December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> One thing the V-Chip gives us is the argument: Now that parents have the >> ability to control what their children watch, the government should turn >> responsibility over to them and butt out. Unfortunately course it doesn't; we still "need" the government to control sex and indecency on TV, plus to enforce the "voluntary" rating standards and make sure TV companies attach them to their programs. Sigh. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs Pager +1-408-787-1281

1 0

Internet Without Frontiers?
by James M. Cobb 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Friend, A 02 11 96 Reuter newsstory from Brussels, headlined ---------------------------------------------------- STRASBOURG MEDIA DEBATE HEADS FOR SHOWDOWN reports: ...the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Wednesday... hammers out new rules for the European Union's audio- visual sector. The EP may try to revise the 1989 law puffed as "television without frontiers." That law might be extended to govern "new" services such as ...teleshopping, the internet and pay television.... Ach! and Sacre bleu! Therefore-- A coalition of 40 companies and trade associations from the recording, advertising and technology industries has written to parliamentarians...to urge them against extend- ing rules to new services. But there's another factor. If the socialist demands for regulation of information high- way services...prevail, the Parliament will then be set for an almighty row with EU governments. Why? EU culture ministers agreed last November to keep current rules unchanged. It's cheaper to enlighten a few ministers, you see, than it is to enlist a whole gaggle of parliamentarians. Cordially, Jim NOTE. The newsstory's www.nando.net online filename: info13_8187.html This critical essay was composed 02 12 96.

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks vs. Coderpunks
by Leslie Todd Masco 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May, an unelected spokesman of the Cypherpunk Ghetto (tm) wrote: > Apparently the Cyphepunks list is thus being left to those of us who either > don't want to code, or have no skills at coding, or who think the > sociopolitical issues are more interesting. I think you're misinterpreting what's going on. Participants in the Coderpunks list are not generally abandoning Cypherpunks. Some people who have long been absent from the Cypherpunks list have joined it, but I've seen posts from most of the Cypherpunk participants of Coderpunks on Cypherpunks since it was formed. My concern is that the two lists will become more disjoint than they already are. I believe that the content of Cypherpunks is enhanced by having the programmers present, just as the coders benefit from the guidance of seeing the possibilities opened by their endeavors. The remailers network is the most obvious example of the benefits of this synergy. I'd hate to see us lose later rewards that could otherwise be reaped. I don't believe that it'll be sociopolitical content that'll chase the coders away: if the constant fighting over indisputable metaphysics doesn't do it, the fighting over who was killfiled by whom first and who's a total loon will. -- Todd - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMSAgvSoZzwIn1bdtAQE0CQF/Zk1TkLEnHKcBsi1IETtwqMP7y6oO6dmF R3bAM7bpP2Rg4HphYkxEAIyo6zztkDrr =jTwL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

CyberAngels
by ethridge＠Onramp.NET 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Don't know if this has been mentioned on this list, since i'm, as usual, a little behind on my reading. I found this while out about this while reading alt.religion.scientology. The Guardian Angels have decided to enter cyberspace and make it safe for us all. They have a FAQ on the web - http://www.safesurf.com/cyberangels/ . How is this relevant to cypherpunks? From their FAQ: "9) What kinds of changes would the Guardian Angels / CyberAngels like to see? a) We would like to see an improvement in User identification. User ID is impossible to verify or trace back. The very anonymity of Users is itself causing an increase in rudeness, sexual abuse, flaming, and crimes like pedophile activity. We the Net Users must take responsibility for the problem ourselves. One of our demands is for more accountable User IDs on the Net. When people are anonymous they are also free to be criminals. In a riot you see rioters wearing masks to disguise their true identity. The same thing is happening online. We would like to see User ID much more thoroughly checked by Internet Service Providers." Since i'm can't do emphasis in ascii well, i'll quote the interesting sentence again - "When people are anonymous they are also free to be criminals." I've never been a fan of anonymity, but it does have it's legitimate uses. allen

