December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Important Announcement from Money & Investing Update
by Money & Investing Update 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Wall Street Journal's Money & Investing Update (http://update.wsj.com) has now introduced Company Briefing Books, a major product enhancement that enables Update readers to get a rich, up-to-the-minute background report on any company in the news. Briefing Books are highly graphical compilations of recent news, stock charts, and financial data, available on more than 6,500 U.S. and international companies. They include news from The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones newswires, as well as background reports and performance data from other leading information sources. Money & Investing Update editors now include direct hyperlinks to Briefing Books from nearly every significant mention of a company in Update stories and tables. In addition, readers can ask for a Briefing Book on a company of their choosing at any time simply by entering a company name or stock symbol. The Money & Investing Update is at http://update.wsj.com. If you haven't read the Update in a while, please try this important new feature. You can go directly to a Briefing Book request form at this URL: http://update.wsj.com/briefingbook/inap/search.html. Best wishes, The Editors and Staff of Money & Investing Update ---------------------- For further information, contact us at info(a)update.wsj.com or call customer support at 1-800-369-2834. If you would prefer not to receive any future email from the Money & Investing Update please send email to "LISTSERV(a)PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM" In the body of your message please type "UNSUBSCRIBE WSJ-ANNOUNCE"

1 0

Re: Taxless society concerns]
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, Sep 11, 1997 at 12:10:41AM -0600, Warpy wrote: > First off. In such a society, who cares for the old, the sick, and the > infirm? How is such care going to be payed for? How will basic services be > maintained without the necessary taxes required to pay for them? Family. Friends. What basic services are you referring to? > Now before you start yelling at me and calling me a government > sympathiser, let me say that i am disgusted at the amount of money spent > by governments around the world on military equipment and personnel. If > such a taxless society were to eventuate there would be *hopefully* that > much more money floating around to help those who need it most. The money won't be "floating around," it will be in the pockets of individuals instead of being paid out as taxes. > But the question remains. In such a taxless society, and little or no > government, how are those less fortunate than us going to be cared for? You should do more examining of Libertarian resources on the net. And do some thinking on your own. Start with the presumption that individuals and private organizations can operate more efficiently than the government. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <mailto:omegam@cmq.com>|"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:" to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1979 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: "random" number seeds vs. Netscape
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:29 PM 9/23/95 -0400, you wrote: >Can you take the time between two effectively async events, and use the >low order bits of same? >For example, time between a netverk pack arriving and the next tick of >the TOD clock? And/or the system's disk IO or such? You might get some entropy there, but you can get more (though perhaps not measurably more) by using the values of both instead. For instance rand = MD5(rand, lowbits(T(clock) - T(packet))) vs rand = MD5(rand, T(clock), T(packet)) As long as you're not overoptimistic about how many real bits you've gotten, might as well actually use the version that keeps more low-quality bits than try to improve them. Also, do watch out for things that aren't really asynchronous, e.g. the next clock tick will probably happen at some even multiple of 1000000/Hz microseconds. #--- # Bill Stewart, Freelance Information Architect, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # Phone +1-510-247-0664 Pager/Voicemail 1-408-787-1281 #---

1 0

Hello
by Xavier Naveira 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello!!!!

1 0

Re: The problem of playing politics with our constitutional rights]
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, Sep 12, 1997 at 12:06:35AM -0800, John Smith wrote: > > Why do you say that? Clipper was defeated. People all over the net > united and opposed it. Now there is this new threat, but at least > defeating Clipper bought some time. There is no reason the same > thing can't happen again. > > Sometimes I think cypherpunks *want* crypto to be outlawed. No. Cypherpunks *expect* it will be outlawed. And it will be yet another largely uneforceable restriction. Sure you can run around and trumpet about how bad it is that your government is going to outlaw cryptography. You can rant at the fundamental unconstitutionality of it. You can try to convince legislators who don't even know what a mouse is that outlawing crypto is a bad idea. If it makes you feel good and you think its a valuable effort, knock yourself out. Personally, I'd like to see more disposable remailers, more stego,continued development of the eternity server and similar ideas, and an implementation of untraceable anonymous digital cash. (We have until Jan. 1, 1999) Phil Z. didn't release PGP to show how much he disliked Clipper or join in some unified opposition. He released it to beat the government's efforts to the punch and get unrestricted strong crypto into the hands of anyone who wanted it -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <mailto:omegam@cmq.com>|"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:" to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1979 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Cypherpunks Lite
by hshubs＠BIX.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Would the person who does this, or someone who can point me at him, contact me via e-mail please?

