December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: U.S. State Dept criticizes Chinese net-censorship
by jf_avon＠citenet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "Paul S. Penrod" <furballs(a)netcom.com> wrote to Declan: >IF you hold to the premise that self-censorship is based in a >large part on witholding your natural inclination and/or reaction >, then yes the argument can be made that self-censorship occurs >all the time. However, I would submit that J.F.A. is correct and >that your position is but a subset of the original statement. One problem that arise in all of the discussion around this theme is that peoples have very different ideas of the terms "self- interest" and "selfishness". The collectivists and mystics have made us accept the basic premise that selfishness means "acting in a way harmfull to others". They just trained us to blank out the fact that, as rational animals who love life, our best inte- rest might very well coincide with the one of our neighboor. Man, after being a rational animal is also a social animal. There is plenty of crypto relevency in this discussion and it lies in the basic view of Man of the individuals in such discussion. Is Man an intrinsical blood thirsty beast that either kills or cry or is Man a rational animal that can enjoy life in a peaceful and constructive and exciting way? The one who have the first opinion wants more govt, more laws and GKE. The others wants freedom. JFA -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i iQEVAwUBMUGA6MiycyXFit0NAQGlLQf8DxmsCoNvqlmbsvb87/IS5UsZOVFXgdG+ cdLSY9A0UDl7bCPtyKJ5V/kvA8VDiL5H4K/Le9yRD6pYcLWf5S9sHdMhM24odhqy 7/7lIK0ud1+4oD0SIfZyPNcSpJc0AWIMn6E6Xa2K/khtjl9qtKvS+byRyZumExrS p3ScxHPe2WJvR2wCN7lnrwzLoj8MA8+XaHomOa7pQme7z+YjmM76gi/8lzt9i+J7 tmGz39UfDQx8QAaq0NfVmUelmT80xsDxCmWU19lgdCoY2P8QGjR8pie/gZPdJiXl LtutVcefHb7cP9gKYXPHwxV4krM2urMhBM2cS469lwQqZY8VYN5NaQ== =SVWp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Public Key at http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon Jean-Francois Avon <jf_avon(a)citenet.net> 2048 bits key ID:C58ADD0D 1996/03/01 fingerprint=52 96 45 E8 20 5A 8A 5E F8 7C C8 6F AE FE F8 91

2 1

Re: Artist self censorship (Was Chinese net-censorship) Noise
by jf_avon＠citenet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- nobody(a)REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) said: >before taking >a picture he usually asks himself about how this picture is percived, something >the he never thought twice before the FBI raid. > >Mr. Avon should think twice before commenting on self censorship does not >exist, for that could be the difference from having the door kicked in by the >black ninja turtles with the FBI or toning down your work. OK. *THAT* might be interpreted, wrongly, as self-censorship. But words have a *precise* meaning, which unfortunately, I sometimes miss in the english language. The opinion I wrote was in the *context* of the interaction of an artist with a purchaser. In that context, what govern the events is consensuality: everybody acts *uncoerced* to his best advantage. In the case you cite, the *context* is very different. But still, I would not call it "self-censorship". I do not have, on the top of my head, any precise term for it, but maybe FUD, fear of physical violence, survival tactics while harrassed by a thuggish assaulter, etc., would apply... I did not think twice, I thought about it several hundred times... Your comment is *very* interesting. It point out how peoples can so easily blank out contextual information. Forgive my bias but I personnally makes a big distinction between the volitional initiation of physical violence (or menace of) and other situations where it is absent. Regards! JFA -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i iQEVAwUBMUF6K8iycyXFit0NAQFoBgf/Tt0zFCaRNJFBwZcxsV/v5ABnjjnAtqoT EDF0OA7+UogWT1MXL8RP58tQ2vTwUWJ1PdK/gdnwlkjpwxC0i4gRx1HpnCLOjRlL UgkUKu5qiyIWKd6upCYCMd1NCbqaffHjWr3pWxVFE/zPaCQ7mlrZZV4QBeV/bKbU djt70BQTa7WFvQwZWkVO7QcxOawjzItyZErusdEIvPz03MqbcqSaQu0NgtEy/Zwu 82CSF10uTL96TzjXm1icASiquDk8Tj+go8WqC1FZ8uK3kFHDDkEuLqzXdtG6sJKK hV4PPfehyjXXXB2CADmXMnXZVLkWU0x5Ig7l/bdOETrPhfl07Di9tQ== =1OeX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Public Key at http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon Jean-Francois Avon <jf_avon(a)citenet.net> 2048 bits key ID:C58ADD0D 1996/03/01 fingerprint=52 96 45 E8 20 5A 8A 5E F8 7C C8 6F AE FE F8 91