1 0

Re:
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:41 PM 2/12/96 -0500, A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security wrote: > >>Yet if I read you correctly earlier, you don't think the USG has the right >>to regulate those communications. Why the distinction ? > >Okay, obviously I need to drop down a gear & explain *my* feelings: > >Part of the definition of a "sovereign nation" is to define and carry >out both high and low justice over it's domain - the absolute right >of a sovereign. Is not mentioned in the US constitution because it >was a given. Hardy har har! This sounds like a joke, right? Anything you WANT the Constitution to have said, "is not mentioned in the Constitution because it was a given." Thanks for making me laugh...at you! >"Free speech" means that a citizen is free to speak (communicate) anthing, >anytime, anywhere. This is the right guarenteed by the first amendment. This >does not relieve the individual from being liable for the consequences of >the exercise of "free speech". This statement is internally inconsistent. If the speech is truly "free," it is (and should be!) unconstrained. To whatever extent it is constrained, it is not entirely "free." Now, even if we all agree that SOME speech should be limited, don't try to use this argument to allow the government to restrict ALL speech! >However, the government is under no obligation (though in the silly seventies >it seemed that we were going that way) to aid or abet in the exercise of >free speech. If it were properly and legally decided that communications >with anon.penet.fi is against "national interest" then the sovereign has >not only the "right" but the *duty* to block/monitor such communications. Here you get wacky again. You first make a true statement, and then come to a false conclusion. Logic lesson for Padgett: There are at least three categories here: 1. Government restricts communication. 2. Government neither assists nor restricts communication. 3. Government assists communication. (through stolen tax dollars, BTW.) Your first sentence in the paragraph immediately above simply says that item 3 is not required. That is a true statement. However, you falsely (apparently deliberately?) suggest that item 2 cannot exist; the only alternative is item 1. Get real, Padgett. Wake up. Jim Bell Klaatu Burada Nikto

1 0

uh oh, mutation time?
by Judith Milhon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Electronic Guerrillas: Resisting Net Censorship THE MUTATE PROJECT http://www.onworld.com/MUT "Don't black out YOUR website. Black out THEIRS" Hassan I Sirius 2/8/96 This is an invitation to join a public forum on the World Wide Web on resisting internet censorship. By now, you have all heard about the Communications Decency Act and you know, or should know, the scope of this law. This discussion will revolve around active resistance to this law; routing around it, on-line uncivil disobedience, pranking, hacking, and otherwise fucking with the Net Cops. And ordinary political organizing need not be excluded. Electronic Guerrillas: Resisting Net Censorship is a topic within a Forum called Kulchur Wars. Kulchur Wars is a Forum that is part of The Mutate Forum. The Mutate Forum is a part of the website "THE MUTATE PROJECT." THE MUTATE PROJECT is an outgrowth of the book "How to Mutate & Take Over the World" by R. U. Sirius, St. Jude & The Internet 21. While we'd planned to officially open THE MUTATE PROJECT in mid-February, we've decided to open up the forum TODAY, in response to the passage of this legislation. Don't worry. It's easy to open up this Chinese box. Just go to http://www.onworld.com/MUT click on Mutate Forum Read your induction papers Click on Join a Cool Conspiracy open Kulchur Wars add your posting to the string entitled Electronic Guerrillas: Resisting Net Censorship Feel free to post in the other topics start your own or to poke around in the scaffolding of THE MUTATE PROJECT but remember that it's STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION see you there R. U. Sirius Sirius Communications

