December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Guerilla Internet Service Providers (fwd)
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:43 1/3/96, jim bell wrote: >Interestingly enough, my primary objection was NOT really commercial >encroachment on an existing amateur structure (though that is an important >consideration!); rather, it was the fact that because we're talking really >short-range communication (way less than a kilometer, in most cases) using >frequencies below a gigahertz would be a counter-productive shame. Here, we >WANT "line of sight"! And, of course, the bandwidth issue is inherently >better: It would be FAR easier to get 100 MHz width at around 2.5 GHz than >under 1 gig! There are several vendors offering 2.4GHz wireless with ranges up to 20 miles. Though the 900MHz stuff is much cheaper. Unless you have a pager cell on your roof, 900MHz should serve you fine. >I get a free (bingo-card) magazine industry magazine called "Microwaves and >RF," which is sort of the EDN for the high-frequency communication crowd. >You'd be amazed at the level of technical (chip) development there. Chip >sets that do frequency synthesis/full RF/IF on surface mount chips. If you don't want to build your own, there are various vendors that use the NEC 900MHz bridge card in their products. Or just buy the card, get an old 486, and round up the software from somone. >(BTW, I use Eudora, and I have PGP. Could somebody explain how to PGP-sign >messages, ideally EASILY?) Assuming Eudora for Mac: Download MacPGP Control. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

1 0

Re: Guerilla Internet Service Providers
by Jeff Simmons 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jim Bell writes: >It seems to me that phone line costs are turning into a floor price for >Internet access, when they shouldn't really be. The main asset telephone >companies have, right now, is in RIGHTS OF WAY. Put an ISP in a business >park that allows you to run your own dedicated copper pairs, and you've >bypassed $25/month/line business phone line charges. > >At some point, individual urban and suburban blocks could easily be >"guerilla re-wired" for ISP access without serious trenching, etc. The >phoneco would still be involved, but in a far lower-profit mode, as the >supplier of a single T1 to a multi-block area. That's assuming the phoneco cooperates. Punknet is a 'Guerilla ISP'. Twenty of us share a 128k ISDN line, distributed via high-speed modems. It's been running fine for over a year now, but Pacific Bell has evidently decided to get rid of us. How? Simply by refusing to either repair or replace our 25 pair trunk line, which is rapidly degrading. We've offered to replace it ourselves, but according to them, it's illegal. Right now, we've got three dead lines, and two others that only will do 1200 baud. We've been told that what they're doing is probably illegal, but it's the old problem: Where does an 800 lb. gorilla sleep? We're fighting this like all hell, but who knows? After they get rid of us, I wonder who's next ... - -- Jeff Simmons jsimmons(a)goblin.punk.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMOnOnuL8IP70uJJBAQF3EwP9He5bWGBRcYv3LZDAB7XJt34zr+Pi/WWp a2NjFdDuxxc7VwO1tcSvqq+PX23OtJnay9yWkcpRBUissyJ5CPzqGQv4dX8vqN0R F1EK8zTSuEnQpiMVSqduknusVeQYOq2tP6b+iDtGKgCu2veDSLS10SY82qOPmQ8j OjxkfDcxJjI= =xJeV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Compuserve *hasn't* banned newsgroups
by Vincent Cate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It seems to me that posting this widely on Compuserve (or at least on alt.online-service.compuserve) and then contacting CNN and making comments about how "the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" is the best way to handle this. We want the public to get the idea that censorship does not work on the Internet. Are you up for this Duncan? Or do you want to call for volunteer, or should this get posted anonymously. :-) Seems better if someone does it who is willing to talk to reporters, and who is a Compuserve user. Makes a better story on TV etc. -- Vince Duncan: > I grabbed a copy of the Free Agent newsreader: > > http://www2.interpath.net/forte/agent/freagent.htm > [...] > I grabbed the latest list of open NNTP Servers from: > > http://dana.ucc.nau.edu/~jwa/open-sites.html