1 0

Re: art-stego
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is a very good idea. I wish I'd thought of it. Just bear in mind that this form of steganography is getting further away from conventional hiding, and into "pure plausible deniability." In fact, one need not even make a serious attempt to hide the encrypted bits: just call the encrypted file "art" and be done with it! (I'm not saying stego is worthless, just that there's a slippery slope one can get on, with one extreme being this fiction that "this is not an encrypted file, this is _art_!") At 7:18 PM 3/4/96, Jim Miller wrote: >The recent discussion "Chaff in the Channel" got me thinking about an >alternative to hiding random bit streams in picture files. The goal of >steganography, as I see it, is to provide plausible deniability. The Yes, all those critics who point out that steganography (not to mention stenography) is an example of the rightly-maligned "security through obscurity" are missing this point, that steganography arises in situations where the mere act of communicating is itself actionable. (Get caught in Berlin during the war with invisible ink or microdots and get hanged the next morning, whether or not the SS can read the traffic.) >problem with hiding bit streams is that you can never be sure if the >opponent has developed an analysis technique to prove a particular file >contains a suspicious bit pattern. Yes, this is why I suggested (some years back, originally) that noise be deliberately added to even images not intended for communication, as "chaff" to confuse traffic analysts. Your approach is a better one, as the "art stego" market, while small, could be self-sustaining. >The alternative to hiding bit streams is to not hide them. Use them to >generate pretty pictures. For example, modify a fractal image generator >to accept a bit stream as input. Use the bit settings to influence the >values used to iterate the fractal function. You don't have to use >fractals, any function that produces pretty pictures would probably work >as long as there was a way to extract the bit stream from the final >picture. Brute force would probably work fast enough for humans. > >One possibility is a screen saver that produces an "infinite" variety of >pretty pictures by generating a pseudo-random bit stream and using it to >help generate the next background picture. Occasionally, the picture >might be so cool you will want to send it your friends or post it on the >Net or just keep it around to look at. > >The goal is to create an innocent reason for passing around unique images >that contain random bit streams so we don't have to worry if somebody >finds the bit stream. If you live in a country that doesn't outlaw >abstract art you have plausible deniability. Now it's just up to someone to implement this. I don't expect this to be a huge market--remember what's happened to all those Mandelbrot images that were once the rage--but there's a chance it will get established as one of those "cool" apps that are tres trendy for a while. I still would expect that when the Hamas leaders in Gaza are picked up for questioning and "ArtStego" is found on their systems, along with various "abstract artworks" on their disk drives, that Mossad will not be fooled. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" 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

Re: Another Motivation for the CDA (Federal Sentencing Guid
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, 9 Mar 1996, "Dave Emery" wrote: >The article also points out that in a state with a 7% black population 43% of the >three time losers are black. Right on, bro! This is the kind of institutionalized racism that we all deplore! In fact...hey, wait a sec. Hmmm, 7% of the population; what was the percentage of black rioters in the "motorist" Rodney "Why can't we all live together?" King "peace demonstration"? Yo, homes: of the 50K gang members in L.A., what percentage is non-black? Give it a f... (oops) I mean, gosh darn rest. ObCrypto: Perry, please consult Dave Emery. Thanks! --David M. Rose

