December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Cryptographers against cryptography
by David K. Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09:23 PM 03/11/96 -0800, Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: >At 09:35 AM 3/11/96 -0800, you wrote: >>This is the second in a regular series of postings to expose >>cryptographers and cypherpunks who are either lying to us or >>making a very serious mistake in there judgement. >..... >>B. Schneier: bs208(a)newton.cam.ac.uk, schneier(a)counterpane.com >>M. Blaze: mab(a)crypto.com, mab(a)research.att.com >>J. Bizdos: jim(a)rsa.com >>S. Safaddar: shabbir(a)vtw.org >>D. Weinstein: djw(a)vplus.com >>P.. Peterson: padgett(a)hobbes.orl.mmc.com >>B. Stewart: stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com > >Oh, boy, now I'm a Tentacle Again! >But at least I can spell.... Gee, lucky you (not to be confused with Lucky Green :-). Maybe if I study real hard, and practise, and pay attention in school, *I* can make the 7 Worst Enemies List, too! Oh, BOY! As for spelling, I have it on good Authority that your secret is knowing how to operate your spell-checker. Dave "Not even a flagellum, nevermind a tentacle" Merriman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMURc1MVrTvyYOzAZAQEm9AP/XHB/pc3wfkkd9ZoGxduVxxzB4WliFubU PoDWkF0Gt+O1BSFGvqSJWKGaxYeYqvtBHzRLBE0BYh7ot7curdHWL8/7mrnaNCJV /QsHIsYl3JvAp/nZckucWUEzSf1BDnzokeH9v2xpwaxT5cWYvCRQLu0Q25EjfZl3 4PyMemghhbA= =+yQN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------- "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." P. J. O'Rourke (b. 1947), U.S. journalist. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> For privacy tools: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/1148

1 0

bell ringing
by David K. Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I've *finally* had a chance to try and catch up on my CyP (vice CoP) reading, including the running tit-for-tat between Jim Bell and (most of) the rest of the list. While Mr. Bell's Assassination Politics idea has a lot of interesting ramifications, I've found that his apparent in-your-face-and-wha'cha-gonna-do-about-it-PUNK attitude makes reading his postings very tedious. Perhaps if 'we' were to simply read his postings, and respond *only* to those that maintain a civil tone, it would finally sink in with him that his Terrible Two's antics aren't appreciated. The only other options I see are: Someone gets his snailmail address and sends him a Dale Carnegie book, or there's a mass kill-filing, with him as the guest of (dis)honor. As noted, his AP idea seems worth discussing, I'd be reluctant to lose it. I'd hate to see him turned into LD-2 (Son of LD? :-) because he doesn't seem to have learned Tact and Manners yet. Dave Merriman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMURa6sVrTvyYOzAZAQFdyAQAosYKaeQBAUFL/uz1dv+NTCEULmlyRc97 H1Q7jBzJK4mqpEvaYzRBTYl8XMAKkhxl2HaCsVLx6z4zJKnMAteRF7iEN/LO68bs ncAUBoi1TfhRSkSHL9NgBSIaDBtZ5ZT+HWf3dryBYSBkLmfGnDi6o4DMSDis7hC1 pmsSbPDfjk8= =lP2I -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------- "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." P. J. O'Rourke (b. 1947), U.S. journalist. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> For privacy tools: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/1148