4 3

(fwd) IRS Modernization
by Damaged Justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- forwarded message -- Path: wmich-news!gumby!newspump.wustl.edu!news.starnet.net!news.starnet.net!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!computer-privacy-request From: Monty Solomon <monty(a)roscom.COM> Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy Subject: IRS Modernization Date: 12 Sep 1997 19:33:17 GMT Organization: Computer Privacy Digest Lines: 170 Sender: comp-privacy(a)uwm.edu Approved: comp-privacy(a)uwm.edu Message-ID: <comp-privacy11.11.10(a)cs.uwm.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.2.6 X-Original-Submission-Date: 11 Sep 1997 22:08:16 -0400 X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy(a)uwm.edu X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request(a)uwm.edu X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 011, Message 10 of 12 X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.society.privacy iQBFAwUBNBl8mTNf3+97dK2NAQGjTQF+IShsF6F0xmyCQi25Bh5+nlwfIOHLPVXm Aes89JHkrNTHPkuow8lQY/VJGKH4V/nY =pEpf Originator: levine(a)blatz.cs.uwm.edu Xref: wmich-news comp.society.privacy:527 Begin forwarded message: Date: 23 Aug 1997 21:21:31 -0700 From: Michael Dodas <miked(a)NOSPAM!.utw.com> Subject: IRS Modernization - Request for Information Newsgroups: comp.software.year-2000 I just recently read IRS's "Request for Comments (RFC)", which solicits comments for modernizing the IRS's tax systems. This document is the first information I've seen that shows just how desperate the IRS is and how complex the IRS tax systems are. Their systems are literally incomprehensible. I won't even attempt to describe this document in any type of detail. My comments are merely those taken from the document that "caught my eye" upon my first reading of this document (RFC). To truly appreciate the gravity of what the IRS wants to accomplish, you'll need to read the entire document. Keep in mind, also, that the Modernization effort is intended to proceed as a separate project from the Year 2000 correction effort. The document, which I will refer to as the RFC, begins with a cover letter from Arthur A. Gross, Associate Commissioner/Chief Information Officer at the IRS. Mr. Gross acknowledges that "the IRS assumed primary responsibility for managing both systems development and integration with less than acceptable results". This statement sets the tone for the IRS's direction of creating a "partnership" with the private sector "stakeholders" to modernize the IRS. Mr. Gross further indicates that it is "myth" to believe that the private sector alone could modernize the IRS, since IRS possesses the necessary "knowledge of tax administration" to build a new system. For all intents and purposes, IRS wants to turn over all of the project management, re-engineering, systems engineer, design and development and integration expertise to the private sector. I always knew the IRS was extraordinarily complex, but it is more complex than I could have ever imagined. The RFC indicated that the complete Modernization Blueprint consists of seven volumes--count them--seven volumes. It may be a simpler system, but it will inevitably end up being yet another complex monster. The RFC continues to say that "during the 1980's and early 1990's, effort focused on delivering taxpayer services and compliance functionality together with limited on-line development of stand along "stovepiped" systems with stand along data bases utilizing the principles of distributed computer processing, an approach to computing en vogue during the late 1980's and 1990's. Overall, the IRS computing environment evolved into an extraordinarily complex array of legacy and stand alone modernized systems with respect to both connectivity and interoperability between the mainframe platforms and the plethora of distributed systems." In other words, the IRS succumbed to "fashion technology" solutions which did nothing but complicate their previous efforts to modernize. To give you an idea of how large the IRS's information system are, consider these statistics from the RFC: There are three computing centers, with sixty (60) mainframes in ten regional service centers. NONE OF THE MAINFRAMES ARE CENTURY DATE COMPLIANT. There are 62 million lines of code in the IRS core business systems. Duplicate distributed networks have interoperability and connectivity problems and are largely not century date compliant. IRS mentions "risk" many times in the RFC. "While the risks inherent in Phase III may be nearly incalculable given the aged systems, the absence of critical documentation, dependency on Assembler Language Code (ALC) and the inevitable turnover of the IRS workforce supporting these systems, it is essential to plan and execute the conversion of the Master Files and its related suite of applications". IRS seems to know that it will not be able to retain its technical expertise, who will probably bail for better paying