1 0

Re: Firewall USA to Firewall China
by daw＠dawn7.CS.Berkeley.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In article <199602130139.RAA11162(a)mage.qualcomm.com>, Peter Monta <pmonta(a)qualcomm.com> wrote: > > [ Jim Clark, "Firewall China" ] > > > > A: A lot of people think that's not possible. It's difficult to enforce, > > but it's certainly possible. A corporation has a so-called fire wall -- a > > single point of entry into the corporate net. You can have a country > > that has a single point of entry into its "country net." It's doable. All > > you need, though, is one breach of security, and there's a leak. > > > > A fire wall is a filter -- it filters and doesn't let certain people come in. > > You can only come in if you have the right permission. So you could > > easily set that up so that it would filter out your objectionable > > material. > > He seems to be confusing network security with the propagation of content. > A firewall is going to have a lot more trouble filtering dangerous > thoughts than UDP port 1234, unless there are humans in the loop. Hmm, I'd argue that firewall technology would indeed let China filter out many "subversive" thoughts on the Internet. The firewall is not going to be able to stop the two-rogue problem: two technically knowledgeable rogue agents, one on each side of the firewall, *will* succeed in communicating dangerous thoughts if they try hard enough. But that's not so important to solve perfectly, in practice. No, in reality, China could set up a few simple application proxies and only allow world -> China traffic on a few closely controlled ports, such as http, smtp, nntp, ftp, etc. The proxies could * filter out "naughty" and "seditious" sites (e.g. www.playboy.com) * filter out email, news, etc. which has traversed a "known dangerous site" (e.g. a remailer or ftp.hacktic.nl), * daily update their lists of subversive sites (e.g. by reading Raph's remailer list), * filter out indecent newsgroups, * do simple keyword searches (e.g. fuck, revolution, protest, crypto), and/or * do simple content analysis (e.g. maybe filter out .gifs, to stop nude pics). This would hose 93% of the subversive stuff on the 'net. "Social solutions" (read: men with guns) can eliminate the last 7%. And so it goes. Sure, someone in the "free world" (e.g. not China or the USA) could run a remailer / http-proxy at a new site each day, enabling someone knowledgeable in China to find dangerous material. But the fact remains that this requires technical knowledge and the willingness to go to the trouble of actively accessing the remailer site. Again, someone in the China could run a remailer / reposter / http-proxy themselves inside the firewall; that's where the "social solutions" come in. Kick down the door (see, jackboots are good for something after all!), beat up the children, and you can kiss that remailer goodbye. Technically, you're right in saying that you can't filter all the content perfectly; it's the classic covert channel problem. But practically, the Chinese gov't can probably wreak havoc with 'net freedom in China. - -- Dave Wagner Fuck the CDA. - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMSEPwyoZzwIn1bdtAQEFDAF9GXWLz9beaciHbY3mo3Reaom7K5IK0k2I pVz5NrHqa80eDtC8Rr0w/kSzkKtq4GCL =k93A -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3

