December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

How to prevent a virus infection :-)
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just watched an "expert" on Bay TV (SF Cable). He stressed that websites without firewalls pose the risk of spreading viruses when downloading files from them. A GIF was being downloaded in the background... LOL. I only wonder who the fuck is hiring such idiots. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

1 0

Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd)
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"ravage(a)ssz.com" "Jim Choate" 6-FEB-1996 21:15:10.47 >If the intent is to motivate others to kill or otherwise harm others simply because you don't agree with them or their actions is reprehensible and moraly or ethicaly undefensible. ------------------- So you don't believe in self-defense, or the defense of another? While I'm not as sure as Jim whether such a system would just be used by the good guys, if someone has taken action to seriously violate the rights of another I can see the death penalty as being appropriate. -Allen

1 0

Re: Need a "warning" graphic of some kind for CDA
by Gordon Campbell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:48 PM 04/02/96 EST, Dr. Dimitri Vulis wrote: > >Either the 'no' sign (red crossed circle) or a wide red cross over one of: > rattle > baby bottle / pacifier > disposable diapers (with contents visible) > safety pin? I've file-attached a first attempt at something like this to Robert Hayden (the original poster.) It's the international 'no' sign superimposed over a drooling baby. If he likes it and is able to post it somewhere, he's free to do so. I'd post it myself, but I have no web access (not yet, anyway). ----- Gordon R. Campbell, Owner - Mowat Woods Graphics P.O. Box 1902, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 5J7 Ph: (613) 542-4087 Fax: (613) 542-1139 2048-bit PGP key available on request.

1 0

Re: Electronic Grille Cipher?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com" 6-FEB-1996 03:23:01.15 >An idea occurred to me the other day, for hiding multiple texts in one file using multiple keys. The gist of it is to take a reasonably large file of random data and then to hide the bytes of a message in scattered locations. The method of determining where each byte is would be based on a good cipher which for each iteration would return a relative offset from the last location in the file. ----------------- I had a similar idea a bit back, and Lewis/Futplex kindly referred me to some parts of the Archives discussing it. However, the main objection to this idea was that the cops would just do a search warrant for the second group of information. My solution to this is to have quite a few groups of information, which would admittedly make the spacing problem a bit hard. The following might be an example for someone of such a scheme: A. Accounting information that you give the IRS (and the cops if they come) B. Your collection of vanilla, heterosexual alt.sex.stories (give to cops) C. Your collection of digitized playboy centerfolds (give to cops) D. Your collection of, say, homosexual bestiality stories (don't give) E. Your collection of digitized photos of the above (don't give) F. Your _real_ accounting information (don't give) G. Your plans to violently overthrow the government (don't give). You'd just reveal the top two at first; if they asked if there was anything more, you'd reveal the third. All three are things that you can easily justify wanting privacy for- and some of them are ones that you'd want different people to have access to (your accountant vs your lover, for A & B). -Allen

1 0

Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 21:43 EDT > From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.rutgers.edu> > Subject: Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd) > > >If the intent is to motivate others to kill or otherwise harm others simply > because you don't agree with them or their actions is reprehensible and > moraly or ethicaly undefensible. > ------------------- > So you don't believe in self-defense, or the defense of another? While > I'm not as sure as Jim whether such a system would just be used by the good > guys, if someone has taken action to seriously violate the rights of another > I can see the death penalty as being appropriate. > -Allen > What is described is not self-defence by any stretch of the imagination. It is a pre-meditated act which causes any plea of self-defence to fail. If it is wrong for an individual to kill another except in immediate self-defence then it is wrong for any group of people to kill another individual or group unless there is an immediate threat to the group. Capital punishment by governments is wrong under any conditions. If you seriously believe it is ethical for a government to kill another then please answer me a simple question. How many people have to decide that another should be killed for it to be ethical? In short, how many people does it take to decide it is a legitimate act to take your own life? Jim Choate

1 0

Re: paper on remailers in the intelligence community
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:41 AM 2/7/96, sameer wrote: >http://www.strassmann.com/pubs/anon-remail.html > > A friend at Hotwired (yes, he's still my friend even though he >works for Hotwired) pointed me to some FUD which led Futplex to the >above paper. > It's an interesting viewpoint.. salient quotes: > >"By far the greatest threat to the commercial, economic and political >viability of the Global Information Infrastructure will come from >information terrorists. " > >"Anonymous re-mailers are here to stay. Like in the case of many >virulent diseases, there is very little a free society can do to .. The affiliation of the authors is interesting: ---- by Paul A. Strassmann, US Military Academy, West Point; and Senior Advisor, SAIC and William Marlow, Senior Vice President, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) ---- Now, what were people saying about SAIC and its role in intelligence matters saying again? (Not to mention the Inter-NIC stuff.) --Tim May, "wanted for information terrorism" 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

