December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

The Story Lady
by A. Padgett Peterson, P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> Let me see if I understand this concept correctly. The remote site would >> pre-encrypt the transmitted data, so that when received it could be >> decrypted by the requestor according to his (or a temporarily chosen, to >> avoid disclosing the actual recipient.) public key, so as to disguise both >> the material and perhaps also the actual requestor? >Something like that, yes. As the quote went "It goes something like this...Not *exactly* like this but something...". What netscape does is to receive a signed public key, encrypt the session key, & return *that*. The session is then encrypted with a fast symmetric algo. (RC4-40 Netsape/export, IDEA - PGP). So PGP/scape would do exactly the same thing with trivial changes to the monkey-motion. Now Government approved PGP/BE - something to strive for 8*). warmly, Padgett

1 0

Jim Bell - Murderous Terrorist
by jdoe-0007＠alpha.c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr. Vulis writes: AO> Alan Olsen <alano(a)teleport.com> writes: AO> I consider Mr. Bell to be a crank and a loon. DV> You're certainly entitled to your opinion. You might be interested to know that DV> I consider Jim Bell to be highly intelligent, knowledgeable, and overall nice DV> person. I'm particularly impressed by his calm and restrained response to your DV> provocations. I've also formed a rather negative opinion of you, based on your DV> actions in this incident. Jim Bell has advocated nothing less than paid death squads using crypto as a means to hide payment to these murderous terrorists. If you can find a conspirator of murder as " highly intelligent, knowledgeable, and overall nice person" then you also are in need of immediate mental health intervention. Should the mainstream media ever get wind of Bell's lunacy it will be one more nail in the crypto-coffin spurring the Feds and international anti-crypto efforts to a frenzy. Bell is either a total fucking lunatic of the extreme right wing (having read his suck ups posts supporting General Linda Thompson) or an agent provocateur for the Feds. One is as bad as the other. To quote your own words to Mr. Olsen; " I've also formed a rather negative opinion of you, based on your actions in this incident." AO> He has no interest in any sort of honest discussion. DV> Honest or dishonest, the discussion of Jim's political views has nothing DV> to do with encryption. His plans for death squads success DEPENDS on the anonymity provided by CRYPTO! AO> He wishes to draw in others in the hope of "punishing me". DV> You're punishing yourself by destroying your credibility and carrying on this DV> silly flame war. You've kicked Jim off of "your" mailing list, pushing the DV> flame war that you've started to this list. I don't appreciate this. And you think YOU have credibility here? Sounds like you are cut from the same murderous cloth as Jim Bell. I pray that if by some freak of anarchy Bell's plan ever comes to fruition both you and Bell will be the first victims of your own murderous madness.

1 0

Re: Sometimes ya just gotta nuke em
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:36 AM 2/4/96 -0500, James M. Cobb wrote: > Neither dropping nuclear weapons on Japanese cities nor an invasion > of Japan was necessary to secure surrender of the Japanese government. After the first nuclear bomb was dropped, the Japanese government held a cabinet meeting in which they summoned Nishina, head of the atomic program, and asked him if he could duplicate atomic weapons within a few months. After two nuclear weapons had been dropped on Japan, the cabinet concluded that Japan faced utter destruction with nuclear weapons, and some advocated surrender. But according to emperor Hirohito "At the time of the surrender, there was no prospect of agreement" Even with two nuclear weapons, surrender was far from assured. It was touch and go: Had the coup succeeded, Japan would not have surrendered, and a considerably more nuclear bombing would have been necessary. The bullet holes in the imperial palace testify that even after two nuclear bombs, there was a substantial faction of the government determined not to surrender. It was certainly true that Japan was defeated, and reasonable people may disagree on justice of using nuclear weapons under these circumstances, but to claim, as Alperovitz claims, that Japan was on the verge of surrender, is not a mere difference of opinion on the interpretation of the facts, but a simple, crude, barefaced, blatant lie. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1

cipherpunk mail at Netcom.com
by norm＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The list of addressees is made from the "From" fields that include "netcom.com" in CP mail that appeared on the CP list Tuesday and Wednesday last week. I have received no CP mail since then. Have you?