1 0

Re: Assasination Politics
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 04:51 PM 3/8/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >From: IN%"jimbell(a)pacifier.com" "jim bell" 13-FEB-1996 14:53:40.39 >>From: Me >>> A. My previously mentioned problem with a limited but non-libertarian >>>organization. > >>I don't deny that such an organization might spring up. (Anti-abortion >>activists are the group which come most immediately to my mind, BTW. I'm >>not in sympathy with them; quite the opposite.) I've never claimed that >>this system is totally immune to such abuse, in the same way that the seller >>of a gun can certify that it will never be used to commit a crime. +__________^^^ Ooops! my error, I meant "can't." > I understand and agree with the gun argument. However, it's still a >matter of whether Assasination Politics will overall be better or worse than >the current system. The one thing that disappoints me about the result of my presentation of this idea is that I haven't heard any intelligent arguments quantitatively arguing that things will be worse. Other proponents simply agree that the system would be better; most of the opponents don't take the trouble to quantify their objections. >If better, then I'll support it if it becomes necessary (I >still hope for peaceful (or at least relatively peaceful) change - hopefully, >it has not become necessary for the Declaration of Independence's justification >of revolution to be reused). If worse, I won't. I won't try to stop you from >doing so, however (currently, there's no way that I could, for instance). What's interesting is that you see this; yet there are a number of opponents who can't seem to realize that what THEY want (or, for that matter, what _I_ want) may be absolutely irrelevant to what is actually going to happen. > Incidentally, by "support" I am meaning making suggestions for >technical improvements. Admittedly, the degree to which I can do so is limited >by my lack of technical knowledge, but I believe I have thought of some >workable refinements. These are the kind of discussions I'd most want to have. I understand, however, that anybody might hesitate a bit to appear to be actively encouraging such a system. That's why I've decided my best function is to be the initiator of the idea, and the primary educator. Somebody else will actually develop the system, probably without telling me anything. > As well as the obvious problem of unethical assasinations, there is >also that of a negative reputation being given to various cypherpunk-liked >ideas (anonymous remailers, fully anonymous digital cash, etcetera) if someone >notices this. Perhaps, but most (non-net-using) people are so unaware of encryption as to make this irrelevant, I think. >>> Moreover, Jim Bell is ignoring the other sources of propaganda than >>>government in convincing the average person that someone is doing something >>>wrong (when, by my ethics at least, they aren't) - such as religion and >>>various organizations like the PFDA. > >>Again, only a tiny fraction of the population needs to participate... > > However, if more of the population participates, they may do stupid >things like using an organization that might strike at them - just as they >currently support a government that can crack down on them. The minority of >intelligent people - the tiny fraction needed for this to potentially work - >isn't a factor for this part. In other words, I'm more worried about too _many_ >people - the wrong people - participating rather than too few. Well, there's not a great deal that we can do to prevent it. Five years ago, I'm sure the then-users of the Internet were fearful of all the newbies to come; even today, we may subtly fear those to come. In other words, once WE'RE on the lifeboat, we don't want anyone else to show up! >>Since "Assassination Politics" is based on a combined-donation system, even >>people on a subsistence wage could contribute; a quarter here, a dollar >>there, pretty soon it turns into real money. > > That is an argument against it. Do you want the people who give to >televangelists being able to more directly have people killed than in the >current system (when at least you've got votes by others to take care of the >problem)? Unfortunately, the same system of ethics that would make one's >targets the right ones also excludes the targets (non-governmental figures) >that can create the problems under this system - like the PFDA leaders. Have you forgotten what might happen to those same televangelists? While I'd sure like to be able to design a system where only the "right" people die (by my own opinion), I'm under no illusion that this would be anything other than a dictatorship under "Jim Bell" or whoever happened to be in control. I think I've done a fairly good job of designing (anticipating?) a system that will do a lot of good, hopefully without doing a lot of bad. There may be nothing I can do about the negatives, unfortunately. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMUHG/vqHVDBboB2dAQHitAP/VT/c++g81sgzDPHh2d6wcSmmHgQQg0Rz Vr3sQt2RYoEZBdLG267IxQw0aYAQvQv2KARD7A+nlbXlM7XR6xQYdjhXQ47hEel0 OBG//UI3XcA8TcdIqOuREi1T+AAWpYYyTz1YpGGR1oMZp6Mv/jjHoZ6f6i2XGY6u sjHfSLcd5Dg= =ICpg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Assassination Politics(tm) was V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by jf_avon＠citenet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >At 10:42 PM 3/8/96 -0800, Bill Frantz wrote: >>(1) Assassination Politics (AP) will be most useful to a fired-up group of >>people who want to silence a single person. Madeline Murray O'Hare comes >>to mind. (She was a Texas atheist who challenged school prayer and won.) I quote this text as an example of an ongoing thought process in the analysis of the AP scheme. A little statistical mechanics would not hurt here. The above example shows *one* possible interaction between two entities, each having their own charac- teristics leading to a given inter- action. But in all theses examples, the specific variables that is forgotten is the time variable. What will be the *dynamic* characteristics of such a system. - the above paragraph describe an interaction in a given direction. - what are the others interactions that could *speed up* the above process - what are the others interactions that could *slow down* the above process Any analysis of the problem that blanks out the probability of occurence (which happens in the time domain) of each partial reaction cannot describe the outcome of the scheme. Proponents of such a scheme should stick a bit more to crypto... Ehhhh... What can I say? Physics is everywhere :) JFA B. Sc. physics A physicist is a guys/gal that cannot help but see a dance floor in a crowded bar as an interesting thermodynamical system... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i iQEVAwUBMUGK/MiycyXFit0NAQFZeAf+JzOfyxmQHBw5E6ATx4dYUMXabUTTbt1r 5ifyuwYPQ9Urwz3ONHbOOI7O2CRkBcHfvYalIFvKFwKH4oQGsf/s2mGqKDi1bVX7 hUwk5oKTFPYeBHnrI2i4LglQPiBQMJJsi+ISkKujtCnE6UHR8XHjuPfnQ1FV8amA o5KF8HJlkVgKMCEiJSsHGBmVQl/WbhM8JIJnPy+iteC+d0wEljr9tCMIxJJ6JWza r4dzLAP9VPDoSkhK7qSh5AWUVp2Wh0v3p9M4wuE7WzI+Gbha0KgKht9ZEZOx3oVH SuA0yZ+zfVVib1x4UedG/9rKQ5m0fiYDqJ8xPOWMPXTmo2Ecqad9zA== =DSc6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Public Key at http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon Jean-Francois Avon <jf_avon(a)citenet.net> 2048 bits key ID:C58ADD0D 1996/03/01 fingerprint=52 96 45 E8 20 5A 8A 5E F8 7C C8 6F AE FE F8 91

