December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

[NOISE]Apologies accepted.
by liberty＠gate.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- All apologies accepted. As to the "English lesson," I feel that proofreading messages to 1200+ people is more important than proofing private e-mail, but some folks evidently disagree with me. For an example of posts which I feel are properly proofed, please see Tim's posts. They aren't perfect English (mine aren't either) but there's evidence that he takes the time to proofread them. This not only makes his posts easier to read, it makes them [IMO] more convincing. Of course, I usually agree with Tim anyway. [Hi Tim] I'll shut up now and resume lurking mode. Please e-mail me privately if you feel the urge to comment on this distinctly non-cypherpunk subject. TIA. JMR Regards, Jim Ray http://www.shopmiami.com/prs/jimray "Hooters GUYS? Washington -- GET A GRIP!" _______________________________________________________________________ PGP key Fingerprint 51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE 53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 Public Key id. # E9BD6D35 <liberty(a)gate.net> IANAL _______________________________________________________________________ Help Phil! e-mail zldf(a)clark.net or http://www.netresponse.com/zldf _______________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh. iQCVAwUBMOwN9m1lp8bpvW01AQEk2QP/YRYyPgPjeq6CTa0vhCcsgujIonn2yJLC zU2wUjVZiACLMtugCQzG5kzjmR4S176QKsowaNrAx9LhPV2xHym+pyJpsK9zA6gp iZskqymulqjF43Q/rOTzmFoVZfcHhAQdJSeEcit1kp/wERbCIOX80RuL1ZX2WD8p 89BVlhp0zaY= =+LFM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Will the real Anonynous please stand up
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Herewith is where my confusion developed by Anonymous #1, posted as Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 18:34:56 -0600, Message-Id: <199601010034.SAA07422(a)tjava.com>: The story as presented by Anon #1, while supposedly from Reuters quotes the Associated Press, something that rarely if even happens. Another story, posted by Anonymous #2 (presumably the same entity as Anonymous #1), posted as Date: Mon, 1 Jan 1996 01:25:12 +0100, Message-Id: <199601010025.BAA04537(a)utopia.hacktic.nl> is slugged "BEIJING (AP)_ " and quotes Xinhua News Agency; A reference by Anonymous #3 (presumably the same entity as Anon #1 & #2), posted as Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 14:47:35 -0800, Message-Id: <199601032247.OAA00603(a)jobe.shell.portal.com> states that the faked story changed the words "Xinhua news agency" to "the Associated Press." Looking down the list of posts to the cp list for past posts by "Anonymous" the first one I came to was titled "first germany, now china" and not "US calls for measures... " as Anonymous #3 wrote in the referencing post. There were at least two wire service stories: Reuters: China calls for measures against Internet porn Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 9:20:13 PST Message-ID: <Rchina-internetURelN_5DV(a)clari.net> clari.news.censorship Associated Press: China to Block Internet Porn Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 15:10:29 PST Message-ID: <Ainternet-pornURTH5_5DV(a)clari.net> clari.news.censorship Add to this is the confusion that several entities are posting to the cp list using the same name -- "Anonymous" -- without differentiating their posts from any of the other posts by (inferentially) other entities with the same name. I have no problem with people (dolphins, whales, or space creatures, etc.) posting anonymously. I do have *significant* problems with their lack of seriousness that we see in their willingness to be confused by others of the same name. I have even more significant problems with their seeming willingness to expect me to straighten out this confusion that they are either too lazy or too chaotically-oriented to do themselves. Even English monarchs, in centuries past when monarchs like Anonymous only had one name, were given some additional signifier to keep them separate (e.g. "Donald the Fat" vs. "Donald the Terribly Ugly" vs. "Donald the Wonderful With A Really Good Ad Agency"). Scientific discussions to which people wish to contribute anonymously are OK with me; the same discussions that are starting to resemble the confusion of a Month Python skit are not. -- -- tallpaul -- Any political analysis that fits on a bumper sticker is wrong.