1 0

Re: [NOISE] Sound bites re the Zundel German censorship thing (fwd)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:05 AM 2/5/96, Rich Graves wrote: >Sorry if you get duplicate copies, but I agree with Tim that mailing list >cross-pollution is bad. > >*Not* for broader redistribution, because they deserve privacy, but >illustrative for, say, certain knee-jerk anti-PC forces here, is the fact >that the two people who run webcom.com (Bcc'd) have been reported to be: > >1. Grandson of a Holocaust victim >2. Activist with PEN and Amnesty International > >I think we're all on the right side here, and for all the right reasons. ... Thanks, Rich! I really think the Wiesenthal Center and whatnot could really make some good points, and gain new friends, by PUTTING THE HOLOCAUST DENIAL CRAP ON THEIR SERVERS! Yes, an extreme step. But think of what it would say? --Tim [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the Communications Decency Act] And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why don't you boys just come on in and do em right here in my house - I'll just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said. "Dad's getting old. I say we should do him." So the two daughters got him drunk and did him all that night. Sure enough, Dad got em pregnant....Onan really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant while his brother got all the credit, so he whacked off first....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular Translation, TCM, 1996]

2 1

Re: RC2 protected by copyright?
by thad＠hammerhead.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lewis (nee' Futplex) McCarthy writes: > I think many cryptographers would agree that the S boxes in DES represent > some pretty weighty ideas indeed, and constitute an intrinsic part of the > algorithm. Offhand the precise construction of the RC2 permutation table > doesn't seem to me to be nearly as important to the strength of RC2 as the > S boxes are to DES' strength. I'm certainly no expert. But I'm a little > hesitant to dismiss the specified table as "a bit of text". > Do you think the table would be more like an idea if it turned out to be > determined by pi ? (not a rhetorical question) Yes, the table would have been more an idea, and less "just text" if it was derived from pi (as the comment in the posted code suggests...) What I was suggesting is a way to get the tremendous protection of copyright (that is, 75 year term, no filing fees, protected from birth, no secrecy required) on ciphers. Now, this was tried with video games, each Nintendo cartridge had in it something like "copyright Nintendo", as a way to try to get that protection, and I believe that they lost in court (if my memory is correct) Everyone knows the story of the compositions of the S-Boxes in DES, that they just happen to contain constants that make it difficult to attack DES with differential cryptanalysis. There are almost an infinite number of S-Boxes that would have that property (probably more that wouldn't). But if you were going to write a code that would interoperate with somebody else's DES, there is absolutely no way to do describe it except to enumerate the S-Boxes, hence perhaps violating the copyright. You can say "make it resistant to linear and differential cryptanalysis", and you may get something as good, or better, but it wouldn't interoperate. thad -- Thaddeus Beier thad(a)hammerhead.com Technology Development 408) 286-3376 Hammerhead Productions http://www.got.net/~thad

1 0

Let's get back to crypto already (enough with the FUDism)
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject says it. Idle talk can wait until legislation doesn't matter... and it won't when there's freely available source and binaries for a secure telnet, a private/anonymizing web browser/server/proxy, terminal and bbs programs, file transfers, etc. I think these are at the moment a bit more important than digital cash (when these exist, e-cash will follow). There's lots of work to be done. Whatever happened to "cypherpunks write code"? it seems that various governments are writing laws a lot faster... --- "Mutant" Rob <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" (not in quotes) for a copy of my PGP key.