jobs. The IRS's goal is to canvas "any reasonable strategy to move forward on modernization" while, at the same time, managing the immediate crisis (Y2K) to "stay in business". Given the complexity of IRS, its past modernization failures and the Year 2000 problem facing them, you would have to be insane to believe these goals were obtainable. The Next Eighteen Months: Staying In Business And Preparing For Modernization: While searching for executive and senior information technology managers, the IRS received in excess of 800 applications from the "not faint of heart". IRS has an interesting way of describing what kind of job is in store for these people. They'll be luck to keep any of them around long-term. Rebuild Product Assurance. IRS indicates that staffing levels have sunk to less than 30 percent of the minimum industry standards, and is one of the highest priorities with IRS. The RFC indicated that today, major tax systems changes are not subjected to comprehensive testing prior to being migrated to production. Moreover, the Century Date conversion will place an extraordinary additional burden on the Product Assurance Program. I think what IRS is saying here is that they don't have the staff for a Y2K remediation effort and have obviously only partially completed the inventory phase. The IRS indicates that "it must undertake and complete major infrastructure initiatives no later than June 1999 to minimally ensure century date compliance for each of its existing mainframes and/or their successor platforms. At the same time, the IRS must complete the inventory of its field infrastructures as well as develop and execute a century date compliance plan for the conversion replacement and/or elimination of those infrastructures." How in god's name is this possible by June 1999 when they haven't even started. Notice how they used the words "minimally ensure century date compliance". What is that going to accomplish. Either you're compliant or you're not. Basically, the IRS admits it was "wrong-headed" to modernize the legacy systems instead of creating a brand new system. Considering the spaghetti code and systems in place, I would have to agree. On the other had, the IRS is indicating that contractual agreements may be extended for up to fifteen (15) years for the modernization effort. The new system will probably be obsolete before it ever gets off the ground. The last thing I will point out in the document stood out to me as the most profound of all, for obvious reasons. This is the way IRS describes themself: "The Information Systems (IS) organization of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is a huge enterprise--employing in excess of 7,500 personnel across the United States, budgeted in excess of $1 billion annually and responsible for the design development and ongoing support of a highly complex and vast array of technologies which, taken together, comprise the technology-based engine that powers the IRS. A $1.4 trillion Financial Services Program, IRS business enterprises are unprecedented in size and scope - a Fortune One company - with service centers, district office and regional office operations, staffed by more than 100,000 employees, largely dependent on highly automated process as well as the currency, comprehensiveness and availability of vast storehouses of computerized data. The latter half of the last decade of the twentieth century presents IS management and staff with unprecedented challenges: fraught with risks and potential for failure; yet filled with opportunity to serve the nation's taxpayers, while contributing to the creation of the largest and most sophisticated technology-based program in business or government". The above two paragraphs may well be the IRS's epitaph. In my opinion, the only way the Federal Government can secure its tax revenue collection system is to completely repeal the current United States Tax Code and replace it with a VERY simple one like a flat tax. Any attempt to fix (Y2K and Modernize) is impossible. The IRS is a classic example and sets the standard for systems which are too complex to automate. This level of complexity should be limited to scientific endeavors. I truly believe that it will be easier for NASA to put a man on Mars more easily and quickly than to continue on with the current IRS and tax code currently in place. This amazing document can be found at: http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/bureaus/irs/prime/primerfc.htm Then select Request For Comment No. TIRNO-97-H-0010 It is a 116 page Adobe Acrobat document. I had great difficulty printing the document because of the complex diagrams. I have a HP Laserjet/4 with 4 megs of memory. The only way I could print it was to use a Laserjet/III driver. It worked at the high resolution, but not as well as the Laserjet/4. Leave it to the government to create a document that you can't even print easily! Happy Reading, -- Mike Dodas -- end of forwarded message --