2 1

Re: Starting an e-cash bank
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 13:25 1/3/96, Alex Strasheim wrote: >> What does it take to be called a bank? > >Is it necessary to be called a bank? To get a license for the bank software from DigiCash, you have to convince them that you are a major player in whatever country you are in or have to offer some exceptional additional value to the service. >I've got a storefront in Chicago. >What would prevent me from opening up a Mark Twain account and buying and >selling ecash on floppies, in person? You touched on a very important issue: the party converting currency into Ecash does not have to be the Ecash bank. There have been discussions that in the future one should be able to buy Ecash on floppy at the local supermarket, similar to today's prepaid calling cards. I certainly would like to see that happen rather sooner than later. It is my understanding that you would be welcome to issue MT Ecash for USD. Here is another business opportunity: MT Bank does not allow the purchase of Ecash by credit card, since they consider the risk of chargebacks unacceptable. This might be a market for a third party. >Do account holders have to agree >not to do that before Mark Twain gives them an account? Is it illegal? MT Bank doesn't mind. IANAL. <speaking only for myself> -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

2 1

Re: 2047 bit keys in PGP
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:17 AM 1/4/96 +0000, you wrote: > >> Why is there a limit to the size of the key anyway? It's too bad PGP >> doesn't support any size key (within reason). > >Within reason is the Key Phrase. Even with a Pentium 90, I notice a >considerable lag in decrypting messages that have been encrypted with >a key larger than 2047/8. > >Even if you have a fast machine, if the person recieving the message >could wait a long time to decrypt you 4096 byte encrypted message. It seems to me that the best argument AGAINST supporting (and using) keys greater than 2048 bits is the false sense of security created. Even 1024-bit keys will probably be safe for decades if just the algorithm is concerned. Far more threatening are various other attacks, including RF snooping in combination with specialized viruses, as well as black-bag jobs on hardware. Why build a castle with a front wall a mile high when the back wall is a 5-foot chain-link fence?!?

2 1

Re: Compuserve *hasn't* banned newsgroups
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:30 PM 1/3/96 +0100, Anonymous wrote: > 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 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.) DCF

4 3

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

No Subject
by Rudi Raith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Some thoughts on the possibility or well-definedness of banning specific (indecent?) contents on the net (or elsewhere): 1) All contents (files) can be seen as natural numbers. (Use your favourite encoding function.) 2) I suppose that there is a predicate indecent_p(n), which is true if n represents something indecent, false otherwise. (Some implementation of such a predicate could be a police officer arresting you upon presentation of the number to him, yielding true. :-) ) Such numbers may be called "Indecent Numbers", their "posession", "transfer", etc. be banned. 3) Every natural number n can be perceived as the encryption of every other one m (including itself) by some function enc. n = enc(m). (Proof by cardinality) Examples: Trivial enc: "If the number is n, return m." Not so trivial enc: "Take m as a one time pad to encrypt n." 4) As a consequence, every natural number can be perceived as the encryption of an Indecent Number, hence should be banned, shouldn't it? 5) The decimal representation of any irrational number (e.g. pi, e) contains the decimal representation of every natural number somewhere. (Proof by diagonalization.) Hence the algorithm for creating this decimal representation should be banned, too, shoudn't it? 6) Finally I hope this shows what great an achievement to legislation and jurisdiction such banning might become, once established. This creates a universal crime (or vice?), everybody is guilty of automatically without the tedious procedure of seeking evidence. (maybe those not knowing about numbers at all be exempt?) Virtually Yours, Rudi Raith (raith(a)feilmeier.de)

3 2

Re: Why Net Censorship Doesn't Work
by cman＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think that there is still a substantial possibility that many kinds of expression will be marginalized and hard to access for a great many users. One of my co-workers has pointed out that the need for something as simple as a helper application for Netscape loses about 90% of his audience. By simply making it rather more difficult for people to chat about some things, governments can effectively push such things out of the way of all but the most determined readers. This is actually one of those odd Laffer-curve-like phenomena, where as long as the expression isn't too inherently desirable, government restrictions can be somewhat effective, but the more tightly they try to control things, the more likely the are to lose, as there will be more and more desirable content outside the sanctioned sphere of activity. Consequently, I was much happier to see the "indecency" standard get passed instead of the "harmful" standard, as the former will push far more content into the "gray" area of the net, which will encourage development and adoption of appropriate tools. A quote from Star Wars (which I'm just now incorporating into my .sig) was just echoed back to me in a letter from a chap I spoke with from the Australian Office of Strategic Crime Assessment, as encapsulating what he got out of a rather long chat we had when he was passing through the Bay Area last month. Here it is: ------ , ------ Douglas Barnes "The tighter you close your fist, Governor Tarkin, cman(a)communities.com the more systems will slip through your fingers." cman(a)best.com --Princess Leia

3 2

test
by Ed Carp [khijol SysAdmin] 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

test, please ignore - 1 copy sent.