1 0

Re: Do you feel lucky, punk?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:59 PM 3/11/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote: > >> At 05:54 PM 3/11/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >> >Not only is your law poor and badly reasoned, >> >> Just what George Will said about this recent Bennis SC decision. > >My issue was with your application of the cite and decisions to the >pending bill. You keep saying this kind of thing, repeatedly, but you don't back it up with a contrary argument. >> > your mastery of the jurisprudence of forfeiture law flawed, >> >> Ditto, and I notice you give no specific examples. Why is that? > >My issue was, again, with regard to your choice of cites, Ah! You simply didn't like me using that particular atrocious SC decision to suggest that we can't trust judges and courts in general! >the way you >chose to apply them to represent a general (and flawed) attitude toward >statuatory construction, "Flawed"? In what way? You keep making claims that you don't back up with facts. > and the manner in which you try to mold all of >the above in a way suggesting it has the least bit to do with the bill in >question. You keep making assertions that I'm wrong, but you don't demonstrate the "correct" interpretation according to your opinion. Why is this? >But, for the sake of equality, let's examine some of your legal assertions. >Or, more accurately, legal conclusions. (BTW, where is your J.D. from?) > >1> In fact, I would argue that a remailer operator will actually be >considered MORE responsible, legally, than Mrs. Bennis: > >2> I argue that a person who runs an anonymous encrypted remailer could be >clearly claimed to be "entrusting" that "property" to someone else, under >the meaning of the above paragraph. > >The "above paragaph," incidently, doesn't even rise to the level of court >dicta, but is a abstract of dicta by a court commentator. Using such >authority to back a legal conclusion (especially when applied to an >entirely seperate legal area) is twisted at best, and dangerous at worst. Let's suppose we agree that "George Will" is a "court commentator." Suppose further that he, more or less, says "this decision sucks." Because it DOES suck. To any normal person, the knowledge that a educated, erudite, intelligent person who has published a newspaper and magazine column for years says "this decision sucks" (although he did it a lot less coarsely than I relate) should be of interest. And most people of ordinary levels of intelligence can recognize that yes, the decision DOES suck. And George Will, who has certainly NOT become successful as a commentator by boring the reader, understands that this decision is of interest to enough people to have it occupy one of his columns for a day. Remember, one of the basic assumptions that any supporter of the Leahy bill could be making is that it will be interpreted INTELLIGENTLY by courts. If it is obvious to most of the rest of us that those lunatics can't even make the correct decision about a woman's half-interest in a common automobile, then their ability to decide whether an anonymous encrypted remailer is somehow breaking the law merely by forwarding unidentified traffic is certainly in question. The fact that you may not _like_ me bringing up a contemporaneous example where the SC stuck their collective heads firmly and completely up their respective asses is irrelevant. If anything, it shows that you feel the law is and should be above the heads of the average individual, or even the UN-average, intelligent individual who regularly reads editorials in their local newspaper. Such elitism is disgusting. >3> At least, that is the position the prosecutors could surely take, >especially given this Supreme Court decision. > >Uh huh. They might also take