1 0

Re: Compuserve *hasn't* banned newsgroups
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Duncan Frissell 1/3/96 1:02 PM: >You mean that the thirty-some odd open news servers listed on >http://dana.ucc.nau.edu/~jwa/open-sites.html might get swamped. Then the >CIS refugees will be forced to pay Sameer the massive $12.50 (?) a month for >a net-access-only account and read off of c2.org's server. (Or any of the >thousands of sites worldwide one can open a shell account on.) CIS refugees aren't the only people who use or need free NNTP servers: > Here's what you can do for $208: get a used XT with two floppy drives for > $70; a 2400-baud internal modem (new at a local computer show) for $18 > (it comes with free communications software); and an e-mail and Usenet > news-reading account for $10 per month. Sound familiar? Hieronymous -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBVAwUBMOrWzb3g0mNE55u1AQEH5AH8D6P1BPIMpLTq0JWiwLz3na4Rgv3QeymK zeNbKnbtyDkJ2h9MW8+GiPKY7uOsdZsU34eOdFtmP7/+OV0naO8AAw== =fAWj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: What to do about Germany
by Michael C. Peponis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 3 Jan 1996 11:52:34 +0100 (MET) Cees de Groot wrote >> What the German goverement threatned to do was inexcusable, but >> something can be done about it. >Sorry, but the "German government" did not threaten to do anything at >all. A (conservative-ish) prosecutor started an _investigation_, which >in his eyes was nothing more than executing the law (and sorry, >that's what the guy is paid for). So what does the above paragraph mean, it was not the goverment that threated, it was a procecutor who was acting on behalf of the govement to enforcese the laws of that body which is what he is paid to do. Gee, that's what I said, only alot more complicated and detailed. In the end, the party at fault is the some division of the German goverment, the procecutor is not an individual person acting on his/her own behalf. >If the German government did something wrong, it was accepting a law >for the protection of minors (Jugendschutzgesetz), which says that >minors should not be allowed to have access to booze, dope and porno. But that's a GERMAN law, the Internet is an INTERNATIONAL community. If we have to respect the laws of Germany, and their customs and archaic belief systems, them we have to give the same consideration to anyother countries backwords, morality-based, mentality. There are hundreds of countries on the planet, most of them backwards. Respect everybodys sence of decency and right and wrong and nobody will be able to transmit anything the least be vulgar becasue it would violate some countries law some where on the planet. >Please tell me such laws do not exist in your country... They do exist, but I have been breaking them since 13, I don't care to be protected by some "moral" and "ethical" person, I can decide for myself what I can and can not do. >If anything, this whole bussiness will be one step in the correct >direction: >- Either some modus operandum is found which makes it clear for >everybody > how to offer pornographic material and comply with the law at the > same time (cf. the First Virtual account ID's you have to enter at > all those sites pointing to www.infohaus.com - in the US, this >modus > operandum seems to be ``proof of having a credit card''); That's just brilliant exhange one evil for another. Instead of censorship, we take away people's rights to autonymity and privacy. Sorry, not an option. > Or the German Government learns about the lack of frontiers on the >Net, and gives up (which is highly improbable). Or they can be given consequences for their actions. Let it be known that people will not tolerate them enforcing their laws on everybody. The weaker any goverment, the more ineffective it is in imposing it's will, the better off individuals are. >considering that German prosecutors don't have the option of not >prosecuting when they hear about a felony, like for example Dutch >prosecutors. No the prosecutor does not have a choice, that's why you attact the people that make the laws, or the governing body as a whole. They try to impose there will on me, I will unlease my dirty tricks on them. Fair is fair. I have the ablity to impose my will on ohters, I have done so when certin persons have gotten on my nerves by posting things to newsgroups that were blatently off topic and they had been told and warned about it on serveral occasions. But when you go to a sexualy explicit newsgroup, what do you think you will find, what is the purpose of such a group? Protection of children is a parents responsiblity, if they can't handle that responsiblity, that is thier problem, not mine. Given my experiencewith the German government, >however, it will take some time for them >to realize that they need >a set of rules in this area. Again, that is Germany's problem, not mine, make it an issue and suffer the consequences. -- >OpenLink Software Tell Kinsley I said hello Regards, Michael Peponis PGP Key Avalible form MIT Key Server

2 1

Re: Unmuzzy Explained
by andr0id＠midwest.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>So is the idea beyond this that if file or a group of files were to >be distributed over many computers (possibly hundreds or more) then >none of the computers would be "responsible" for their content? I would >think that any participant in the network would have to claim full >responsibility for the content, assuming the file(s) could be accessed >from any of the participating servers. > Okay. So what if serveral groups of computers, in public FTP directories, allowed anonymous ftp uploads of "parts" of a file that would be construde as bad content. The only way to assemble the file is to download several parts of it from serveral diffrent servers and assemble the file on your system. Thus the illegal file isn't illegal until its assembled. Sorta like switchblade knives. Lots of places can sell the parts legally, they just can't sell the assembled product. Would the servers that contain "parts" of the file be responsible for the content? (andr0id(a)midwest.net callsign: N9XLM) ( Computer Consulting & Management ) (P.O. Box 421 Cambria, IL 62915-0421) -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQENAzCsIi4AAAEH/1hb5+tO/n99Nbppf0ImLJ6AaVZ3NlZP0ZHwRQor00uA129i d4zWixNXxc8t2auaqN+asV99LpIip3/nQzBnjydiumeBdGLF2PR9+6X8X/RrqKa1 dVIukxM5Agg2eM6ih+0J38hgKJ3qzKXSz6sjYmpaxvbXZoHHOLUk/ZtHUKvvEyPw hnJEYnut8NUnIeK56lqeqRw86yoeRKymbfCdjdpgeY2aRwK2FJts8sbb7Fs10s4y jgxWIxIipBznbGUTh1hb2XrLGPENwk3E/qqXQJEsrySbtwdl6VgTVQjhDDEJMitL DYeiQ3W5EgxfcdbM1j2FwYu3P/dM6Y0I8xLMYT0ABRG0NmFuZHIwaWRAb2ljdTgx Mi5jb20gKG9pY3U4MTIuY29tIHN5c3RlbSBhZG1pbmlzdHJhdG9yKYkBFQMFEDCs LO90C7R/GkJcSQEB01cH/0KC3sd+u4OxMku5378SJktoN6QIQYLJ7uVbuV4S51yK NAotCGf4Wl6wwjynzZvXKU0H87oDuMiq7FybgMNL2n+4bQIZi0iz0lIuzwoMDu63 NrHUW9Kz42pOnhrEhrdkHhHL9O5GgD1yc40fJ3qw5h7LQEjDxgypyw0IFILFc34u LeRLliNibxKp8JwAxXNHWSgxu28TQvmnkHi0AHP6tJ/uZYe+4dqJtrMMsYFjzZaz DPmxD+dzbTwlQKtJaP1ZkDI0Sr072wrZDv+G86GyGBMX2lpSafpRitnxuUttjU9o wsQ9Qo5xiH1nZRCs/bDzJe/gng+GHzevixDIITurtNA= =SgPT -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