1 0

Minor challenge: Running IIS on NT Workstation (fwd)
by Just Rich 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Meanwhile, back in my other life... any ideas? This could save small business a lot of money. -rich ---------- Forwarded message ---------- To: hackmsoft(a)c2.org I was at Microsoft the other day and one of the sales guys told me that there is a fix for the IIS (Internet Information Server) that makes it run on Windows NT Workstation. There is something in the registry that the application checks. He backed out from giving me the fix. I guess they want to sell more NT Server than Workstation. It maybe something you may want to watchout for.

1 0

SLE_aze
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

3-8-96. FT: "Asean forum to fight Internet sleaze." The Association of South-East Asian Nations agreed yesterday to censor "negative elements" of the Internet. Information ministers are concerned about "information contamination" and agreed on the need for regulation and to learn from each other's experience, particularly from Singapore. 3-6-96. WSJ: "Singapore Unveils Sweeping Measures To Control Words, Images on Internet." Singapore said it will concentrate on individuals or organizations putting content on the Internet and the country's three access providers. Only public forums, or electronic spaces where people can converse or create displays visible to others who journey there, will fall under the regulations. 3-8-96. TWP: "FBI Advertises for Tips On Spies From Vietnam." FBI officials said the advertisements were prompted by an increase in activity by Vietnam's intelligence agents impersonating relatives of Vietnamese Americans to sneak into the country and steal high-technology secrets. SLE_aze (for 3)

2 1

Re: FCC & Internet phones
by tbyfield＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:47 PM 3/9/96, Mutant Rob wrote: >Yes... but the Internet is not like HAM radio. The FCC has no >jurisdiction outside the US, and it would cause various problems >for them to try to regulate the use of IPhone or how ISPs operate. Question of how practical enforcement would be haven't been big in a lot of the legislation we've seen coming out of various capitals, so I doubt the situation for bureaucratic rule-mongering would be much different. The WP article said that has ACTA has "asked the [FCC] to stop this kind of communications and study how to regulate it," probably--and not surprisingly --in that order. It looks like another case of trying to saddle ISPs with impossible enforcement burdens, though in this case one that a lot of ISPs might not mind so much, given the bandwidth that netphone usage eats up (cf. xs4all, I hear, has forbidden users to run CU-SeeMe). Q: Is it practically possible to find netphone traffic on a generic network at any level above the source and target addresses? Ted

1 0

Index of Coincidence
by Marc North 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm new to the mailing list, but I have grep'd tcmay's CP-FAQ and all related FAQs for this, but have yet to find anything. I'm looking for detailed information on a statistical tool to aid in cryptanalysis called an "index of coincidence". I would appreciate it if someone could please explain what this is, how one builds such an index against a given ciphertext, and how it is valuable in the cryptanalysis of said ciphertext. Many thanks, Marc -- .--------------------------------------------------------. | Marc North <*> mnorth(a)netcom.com <*> San Jose, CA. | `--------------------------------------------------------'

3 2