the position that the defendent is ugly, >and should be convicted. That doesn't make it a legally viable argument. Unfortunately, the only thing that determines whether, in fact, something is a "legally viable argument" is the dishonesty and stupidity and connivance of the person or people making the resulting decision, in this case the Supreme Court. (Or didn't you know that?) It is, given the current make-up on the Supreme Court today. Sad but true. Naturally, this reality embarrasses you. Your Emperor isn't wearing any clothes. >> > and your rhetoric twisted, >> >> Again, you give no specific examples. And what is "twisted rhetoric", at >> least as you've used it here? > >I'm not going to delve into semantics or be distracted by a war of the >dictionaries. But you already did. You called my rhetoric "twisted." "Twisted" implies that there is an "untwisted" version. I await hearing it. I'll probably be waiting a long time at the current rate you're getting to the point. > You proport to be knowledgeable in these areas, and yet >say nothing of value. I say nothing you want to hear. That's precisely why you consider it of no value. > Your appeal (what of it there is) is based >entirely on skewing meanings, using critiques of dicta, and generally >applying inflamatory language taken out of context in a manner which suits >you. I don't think I'm off base calling it "twisted." "Inflammatory language"? The real "inflammatory language" occurs every time a court makes yet another outrageous decision such as the ones you are weakly attempting (and miserably failing) to defend. I notice you don't provide an alternative competing interpretation, either of my conclusions or those of George Will. So how are we to know what "twisted" is if you can't clearly show something which is "untwisted"? >> Maybe you read that item too rapidly to notice that most of it was George >> Will's column, not my wording. > >Again, its application to the bill is what I question. All of which >throws your understanding of law, dicta, holdings, jurisprudence, and >rhetoric into question. What you should have cited was some statuatory >construction and legislative history cases, not forfeiture law. But how >could you be expected to know this? I chose my example to display the foolishness of the Supreme Court, as well as each and every one of the courts below it that did not properly dispose of that Bennis case. You find this disturbing. But it's applicable to ANY law that may someday rely upon a SC decision to overturn or uphold. Anyone considering supporting the Leahy bill had better understand this. Naturally, you want to cover it up. >> What, then, was the point of sending me the note, as well as wasting >> bandwidth on CP to share your unhappiness? > >Distribution of reputation capital (or in this case, negative reputation >capital). I believe I also wanted to make a point (in 1,200 bytes) about >the utility (or lack thereof) of your article (10,500 bytes) on this list. I'd glad to see you distributing YOUR "negative reputation capital." Why not do a better job for yourself and make it look like you are actually more familiar with the legal system than the rest of us are (which shouldn't be hard, if you have the credentials), and challenge us with an alternative explanation of the facts I (and George Will) describe? In other words, stop just saying I'm wrong and start DEMONSTRATING it, if you can. Convince us that you're not just an elitist snob and that we should actually have confidence that the scum on the Supreme Court will be gone soon and replaced with people who know how to make a correct decision reliably. At that point, the Leahy bill (with substantial modifications) will start looking a lot better to all of us. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com Klaatu Burada Nikto

