December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Banned French Book Online
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:24 PM 1/27/96, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: >As Tim May noted a few messages ago, the French government censored a >book written by the physician to their late president, Francois To set the record straight, Tim Dierks mentioned this in response to my point that the French do some things right. (Emphasis on "some.") Also, while I'm clarifying things, at least two recent messages have referred to me as "Dr. May." Normally I don't feel obliged to correct such things, but I will here. I don't have a Ph.D., just a bachelors degree. Sosumi. --Tim Boycott espionage-enabled software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: "This post is G-Rated"
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:33 PM 1/25/96, Mike McNally wrote: >Bill Frantz writes: > > and whole newsgroups. > >Since nobody "owns" newsgroups, and nobody controls what's posted to >them, I don't see how that's possible at all. I agree. When I was replying to Bill Frantz's points, I neglected to comment on this point. Suppose "alt.fan.barney" is rated G, by "someone." Since I can post stuff with strong language, and worse, to alt.fan.barney, is it still rated G, or was my stuff blocked? When the Germans told MeinKampfuServe to block 200+ newsgroups (well, it's clear that some BavarianKops showed MKS a list of groups that they thought needed to be pulled, and MKS obliged them), a bunch of folks started copying soc.culture.german on some highly explicit stuff normally found in alt.sex.*. No word yet on whether soc.culture.german is now banned in Germany. --Tim May Boycott espionage-enabled software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Unsub request delete at will
by Michael G Thornton 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

With apoligies for posting this to the general list community, please unsub me from this list as I am having some software conflicts with unsubing via your server, your assistance is appreciated. Many thanks Regards Michael rlwmgt(a)mpx.com.au

1 0

#pgpfone on IRC
by ISP-TV Central 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I suggest the use of #pgpfone on IRC for setting up impromtu tests of PGPfone over the internet. I hope it works better than NetPhone! -Thomas

1 0

Re: John Doe
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Jan 25, 1996 20:58:48, 'jdoe-0007(a)alpha.c2.org' wrote: >The John Doe NYM/Remailer interface for Windows is a most excellent >program that will allow even the most cypher-illiterate to make use of >the technology that has been the exclusive domain of those in the >"techno-know". It was a piece of cake to set up, obtain a NYM and select >inbound and outbound remailers with options to chain as many as your >paranoia deemed appropriate. > >$25.00 seemed a little steep but they will get my $$$. Nice Job. > >John Doe 0007 > No, I am not jdoe-0007. We satanic-socialist-statists all use preliminary trial copies of JOHN-DOE set to jdoe-666. It is in our contract with the Sales Rep of Darkness and we are widely known for always respecting contracts. Look out UNIX users! With JOHN-DOE us WINDOZE users under the leadership of our glorius Chairman Bill are gonna' get the rest of your body too! (Unlike jdoe-0007 I think $25 is a very low price to pay for the new capacity. What the hell! We're not gonna' pay for it out of our own lazy pockets. We'll raise the tax on hot tubs and get other people to buy it for us.) -- tallpaul "To understand the probable outcome of the Libertarian vision, see any cyberpunk B movie wherein thousands of diseased, desparate and starving families sit around on ratty old couches on the streets watching television while rich megalomaniacs appropriate their body parts for their personal physical immortality." R. U. Sirius _The Real Cyberpunk Fakebook_

1 0

SEAL cipher info requested (something actually list related!)
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anybody have info on the SEAL cipher? I can't find any descriptions or analysis of it. Refs, proceedings or URLS would be a good thing. (It isn't related to NSEA is it?!?)

5 4

Re: SHA-2
by wlkngowl＠unix.asb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

futplex(a)pseudonym.com (Futplex) writes: >Any particular reason someone called this SHA-2 ? It sounds a whole lot like >the revision of the original SHA, called SHA-1, that came out quite a while >ago. (FIPS 180-1) This is rather old hat unless they're making a _second_ >revision to the standard, in which case I expect there would have been much >more noise made about it. I think that has a bit to do with a question I had, whether it was SHA and SHA-1 (aka "Revised SHA") but I've found the revised version being referred to as "SHA-2" in a couple of sources and went with that.... unless there *is* a third revision...?!? Problem is the memo I saw still referred to the revised algorithm as SHA. (Anyone have a URL for FIPS 180-1 Please...?) Rob.

1 0

RANT: When hi-tech is a hinderance (freedom w/in limits)
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A short 'rant' on techno-dinosaurism... Saw a blurb on CNN last night about computerized missiles that would defeat jamming devices and analyze the type of target and configure their warheads appropriately. All that I could think of is what an expensive waste of computing machinery... is the cost of a "genius bomb" (assuming it does actually work, unlike the Patriots in Gulf War) worth while? Wouldn't it be better to use a lot of dumb bombs that launch several millions of dollars apiece at a tank or bit of artillery? I'm reminded of the tech they used to detect guerrillas in Vietnam... sensors that went off when uric acid (?) was present so the VC would pis in buckets and walk away, making the sensors go wild... the US put a lot of effort into bombing pis buckets. Or look back to the 13th century when European soldiers were high-tech wearing tons of armor and used cross bows. it was imposing high-tech for the time, but they couldn't move fast or fire arrows quickly... and they were skagmeat for Mongols who were comparatively low-tech. Cypherpunks or crypto relevance? Sometimes high-tech can be a weakness. I've heard that the Soviets, not having the luxury of sexy Crays and whatnot, were adept and using hundreds of PCs to do their cryptanalysis... and so may have a lot of interesting parallel processing algorithms. To paraphrase Miles Davis, creativity is "freedom within limitations".