3 3

New Mitnick Book
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jonathan Littman, an investigative reporter, has published "The Fugitive Game: Online With Kevin Mitnick," Little Brown, 1996. 381 pp. $23.95. ISBN 0-316-52858-7. It is a dramatic recount of Mitnick's exploits; the pursuit by Shimomura, Markoff, telcos and Feds; the bust and Markoff's tales; The Well controversies aand disputes about what really happened; suspicions of Shimomura and Markoff - - their complicity with TLAs, their movie and book dealings, their disputes with hackers and journalists. What Mitnick was telling Littman while a fugitive. Littman ends with this letter from Markoff and Shimomura: October 8, 1995 Jonathan Littman 38 Miller Avenue Suite 122 Mill Valley, California 94941 Dear Jonathan, This is in response to your separate letters to us. We apologize for not being more prompt, Tsutomu was travelling on business and did not receive your September 5 letter until recently. As you know we have a contract with Hyperion for Tsutomu's account of his participation in the arrest of Kevin Mitnick, and at the request of our publisher we have decided not to participate in other books on the same subject. First, in response to your September 7 request to John Markoff, for permission to reprint his March 14 Well posting, he is not willing to give permission. However, we do think it is appropriate to respond to several points where you have received inaccurate information. Our responses are not intended to be a comprehensive answer to your list of questions, but only to protect you from including libelous material in your book. Tsutomu was not asked by any governmental, military or intelligence representative to assist in the capture of Mr. Mitnick. All of his actions were taken in response to requests for assistance from both The Well and Netcom to deal with extensive and persistent break-ins. Tsutomu's decision to tell John Markoff that he was travelling to Raleigh on Sunday morning was done without contact with any law enforcement agency. Markoff flew to Raleigh independently six hours later after discussing the possibility of a story with his editors at the New York Times. Markoff did not at any time assist or participate in any aspect of the investigation into Kevin Mitnick's activities; Markoff was there only as an observer in his role as a newspaper reporter. Moreover, in Raleigh on Sunday evening the Cellscope equipment was never placed in Markoff's car, and there was never any discussion about taking it out of the Cellular One engineer's van or about placing it in Markoff's car. Markoff parked his car near the cell site that night and then later drove back to his hotel. Tsutomu never told anyone from law enforcement that anyone had authorized or cleared Markoff's presence in Raleigh. Tsutomu was informed by the Justice Department that his actions on behalf of the Internet providers and the cellular telephone company during the course of the investigation were covered under their fraud detection and prevention exception granted to these organizations under the ECPA. Tsutomu did have discussions with the National Security Agency about funding computer security research, the results of which were to be placed in the public domain, however no research grant was ever made. Tsutomu was not aware of any statements made in the search warrant until many days after the arrest. Tsutomu did not lure Mitnick or anyone else into breaking-in to his computers. The attack was entirely unprovoked. No copies of any files allegedly stolen by Mitnick were provided by Tsutomu to anyone other than the legitimate owners. The first discussion of the possibility of a book on the subject of Kevin Mitnick's arrest took place on Thursday February 16, when John Markoff received a telephone call from John Brockman, a New York City literary agent, proposing a collaboration between Markoff and Shimomura. You will remember, we hope, that after his July 4, 1994 article about the hunt for Mitnick, Markoff did not wish to pursue the subject of Mitnick's life as a fugitive and referred a free-lance article on the subject proposed by Playboy to you. Also please note that you are inaccurate in stating that Tsutomu requested immunity before testifying before Congress on April 1993. We realize this is a delicate issue for you because of your involvement and communication with Kevin Mitnick during the period he was a fugitive. However, since your questions suggest you believe there may have been something inappropriate in Tsutomu's cellular telephone software development work, if you do include material in your book along this line, journalistic ethics require you to include the following: Tsutomu, unlike Mitnick, in all of his computer security research over a fifteen year period, has always, whenever he has found a vulnerability, made it known to the appropriate people, whether CERT, or a private company at risk, or the United States Congress. Sincerely, (signed) John Markoff Tsutomu Shimomura

2 1