2 1

Re: Any talk of limiting _existing_ crypto? (fwd)]
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, Sep 12, 1997 at 12:00:43AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > > How about the system file i/o level? Sort of like TCFS (Transparent Crytpographic File System) for Linux? Is there such a thing for Windows? NT? Mac? If so I've heard of none. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <mailto:omegam@cmq.com>|"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:" to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1979 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Let sleeping dogs lay]
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, Sep 11, 1997 at 05:04:52PM -0700, Tim May wrote: > > "Nothing good can come out of crypto legislation." > > --said by several of us over the past year > > > The big mistake was ever introducing the SAFE and Pro-CODE bills, as it > brought the NSA and FBI out of their warrens and into the warrens of > Congress. Without any crypto bills at all, it is possible (though by no > means certain) that no legislation at all would have been introduced this > year. And the longer the wait the better. Some have complained that the status quo situation of export restrictions was unacceptable. Yet the spread of crypto has largely been unrestrained -- a stay of execution so to speak. The longer the status quo remains, the more ubiquitous crypto becomes and future legislative efforts are undermined. That said, I think these organizations made a strategic error. Had a draconian bill been introduced first, opposition probably would have played out differently in the press. We saw this with Clipper. I believe commercial interests played a large part in the push for legislation. Just another player in the game, I suppose. > But once SAFE and Pro-CODE were out there, on the table, the forces in > favor of a surveillance state began their lobbying in earnest, giving the > infamous "if you only knew what we knew" scare tactic pitches. Last minute > amendments and even complete bill replacements are easier to slip in than a > Big Brother bill from the gitgo. Sure enough, the tide is now moving > swiftly toward a future far, far, far worse than the mere annoyance of > export controls. You almost sound surprised. Did they really think Congressman would understand crypto? Congressmen _do_ understand law and order and protecting poor defenseless children from porn. They understand preventing "another Oklahoma. And it's an easy sell to their constituencies, too. The average schmoe may indeed *want* more freedom, but he also he wants to be protected. And he also has a limited understanding of the equation. The easiest explanation wins, of course. > to prison." The current language is of course a full-blown disaster. > Pandora's box was opened by SAFE and Pro-CODE. > > And so here we are. Multiple committees in both houses jockeying to see who > can clamp down the hardest on crypto. > > CDT, EPIC, and all the other Beltway insiders ought to think about this > mess. Sometimes it's better just to let sleeping dogs lay. Or lie. Or > whatever. Some people just don't get it. You'll never gain more freedom through more legislation. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <mailto:omegam@cmq.com>|"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:" to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1979 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Apology to Netscape.
by carolann＠censored.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jeff Weintstein corrected me with: > This is what our press release said: > > An updated version of Netscape Navigator 1.1 for Mac OS > and Unix and Netscape Navigator 1.2 for Windows 3.1 and > Windows 95 will be available for downloading by existing > customers on the Internet next week. My apologies for the misquote. It only then makes the trading facts worse. Love Always, Carol Anne ps On the asides kind of things, do you realize the Netscape stock base of 5,000,000 shares is not a big sharebase? Coca-Cola's is 1,300,000,000. And by standards, your stock is really unstable. If Coca-Cola moves 3 points there'll be a trading halt, for the buying/selling imbalance will be too much. Even if only for 1 min. The trading halt gets the good or bad news onto "The Street". -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMGUCaYrpjEWs1wBlAQF9ZAP6AkMCsveSU/E8KFDi84urnAR2KlXT42rS l+9tHh33ZWbM6VmHUMkqelM11vc7zU1eWLhXlYHaoOqwGuTef9irQigbnr+HwYKL Px9480/Chm59RWCG6j4pp4d0xUQO9Pj0lbpIecn72eDYReRIgh5+MU0jOCNdUNLe RvP7XvYI570= =Nb9y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann(a)censored.org 206.42.112.96 My Homepage The Cyberdoc *********************************************************************** ------------------ PGP.ZIP Part [017/713] ------------------- M8H,),S$8G>&.WP(8IRA`-M['+`Q%&_C"">5-F%LX@<_Q$;*P'',Q$Z/AA[8M MF=O0H+*%(-S%&>S%+FS&<LS%3(Q&#W1"<]2%`H^;,]^1C$'HBN8PX$4SYAU^ MPGD<Q0ZLA0D+,`MCT!LA**4M[-JPAK9F?40!AJ,CW"'%DR#:'9?Q)3[%<DQ` ------------------------------------------------------------- for next chunk to export --> http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/export/

1 0