing that working with them, rather than yelling at their stupidity, has a higher chance of getting results. - we got to meet influential folks from industry who agree with us. - some of us aren't completely apposed to CKE. I think it has value. If we could convert their plan for GAK into CKE, it would be a big win, well worth the effort. - they are going to promulgate a FIPS PUB standard next week, whether I like it or not, and whether I help or not. It is better to have that standard understandable and clear than fuzzy and subject to subective evaluation. - getting preposterous misstatements into the formal Federal Register so we can quote it back to them in the congressional hearings. Mr Geoff Greivelddinger's words should be handy to quote, for one example. - there are lots more, but I doubt that I can convince this clown. Pat Pat Farrell Grad Student http://www.isse.gmu.edu/students/pfarrell Info. Systems & Software Engineering, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA PGP key available on homepage #include <standard.disclaimer>

2 1

None
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:09 PM 8/25/97 +1000, you wrote: >> So what you are saying then is that when the scum inserts a toilet plunger >> up someone's butt you consider them less than human, therefore all of >> humanity becomes less than human including the plunging scum, therefore >> he himself is less than human... > >Ok I'll take this slowly > >1) All of humanity is equaliy human I can generally agree with that >2) If someone is made less then human then we all become less human by >that amount Oh, kind of like that "ruin it for everyone" idea. >For esample if Alice, Bob and Paul all have say 10 units of humanity. Now >Paul shoves a plunger up Bobs datehole, we could say that Paul should >have 5 units of humanity. By rule one every body else is now also 5 >units. Um, Dave, it doesn't work like that. Alice didn't do anything, and Bob was victimized, anyway. The only person who should be less human is Paul. >As you can planly see assining humanitiy and inhumanity is a pointless >esasize. And the platypus should refrain from saying crap like this in the future. I for one have no idea how this could be the system for assigning inhumanity. Bad Cypherpunk!!! No Security!!

1 0