2 1

Remailer passphrases
by Gary Howland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- markm(a)voicenet.com writes: On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, Gary Howland wrote: > > This of course assumes that the remailer runs as a process - if it doesn't > > then there is no reason a 'remailer helper' cannot. > > > > The only disadvantage of this is that the remailer cannot be rebooted > > without a passphrase being entered, but then there are ways around this > > (entering the passphrase remotely over a secure link etc., or more > > sophisticated 'remote authorisation' systems). > > > > The advantage of this is that the password is never on the disk, > > only in memory (which will take serious (read "expensive") to extract). > > I don't know that it would be that expensive. If someone was able to gain ^^ > root access to the system, something like "strings /dev/kmem" could narrow > the search for the passphrase down significantly. Of course one could > obfuscate the passphrase by XOR'ing it with 0x80, but that's only security > through obscrurity. Sure, _if_ they were able to gain root access without rebooting the machine, but the usual scenario is that the filth turn up with black bin liners, not men from the NSA. Gary - -- pub 1024/C001D00D 1996/01/22 Gary Howland <gary(a)kampai.euronet.nl> Key fingerprint = 0C FB 60 61 4D 3B 24 7D 1C 89 1D BE 1F EE 09 06 - --- [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 iQBFAwUBMUVVMioZzwIn1bdtAQFFPAGAkqQFY1FRwSunSdqkvZBQx8S6BnD7UXRV ztKYpHcCkyex8pT4jL/WqeEIGPUXfi4l =voJ5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Electronic Frontiers Wyoming (fwd)
by Jeff Davis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: eagle(a)nyx.net (eagle) > Message-Id: <9603121000.AA25993(a)nyx.net> > Subject: Electronic Frontiers Wyoming > To: kellee(a)uwyo.edu > Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 03:00:23 -0700 (MST) > Cc: barlow(a)eff.org (John Perry Barlow), mnemonic(a)eff.org, > brown(a)eff.org (Dan Brown), mech(a)eff.org (Stanton McCandlish), > ssteele(a)eff.org, aburt(a)nyx.net (Andrew Burt), > mbarry(a)stout.entertain.com (Bruce Dane), rcarter(a)nyx.net (Ron Carter), > eagle(a)armory.com > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > It was nice talking to you at the Information Center in the Union earlier. > You might like to know that Information Technology in conjunction with > Administration and Records has seen fit in a convulsion of gross idiocy to > publish your entire UW transcript on the World Wide Web. Anyone with your > social security number and your registration PIN can dowload your entire > transcript and post it to Usenet News if they so desire, where your grades > would be replicated in computers, and circling the planet in a few minutes. > By gross malfecence, the University of Wyoming has seen fit to *PUBLISH* *ALL* > the Non Degree seeking Graduate Students PIN in the Summer Bulletin; 4723. > > Patrick, who is a non degree seeking grad student, went ballistic when I gave > him *his* PIN to access his transcript. The web browser also writes your > social security number to the screen, so anyone watching over your shoulder > has all the information they need to violate your right to privacy. It's > really stupid to create an HTTP link directly into the cgi-bin as well. > > You can check this out for yourself at Whistle: > > http://siswww.uwyo.edu/cgi-win/homepage.exe > > Or wait until the Program Analyst I in charge of computer security at the > Water Resources Center, (they paid him more money that Math CoSci), writes > a *scathing* letter to the Branding Iron. It will be signed Patrick Malone. > > This bit of better living via Electronic Revolution has been brought to you > by your friendly neighborhood Cypherpunk. > > Jeff > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 2.6.1 > > iQCVAwUBMUVKIF4aVg6iEWoBAQETKgQAoL4xnCzIPvccRuJZTxslDXb36qC0Zhhj > DAK100FlTyAmgc8oxIJjcQ3C1f4qzKVSOj63hBXBrhdpIoIkvE0x8notQuRsl/ua > sKf6XwVWfl0vAZ2lMUn0/f/GtUU4579NMhsChXnwGADzrHnmzfB3belxVMZzxsyJ > Xc6wHukVRNU= > =wVEh > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- According to John Perry Barlow: *What is EFF?* "Jeff Davis is a truly gifted trouble-maker." *email <info(a)eff.org>* *** O U T L A W S On The E L E C T R O N I C F R O N T I E R **** US Out Of Cyberspace!!! Join EFF Today! *email <membership(a)eff.org>*