2 1

Re: Foiling Traffic Analysis
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:02 1/3/96, Fred Cohen wrote: >You seem to be missing an important point about foiling traffic >analysis. It is essentially the same problem as the covert channel >problem and its solution has the same challenges - it consumes a great >in the way of resources. In order to eliminate traffic analysis, you >essentially have to always use the full bandwidth available (although >you can have pseudo-random burst behaviors). This in turn means that >instead of gaining the low cost resulting from sharing bandwidth, you >end up having far more utilization and (depending on what portion of the >world does this) increasing the price of the resource. So it costs a >lot more and uses a great deal of bandwidth. You are correct. A network of encrypted links that allways move packets at full bandwidth is the basis of Wei Dai's Pipenet. If anyone ever codes this, I am willing to sponsor a node. Other nodes may be set up if some payment mechanism using Ecash is integrated with the system. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

1 0

Re: Compuserve *hasn't* banned newsgroups
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Vincent Cate, 1/3/96 10:41 AM: >It seems to me that posting this widely on Compuserve (or at least on >alt.online-service.compuserve) and then contacting CNN and making comments >about how "the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around >it" is the best way to handle this. We want the public to get the idea >that censorship does not work on the Internet. If you do this, you'll find out very quickly just how empty (or at least how slippery) slogans like "the Internet routes around censorship" are: if your efforts pay off and you steer even a fraction of CIS's traffic toward the remaining open newsservers, they'll close faster than you can say "alt." So before you do it, think about how the net will route around sysops closing their servers off from the net. Hieronymous -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBVAwUBMOqvAb3g0mNE55u1AQGG1AH/cGlgviaPIn2oDQ+QS7HJdkyeo0sRmHEO ALtF08CmBIPK4hqcxd/3ESWi7IwoaJtEPyAMvwigPtvdTxO/q4ubMg== =H5rs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Guerilla ISPs
by Thomas Grant Edwards 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On LECs attacking ISPs, it is interesting to note that several medium-sized ISPs in Maryland which have over 100 phone lines are now getting them delivered by fiber direct to the ISP. This is nothing new - what is news is that some of these fiber setups use a form of SLC-96 systems which are incapable of carrying data traffic over 21 kbps with modern 28.8 kbps modems. Nobody new what the problem was for a long time, until finally Bell Atlantic admitted that there were some bandwidth limitations in some SLC-96 setups. They went on to note that the tarrif required them to carry only acceptable voice and 4800 bps communication, nothing more, and that these ISPs were basically stuck with substandard lines. The ISPs involved are now looking into alternative local dialtone, but it is few and far between. Bell Atlantic is looking to get into the Internet business...perhaps they will engineer their own dialups properly, while giving low-data-rate fiber connections to ISPs? And on the radio-last-mile service, I used to be enthusiastic about it, but I am no more. It is pretty impractical to discuss VHF or UHF frequencies for real net connectivity, there just isn't enough bandwidth to be practical. 900 MHz and higher appear to be the best solution, using CDMA spread-spectrum in a microcellular environment. Metricom (http://www.metricom.com) has CDMA microcellular modems which get 14.4 kbps equivalent throughput in the 900 MHz region, and they have a large microcellular network already set up in the Bay Area with Internet connectivity. Once 2 GHz technology becomes cheap enough (that's GaAs chips instead of Si), I can imagine wide-scale 56kbps service over microcellular networks. But how can these things compete with @Home, which is promising 10 Mbps in and 128 kbps out of homes with cable modems? -Thomas Edwards

2 1

Re:US calls for measures against Internet porn
by koontz＠MasPar.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> WASHINGTON DC (Reuter) - The US called Sunday for improved >>management of the Internet to prevent people seeing pornographic >>material on the world computer network. I feel so much better, having the burden of deciding what I can see or read lifted from my weary shoulders. Maybe a ban on politicians appearing in the media? (Some might consider it an obscenity.)

2 1