1 0

retailer
by Brett Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

please send info

1 0

Re: cipherpunk mail at Netcom.com
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:06 PM 2/4/96 -0800, Norman Hardy wrote: >The list of addressees is made from the "From" fields that include >"netcom.com" in CP mail that appeared on the CP list Tuesday and Wednesday >last week. I have received no CP mail since then. Have you? I have only received one message. Since all of the header dates are from last Tuesday, it may not count. BTW - I received it sometime between Saturday morning and Sunday night. (I was out of town over the weekend.): >Return-Path: <owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com> >Received: from toad.com by mail2 (8.6.12/Netcom) > id SAA08759; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 18:10:42 -0800 >Received: by toad.com id AA04747; Tue, 30 Jan 96 12:50:10 PST >Received: from callandor.cybercash.com by toad.com id AA04741; Tue, 30 Jan 96 >12:50:00 PST >Received: by callandor.cybercash.com; id PAA02048; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 15:54:55 >-0500 >Received: from cybercash.com(204.254.34.52) by callandor.cybercash.com via >smap (g3.0.3) > id xma002021; Tue, 30 Jan 96 15:54:28 -0500 >Received: from [204.254.34.231] by cybercash.com.cybercash.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) > id AA04051; Tue, 30 Jan 96 15:47:06 EST >Message-Id: <v02120d0ead3421ea1cee(a)[204.254.34.231]> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 15:51:24 -0400 >To: tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) >From: cme(a)cybercash.com (Carl Ellison) >Subject: Re: Denning's misleading statements >Cc: Cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Precedence: bulk > >At 20:49 1/27/96, Timothy C. May wrote: >>I've never met Dorothy Denning, so I hesitate to characterize her as a >>villainess. But certainly she's the only noted cryptographer I know of >>who's gone so far out on a limb to defend a position the vast majority of >>computer scientists, civil libertarians, and cryptographers scoff at. > >I've met some others -- most noteably Silvio Micali [but he has a financial >interest in that position]. However, DERD is the only one I've met >who is all the way over on Freeh's side. > > - Carl > > >+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ >| Carl M. Ellison cme(a)acm.org http://www.clark.net/pub/cme | >| PGP: E0414C79B5AF36750217BC1A57386478 & 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 | >| "Officer, officer, arrest that man! He's whistling a dirty song." | >+----------------------------------------------------------- Jean Ellison -+ > > > Bill ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Question of Congressional Lawmaking Power (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: >From owner-ctlug(a)ssz.com Mon Feb 5 01:59:09 1996 From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> Message-Id: <199602050759.BAA10442(a)einstein.ssz.com> Subject: Question of Congressional Lawmaking Power To: ctlug(a)ssz.com (CT-LUG Mailing List) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 01:59:02 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 7702 Sender: owner-ctlug(a)ssz.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ctlug(a)ssz.com Hi all, To those with no interest I apologize. To those who were at the meeting this evening discussing the limitations of Congress and the purported 'elastic clause', this is what I found: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARTICLE I. [Powers of Congress.] Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and common Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the authority of training and Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; -- And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe that the section that was refered to is the last sentence regarding the making of all laws necessary for carrying out the powers detailed here and elsewhere in the Constitution. This article clearly states that it is not an open ended empowerment. It covers only those items specificaly covered in the body of the Constitution. At the time it was written it was clear that the founding fathers did not want a federal government which was not hampered or constrained in its ability to pass laws and carry out duties. If a court or body makes the assertion that this article empowers Congress to make any law then they are sadly misinformed and possibly intentionaly misrepresenting the intent of the founding fathers and the limitations on Congress placed there by them. This article no more authorized (for example) the creation of the DEA, FDA, or EPA than it authorizes them to take property without just compensation. If this was taught you either through a textbook or a public school then feel cheated and lied to, you were (possibly with premeditation). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- And in regards to the limitation of federal lawmaking and questions of jurisdiction covered in the 10 amendments... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARTICLE IX. The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ARTICLE X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The intent is clear. If there is a question of jurisdiction then it will ALWAYS fall to the states or the people, and NEVER to the federal government. In short, the federal government and the Supreme Court are not and were never intended to be the last word on anything in this country. The 10th clearly leaves that to the states and the people. Neither of these Amendments have been tested or used in a court in this country for 200 years. This is a telling tale. The courts and legislative bodies (as well as any reasonable person) will see immediately that the federal government has usurped powers and duties not theirs to execute short of a constitutional amendment. This not only includes laws allowing the seizing of private property for public use without just compensation (irrespective of the source of that private property) but drug laws, food regulation laws, environmental laws, etc. The last time Congress acted in a constitutional manner regarding this was the amendments dealing with prohibition and its repeal. Since that time Congress and the courts have taken powers reserved for the states and the people and acted upon them without authorization. In short the Congress of the US has acted in a manner assuming exemption from constitutional limitations since the late 20's. What this country needs is a legal test of both the 9th and 10th amendments. Questions regarding Internet and free speech are immediately resolved as non-issues on the federal level. It also makes jurisdictional extensions such as Tennessee arresting and prosecuting a person in California for downloading files (whatever they might contain) a non sequitar unless money is exchanged (in which case Congress may tax it, not prohibit it). It also clearly prohibits outside entities such as Germany from prosecuting anyone in the US for their actions on the Internet. If Germany wishes to constrain the content of Internet that is fine. It is between Germany and its people. Another example is gun ownership. It is not a federal issue. It is a state issue and should be resolved on a state by state level. Congress has no more authority vested by the Constitution to limit a persons ownership of a water pistol or a atom bomb, and this is the way it should be. The issue is one of a state level unless Congress wishes to propose a constitutional amendment changing or revoking the 2nd. (again as it should be). I personaly refuse to support any political party which does not support and intend on testing both of these amendments. At this time there is not one political party (even the Libertarian) who will touch this issue. I strongly suggest that you demand support for these two amendments from any legislator that you might support. Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0