1 0

This post is rated LTC for `Low Technical Content'
by JMKELSEY＠delphi.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [ To: cypherpunks ## Time: 01/27/96 02:19 am ## Subject: This post is rated LTC for `Low Technical Content.' ] >Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 18:04:21 -0800 >From: tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) >Subject: Re: "This post is G-Rated" >I see self-ratings of Usenet and mailing list posts as possible, >just nearly worthless. And the reall contoversial stuff, this kind >of goddamned fucking shit, will not get screened out. After all, I >voluntarily rated this thread "G," and look what got through! (And >it's only the tit of the iceberg, so to speak.) The best solution has always seemed to me to be one of these three: a. Tags appended to notes/posts, from various reviewers, digitally signed and otherwise coded to allow intelligent filtering, or b. Electronic distributions of reviewers' evaluations tagged to notes in some simple way. (I.e. give each note or post a unique ID which appears in the message.) Then, a smart newsreader/mail program sorts the notes accordingly, or c. The reviewer reads the group/list, and rates posts according to some useful criteria. He then resends it out to his users, filtered as desired. (CP-LITE seems like a very early version of this.) Any of these can be pretty easily ported to that magical set-top box we hear so much about (no doubt running Windows '05). In many ways, (a) and (b) are easier. >A meaningful "parental filter" cannot be done on-the-fly with >self-ratings. Some minor steps can be taken, but not all worth the >expense and hassle of a mandatory system. Actually, I think in practice this will mean that programs get a given rating, which is renewed every so often. You don't rate Melrose Place episode #89, you rate the entire series. This whole idea offers two wonderful opportunities to control content on TV. First, get the TVs shipped with the V-chip filter turned on. Most people don't bother setting their VCR timers, and they also won't bother setting this unless it denies them access to lots of shows they like. And, if turning the filter on and off is hard enough to actually keep the average 12-year-old out, then it will be hard enough that many families with kids will simply never change its setting. They may even forget or lose the PIN that allows them to do so. This means that you have a sizeable audience who depend on this rating system, the only one readily available. Second, apply pressure to television networks in whatever ways necessary, by threatening a re-evaluation of their top-rated shows. After all, ER really is a little gory for kids to be watching. Oh, you've decided to spend less time on covering the losses in the great Bosnian Peace Initiative? Well, I suppose a little real-life drama won't hurt anyone. If the V-chip is used widely at all, this represents a really useful threat. What happens to the network executive who gets ER to lose half its audience, even just for a few weeks while a review board takes up the network's appeal? >--Tim >Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, >tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Note: Please respond via e-mail as well as or instead of posting, as I get CP-LITE instead of the whole list. --John Kelsey, jmkelsey(a)delphi.com / kelsey(a)counterpane.com PGP 2.6 fingerprint = 4FE2 F421 100F BB0A 03D1 FE06 A435 7E36 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMQrIiUHx57Ag8goBAQGhIAQA2F3guHlTnebja5fcGwEwOKx3CwdhAs90 zn6Di+nztSoGt6JF2kIC60zsfVHgQ//RJcMtuiFzBsQoTn/E56JM2mZ4vJpsfipO lVbKlZ1HylDyGLcF/pBllBVfvmXLjpvu0OXkFt3yqEohjaNlF7l49bOz28ngLv/A CATYZGlDP64= =6BO+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

The Press
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:25 AM 1/28/96, Mark Allyn (206) 860-9454 wrote: > >I would like to make a suggestion that D. Denning; others >who are pro-escrow/clipper; and some of you folks here on >this forum get together for a debate. There have already been several debates about Clipper. I recall one at George Washington University, in D.C., with Prof. Lance Hoffmann as the moderator, and the usual suspects on each side (Denning representing Clipper, one or more of the EPIC/EFF/CPSR/ACLU folks on the other side). Didn't change a lot of views, I suspect. And I'll bet a hundred bucks that not a single Congresscritter saw the debate, either live (of course not) or on C-SPAN (assuming it was carried). And there was an IRC "town meeting" with DRD herself, though I don't recall the details. My point was that few cryptographers and computer scientists actively support the pro-control, pro-GAK position, not that we need more meaningless debates with Dorothy Denning, Donn Parker, and Stuart Baker. >Ideally, this would be real nice on a TV show such as the >McNiel Lehrer show on PBS. Barring that, I would think >that an IRC chat channel could be set up so that they >could get on line and engage in an on line discussion. Absolutely not enough time. The News Hour with Jim Lehrer could only devote at most 20 minutes to such a story. Hardly enough time to even explain the issues to a public which has no idea whatsoever what PGP stands for, or what key escrow means, etc. (Consider how many hours a week of reading this list and other sources it took before you, the reader, knew which end was up.) And if the News Hour _did_ do such a report, they'd look to the canned experts they have in their backyard: the EPIC/CPSR/ACLU Washington staffers. When major media outlets send a film crew out to California it's usually to get crowd shots of those whacky "Cyberpunks" arguing about privacy. "Is the head dead yet?" But, of course, I would never discourage anyone from talking to the local media. Maybe it will help. Sure. Fine. Whatever. --Tim Boycott espionage-enabled software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0