Crypto++ 2.0 beta
by Wei Dai 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm about to release version 2.0 of Crypto++, and I am looking for people to do some beta testing on it. I'm especially interested in testing for compatibility with different compilers/OSs. If you are interested, please e-mail me stating that you are a US or Canadian citizen or permanent resident living in US or Canada and that you will not export the software. Wei Dai Here's the readme for Crypto++ if you don't know what it is. Crypto++: a C++ Class Library of Cryptographic Primitives Version 2.0 beta 2/13/1996 This library includes: MD5, SHS, HAVAL, DES, IDEA, WAKE, 3-WAY, TEA, SAFER, Blowfish, Diamond2, Diamond2 Lite, Sapphire, Luby-Rackoff, MDC, various modes (CFB, CBC, OFB, counter), DH, DSA, ElGamal, LUC, Rabin, BlumGoldwasser, elliptic curve cryptosystems, BBS, gzip compression, Shamir's secret sharing scheme, Rabin's information dispersal scheme, and zero-knowledge prover and verifier for graph isomorphism. There are also various miscellanous modules such as base 64 coding and 32-bit CRC. RSA and RC5 are noticeably absent. I am still talking to RSA DSI about adding them back into Crypto++. I hope version 2.1 will include them. Crypto++ has been compiled and tested with Borland C++ 4.5, MSVC 4.0, and G++ 2.7.2 on MS-DOS, Windows NT, and a variety of Unix machines. You are welcome to use it for any purpose without paying me, but see license.txt for the fine print. Some short instructions to compile this library: (you probably need to modify this to suit your environment) -- if want to use this library with RSAREF, then 1. get a copy of RSAREF 2. untar or unzip it into a directory below this one 3. type "gcc -c -I. *.c" (in the rsaref/source directory) to compile RSAREF 4. edit config.h 5. type "g++ -c -Irsaref/source -I. *.cpp" to compile this library 6. type "g++ *.o rsaref/source/*.o -lstdc++ -lm" to link the test driver 7. type "a.out" to run the test driver -- if you DON'T want to use this library with RSAREF, then 1. edit config.h (make sure to comment out #define USE_RSAREF) 2. type "g++ -c *.cpp" to compile this library 3. type "g++ *.o -lstdc++ -lm" to link the test driver 4. type "a.out" to run the test driver Finally, a note on object ownership: If a constructor for A takes a pointer to an object B (except primitive types such as int and char), then A owns B and will delete B at A's destruction. If a constructor for A takes a reference to an object B, then the caller retains ownership of B and should not destroy it until A no longer needs it. Good luck, and feel free to e-mail me at weidai(a)eskimo.com if you have any problems. Also, check http://www.eskimo.com/~weidai/cryptlib.html for updates and new versions. Wei Dai History 1.0 - First public release. Withdrawn at the request of RSA DSI. - Has a big bug in the RSA key generation code. 1.1 - Removed RSA, RC4, RC5 - Disabled calls to RSAREF's non-public functions - Minor bugs fixed 2.0 - a completely new, faster multiprecision integer class - added HAVAL, 3-WAY, TEA, SAFER, LUC, Rabin, BlumGoldwasser, Elliptic Curve algorithms - added the Lucas strong probable primality test - ElGamal encryption and signature schemes modified to avoid weaknesses - Diamond changed to Diamond2 because of key schedule weakness - fixed bug in WAKE key setup - lots of miscellaneous optimizations