DES for HP48 - found & thanks
by stainles＠bga.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Public thanks to The Cunning Artificers who sent a response (by the ECafe anonymous remailer) pointing to ftp://ftp.csua.berkeley.edu/pub/cypherpunks/ciphers/des.hp48sx.gz for the HP48 DES implimentation. Apologies to everyone else for the extra noise. ==Dwight -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6ui iQCVAgUBMRlUdIY4AzhdF11FAQETEgP6AhqRO6tMGAIpJNTdvuO/qqknpIpwI7fD PW/yH4LAXCpqWkjUXJYmx2IXCFU4todUkxV4ZaTf62OzYfCrLeyZ5VRmBqFUhI3V SjanPGq7v6gKX/ZNkpundvjGfBg9XqHLeafTaIarAcNI/73aNT/VgJwPu0lsB7Wq 7AdYiKFWI8A= =e1C0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: How to prevent a virus infection :-)
by dmandl＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:06 PM 2/6/96, Lucky Green wrote: >Just watched an "expert" on Bay TV (SF Cable). He stressed that websites >without firewalls pose the risk of spreading viruses when downloading files >from them. A GIF was being downloaded in the background... > >LOL. > >I only wonder who the fuck is hiring such idiots. Certainly not my former employer. This guy seems to know far too much about net security to work there. --Dave. -- Dave Mandl dmandl(a)panix.com http://www.wfmu.org/~davem

2 1

Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd)
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"ravage(a)ssz.com" "Jim Choate" 6-FEB-1996 22:50:35.24 >What is described is not self-defence by any stretch of the imagination. It is a pre-meditated act which causes any plea of self-defence to fail. ------------------ If someone has comitted serious enough violations of rights in the past, then I would call killing that person justified. First, it prevents any future violations of rights by that person. Second, it serves to discourage people if they know they can get killed if they do so. (I realize that capital punishment by governments doesn't appear to do much good, but the people in question- government agents, etcetera- are generally a bit different than the gang members who so regularly ignore prison sentences and the death penalty.) Third, and getting away from the self-defense argument, it is justice. The job of a government, if it has one, is to defend individual liberties. It is given privileges in order to enforce that. The abuse of such privileges should be met by death. (Yes, I would be in favor of changing current laws to remove sovereign immunity and institute a death penalty for governmental rights violations. Unfortunately, among the people subject to such a law are the ones making the laws.) ------------------------ >How many people have to decide that another should be killed for it to be ethical? In short, how many people does it take to decide it is a legitimate act to take your own life? ---------------------- Why should "how many people" make a difference? If I violate someone's rights enough to justify such a course of action, then I should be dead even if everyone except the victim is cheering. Yes, I realize that Jim Bell's system does depend on a group of people. But so, in the end, do all such systems- whether they call themselves governments or anarcho-capitalist societies. If the Christian Coalition got too many people with guns in the latter, they'd rule. Any further discussion would appear to belong in private email; I suspect that Jim Bell would appreciate a cc. -Allen

1 0

Re: free speach and the government
by James M. Cobb 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Eric, On 02 03 96 you say: In the US the media is by and large controlled by huge media con- glomerates with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and delivering up their audience to their advertisers in tidy packages. The government is along for the ride, being part and parcel of the same system. They won't rest until net-speech is by and large con- trolled by huge media conglomerates all busy delivering up the net- public to advertisers in tidy packages... I'm not saying that there's a Black Heliocopters type conspiracy, or any other for that matter. There doesn't have to be, there are huge political forces moving things this way. So there might as well be a conspiracy, as the end effect on us is the same. Your analysis is excellent. Thank you. Often "anti-statist" conspiracy theorists have the bare facts right, but explain those facts from the same point of view as statists: the State is all-powerful; it is THE conspirator! "The" State tends to the monopoly of force; but THIS State is dependent on taxes, for it exists in THIS capitalist economy led by huge "conglom- erates" (the word may not be exact but it will do) that tend to control the supply of taxes (by splitting up, by dumping loyal workers, by crea- tive accounting, by moving away, by influencing the bureaucracy through a maze of advisory panels, by directly staffing the upper reaches of that bureaucracy, by timely contributions to journalism schools, by...ingenu- ity). In its preeminent meaning, politics refers only to the State. However, if we gracefully relent, ...there are huge political forces moving things.... Generally, this overall movement is not a conspiracy. Specifically, the movement involves an unbreakably large number of "per- manent" and temporary alliances, coalitions, blocs, nods and winks, in- siders, cliques, rings, gangs, and...you name it. Cordially, Jim

1 0