2 1

Re: FCC & Internet phones
by Gary Howland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Adam Shostack wrote: > Loren James Rittle wrote: > | >Most > | >presumably use a mix of a UDP data connection and tcp for control > | >functions. > | > | OK, everything after the IP header is encrypted. I don't even know > | which protocol is in use. > > Are you willing to play Mallet? Drop IP packets, and look for > duplicates. Those are TCP. (IPSEC might handle this, but I bet there > will be broken implementations that save time by resending.) Are you saying UDP protocols don't retransmit un-acked packets? If not, then you can't be sure the duplicates are TCP. Gary - -- pub 1024/C001D00D 1996/01/22 Gary Howland <gary(a)kampai.euronet.nl> Key fingerprint = 0C FB 60 61 4D 3B 24 7D 1C 89 1D BE 1F EE 09 06 - --- [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 iQBFAwUBMUVWwioZzwIn1bdtAQHQaAGA1EjYZpEKrie9t/eIohlrHCC4rUY8Dzu1 HgB+1ZbAS8X7hIRb3eSHLlBB13LZtkDH =4Tgg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

German minister predicts collapse of governments
by um＠c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

German Minister of Justice: Governments' attempts to regulate the internet on their own are nonsensical, technically and economically. National states are obsolete. A crypto ban cannot be enforced. The German news magazine DER SPIEGEL features a story about the internet, with 33 pages of the usual hype. However, there is a remarkable interview with the German Minister of Justice, Edzard Schmidt-Jortzig: The minister says that he is not glad about always having to talk about control when concerned with the internet. According to him, the internet has been getting on without any special laws. The discussion about pornography and blocking programs reminds him of the discussion about the "dangerous device TV" in his youth. The state has legitimate interests in regulations, he says, but it is "nonsensical, when those attempts are restricted to one country. The internet has no borders. What is illegal in one state will simply be served to the net elsewhere." He admits that in a way he is happy about that: "This whole discussion still is at its very beginning." Conceivably, providers could be obliged to block pages with illegal contents to their customers, Schmidt-Jortzig says. However, such a step, performed by the government on its own, would hardly make sense technically and economically: Instead of going through the exteme effort of controlling the contents, providers would simply move to countries such as Andorra, Liechtenstein or Luxemburg. That would only increase telephone bills for the customers, but Germany would lose many innovative businesses and jobs. Propaganda from overseas could only be avoided by a world-wide convention or UN treaty, but he does not expect any such things for the next 10 years. Facing the development of technology, "our thinking in national categories is no longer adequate. That way, we will not be able to control the net. I rather think that we will have to say good-bye to the idea of enforcing German law on the internet." Of course, Nazi propaganda or child pornography would remain illegal in Germany, but the question were if it can be enforced. "I can already imagine those users sending their paroles and pamphletes to the net from Luxemburg, deriding the helpless German authorities. I don't really think that is great, but I don't see any solution." "I think the internet with its unlimited possibilites of communication and its anarchistic structure is one of the most amazing challenges the state currently has to face. Faster than we would have thought, the traditional national state will prove obsolete. A legislation ending at the borders of a certain territory will be increasingly hard to defend." He knows that many will find it difficult to bear, says Schmidt-Jortzig, "but we cannot outlaw the internet only because it does not fit with the conception of life of some [people living in yesterday's world]. Not even the Chinese can." The idea of the global citizen in the internet, who no loger has to cope with national ideas, is a nice vision, he says, but still very unrealistic. For some time, national states would remain authoritative and defend their function. "But I am afraid that this stuggle will eventually fail." Schmidt-Jortzig says that the Bavarian prosecutors' proceed against CompuServe has been absolutely legitimate, but if they will be sentenced were a totally different question, because the accused had no way of verifying every internet resource. In a global community, there could be something like a net police. German controls however, would be totally senseless today: "If I really were to regulate the internet with laws and prohibition in spite of all argumentation, then I would certainly need such control, a new federal Data Police. But I think nobody would have such absurd an idea, as everyone knows that would also mean the death of this innovative business field in Germany." The state could not care for fully effective privacy on the net, but may have to inform about the threads towards privacy. Schmidt-Jortzig does not see any reason for banning encryption software the police cannot break: "Why should I outlaw that on this still rather insecure media, people encrypt their private mail, and be it only the results of the federal league." - "Even if I wanted to, I could hardly enforce that ban. You can download encryption programs for free on the internet. Meanwhile, there even is software that allows you to undetectibly hide a message in normal e-mail. The state is participating in a persuit race that it cannot win at all. Of course that does not exempt us from having to try to persue in the beginning." Asked about criminals using encryption, he says that he knows there will be large scepticism if the state gives up that quickly. "Only, I am afraid that those who work against this development will eventually have to lay down arms. Any attempt to find a national solution will fail."

1 0

DOT_con
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

3-12-96. TWP: "Making Connections With Dots To Decipher U.S. Spy Spending. Panel's Report Indirectly Discloses Details It Urged Keeping Secret." Buried in the commission's report is a chart that provides a striking account of previously secret spy spending and personnel levels for the CIA, NSA, DIA and NRO. The chart also confirms that the NSA, together with its various military service components employs the most people, a total of nearly 40,000 eavesdroppers and codebreakers. It appears to have an annual budget of around $3.7 billion. DOT_con

1 0

Re: FCC & Internet phones
by Gary Howland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Shostack wrote: > Gary Howland wrote: > | Are you saying UDP protocols don't retransmit un-acked packets? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > | If not, then you can't be sure the duplicates are TCP. > > Err, yes. Thats the point of UDP; its unreliable and has no > acknowweldgement. Sorry, I meant protocols using UDP, not UDP itself. Gary

1 0

Your "switchboard" listing
by Paul Kedrosky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ha! Very funny that you have yourself listed as Mssr Thomas Pynchon in Switchboard's listings. I especially like the mailing address. P.

1 0