1 0

Re: Re:
by lunaslide＠loop.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

}>sovereign n. 1. A person, governing body, etc., in whom the >supreme power }>or authority is vested.< adj. 1. Exercising or possessing supreme }>authority or jurisdiction. 2. Independent, and free from external }>authority or influence: a sovereign state. } }Yup. } }>This is not what our government is. } }The United States is a sovereign nation. Do you dispute that ? The }constitution is a binding agreement between the government and its citizens }that determines how that sovereignty will be exercised, the elements in which }the nation will not interfere with citizens, and the duties which it will }carry out. No, but I do dispute that the _U.S. Government_ is sovereign. I'm not going to write why all over again, since you seem to have convieniently snipped the rest of my post, rather than answer it. You are commiting a straw man fallacy. I didn't say that the nation isn't soveriegn, I said that the government is not sovereign. Yes, there is a difference. }The three branches of the government were set up to ensure that "supreme }power" would never rest with a single entity, yet taken together they do have }that power. The three branches are a system of checks and balances to counter the the immergence of one sovereign pwoer. See, it is actually built into the constution that the govt cannot be sovereign! }Congress and the Senate are the legally empowered representatives of the }people. In that they do have the "power of the people" to make decisions }on what is right and what is wrong within limits. That too is defined in }the constitution. The Congress is the Senate and the House, and they are given specific powers by the people to govern themselves in relation to the job in Article 1, Sections 1-7 and to govern the people in Article 1, Sections 8-10. The powers given are very specific in nature and involve mostly limited legislative powers and taxing abilities. The President is given his rights and duties to govern the people in Article 2, Sections 2 and 3 and they include the power to command the army and navy, give pardons, make treaties and appoint people to positions as Judges, Ambassadors and the like. He has the duty to give a State of the Union address from "time to time" to inform and ask for recomendation and consideration on matters ofhis choosing. He also has the right to conviene both houses of congress to discuss matters. In Article one, he is also given the power of the veto. The Judicial branch, and particularly the Supreme Court, is given the power to rule on matters concerning the court involving laws and disputes. They have the power to refute laws and the duty to adhere to the principles of the constitution. The people have the right to dissent and may petition the govt for a redress of grievances as dictated by Amendment one. If they are not given satisfaction, they still have the right to free speech and press so that they may share their dissent with one another and affect the outcome of the next election. The Fourth Amendment, of course, protects the "...right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures..." Clearly the govt cannot be sovereign if this is true. }Take the CDA. I do believe that it is unconstitutional but that Congress/ }Saxplayer had the *right* to pass the law just as the Supreme Court has the }right to declare it to have been outside the power of the Congress to do so }(which I expect). Somehow it works. But ultimately it is the people who decide, and the people are not one with the government. The people have influence over the government, therefore the government cannot be sovereign. The first part of the Declaration of Independence indicates that it was never the intent of the founding fathers to create a sovereign government, refuting your nonsensical statement about it being "a given." I ended up restating almost my whole case anyway. But that's ok, cause I'll just keep explaining until you understand it. lunaslide "Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." - -- Abraham Lincoln On the meridian of time there is no injustice, only the poetry of motion creating the illusion of truth and drama. Henry Miller ________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCPAzEX3QEAAAEEAOGQjhnqGH29pO1WDaXs5GFOVPhCBWyYEk9XEwRmscjveWzH AhA6DeOA480zWNqQURyqE2yPmR8WzT+OXYqmeiQiycKyFA41Vs/Ruf+gXXxe7uXS L5BK3K8oKbfoH0D5/TAkMT4r6BprXFQz4pFc3gY2SSaSPElpMjKHaKBsRsyRABEB AAG0HUplZmYgQ29ubiA8bHVuYXNsaWRlQGxvb3AuY29tiQCVAwUQMRffHzKHaKBs RsyRAQGNhwP9E9xEZ9/LCKnhgtnrqgD7pDoXG2pCy8FoyfFjoImGkG+jF1wELXmB Z0mf8F8CgYkys0mif1XeGDMelr1gzlZAm6LgQt4kcvztMW/aRLn18QP+iwltVT/L p8D37mitOjvuk46sWgAChIaPPPIeg/EaYQjQkmlpWKsEYIoTRy+E8mU= =4Gku -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Re: Netscrape's Cookies
by David E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 04:18 PM 2/13/96 +0000, a Deranged Mutant wrote: [re cookies! yum] >I'm curious if anyone knows which sites use/modify it. AFAIK, the only site that uses it is *.netscape.com dave -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMSEtFjVTwUKWHSsJAQHkJAf9EaG4gSj6zJLLcI6wiT6Qd45yBPL2sxIW M8Vtf95bLgCM7h0BP6jtdUGRG0nMVqbY/Xj+kNYfDHmgZSnuoBrYld9E4bs5puTr aVW6y7UBs3hdqz5dtWh4Gn2nq6/xTkj/t3/DlI/fuakNVnTlN0TeGPj2Alp5x8Z3 mww1gQ0EyymlioPEpyaNqg8vGSVcltDOQRdw+7HZoc2fZ6urvBkDKtHRAtN7PiUG LMafuM+27TiRoKi1kSf0Q1S6EE7QrXoJTnTm6/qAIY1e+kPw/Lg17NhJmIQR0TnT tSzucfxzjrGvFGI2fZL0kr5qAe/k/eqx+xKNXZHJjsNWIG8/WbdiPQ== =dpvR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----- David E. Smith, c/o Southeast Missouri State University 1000 Towers Circle South MS 1210 Cape Girardeau MO 63701 dsmith(a)midwest.net, dsmith(a)alpha.c2.org, PGP 0x961D2B09 (573)339-3814 http://www.midwest.net/scribers/dsmith/ "Reality is only for those lacking in true imagination."

1 0