December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: The limits of my patience. (suggested solution)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:29 PM 3/30/96 -0800, Adam philipp wrote: >At 09:48 AM 3/30/96 -0800, you wrote: >>At 08:43 AM 3/30/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >>>On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote: >>>> Explains a lot! You _are_ paid for this. In an earlier era, you would >>>> have gladly run the ovens at Auschwitz if you'd gotten paid for it. >>>You're way out of line here. >>>I expect an apology. >>And as a form of protest, I recommend that you refuse to post any more >>messages to CP until you get it! That would solve a lot of problems, I think. > >An apology was warranted. This is not a flaming ground. It is also not the place for people like this Unicorn to waste our time with non-responsive messages. If you don't know what I'm referring to, go back and re-read what I posted to him, and what he posted to me in "response." You'll discover that he doesn't address my commentary appreciably, and certainly not reliably. He's wasting your time, and mine, and if you haven't complained to him so far then you have no business complaining to me. Put him to his proof; challenge his assumptions. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Why Americans feel no compulsion to learn foreign languages
by mccoy＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:35 AM 3/30/96, Dr. Dimitri Vulis is rumored to have typed: [...] > No, I think both of Tim's statements illustrate the typical Americans disdain > for learning for knowledge's sake and the (still amazing to me) ability to > express pride in their ignorance. [...] It's as if though > their challenge is to go through life learning as little as they can get away > with (other than obscure sports statistics). Well, I believe that Tim's original point was that Americans have little to gain in practical terms from learning foreign languages, while others are forced by necessity to learn English (and possibly other languages.) So far no one has provided any convincing counter-argument to this point. As an American who has learned a great many languages just for the sake of knowing them I can assure you that this knowledge has turned out to have no practical benefit to me in my daily life. I can converse in French, German, Italian, Indonesian/Malay, and can "get around" in Tamil, Dutch, Russian, and Arabic. I can read Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, and Egyptian hieroglyphics (okay, so I was on a dead languages kick in college, sue me...) and know enough in eight or nine other languages to travel anywhere in the world and be secure in the knowledge that I could order dinner, read a train schedule, and find shelter. Big deal. This knowledge is still of no practical benefit to me; it does not help me do my job any better, it does not make my life significantly better than Americans who are not polyglots, and in the past year the only time I have had occasion to really use my linguistic abilities was when I was able to deliver a particularly nasty reminder that some Americans do speak more than just English to a pair of obnoxious French ladies in the Los Altos Starbuck's coffee shop who seemed to think that if the natives cannot understand you then you have permission to make rude comments about them loudly and in public... For this ability I spent eight years in class learning when to use the past subjunctive form of etre?!? BTW, those who learn as little as they can get away with may not fit into your ivory tower definition of true knowledge, but they are doing the important thing: "getting away with it." Every time I hear someone whine about knowledge for its own sake I get the fealing they are just jealous because they wasted time learning more knowledge than was necessary for the task at hand... :) jim

1 0

RE: Why Americans feel no compulsion to learn foreign langua
by David K. Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:18 AM 03/30/96 -0500, Alan Horowitz wrote: >> From: David K. Merriman <merriman(a)arn.net> > >> >restroom-finding in a few languages. >> >> The second necessarily follows from the first :-) > > While deployed to a remote radar station on an isolated island, >supplied solely by periodic but unreliable airfreight sorties, I oft found >myself wondering: which is the more acute emergency.... to run out of food >or to run out of toilet paper? Why do you think they make those government instruction manuals so thick? :-) Dave "Adak - where suicide is redundant" Merriman ------------------------------------------------------------- "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. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> http://www.shellback.com/personal/merriman/index.htm

1 0

REMINDER - amnesia remailer public key
by Scott Kenney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- This is a reminder that the type1(cypherpunks) remailer at <amnesia(a)chardos.connix.com> has a new public key. Please REMOVE the old key from your keyrings. Since the corresponding secret key was lost due to a combination of hardware failure and destroyed backup media, any messages send using the old key will be lost. Attached is the new key. If you don't trust this message, send mail to amnesia(a)chardos.connix.com with the Subject: remailer-keys will get you the latest public keys for the remailer. - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzDy9QoAAAEEANhmnki6wxk3/XSAyFMdIaQdA89oaUQimoQoXHVcIUdqmwtR MvO1xT3axxVELbYrukbNxqEsJZiFnyitSueWUtTYCNkvcb7ynEJhv+ZDrLnn/sot GcBxyZ8wpwjo06SKjEP4F7LL0a/wESo87o9UgdCJcxhoPqWBBo2GI7oTXfNFAAUR tDxBbW5lc2lhIFJlbWFpbGluZyBTZXJ2aWNlIDxhbW5lc2lhK3R5cGUxQGNoYXJk b3MuY29ubml4LmNvbT6JAJUDBRAxOAbgjYYjuhNd80UBAQNuA/9SSPu302xb+k40 TUyVWdfHJXqmVY45BvITLPHbRVmtsWT3c4o7yAt6XUPbGkgkgG8mV5W1fjyN3PxJ EkZK1r/9H1Cyvm4caLS+stBH3fB8nAir6qibd+4NOKEJ/o91+G1aeFpdzWid30cb 3/Grn9rb2JX/VWhcpm3qkBEovifCA7Q2QW1uZXNpYSBSZW1haWxpbmcgU2Vydmlj ZSA8YW1uZXNpYUBjaGFyZG9zLmNvbm5peC5jb20+iQCVAwUQMPXOlI2GI7oTXfNF AQFzMAQAvQ1X3k+Mtg+5YOYKeZPcANtUcEqYT9yKQ/tRrGCxxx/Ph5Mbk76HaSgM LBEY0CTYf3gxywLNTVHI60viEKPtjMwUxNPZp8E6DIvzMHiM40OK9TjFTAQZMdmC kuu4Qohg6Q7Po6H0oN3OklZah+su4dr/fYAfRV1dGieT7QFy4Va0H1JlcGxhY2Vt ZW50IEtleSBGb3I6IDB4M0NBRERBMDWJAJUDBRAw+UiJjYYjuhNd80UBAeUGA/9p QnyoCllqIU2b3zAcoscCZizcUPxXpeqaJ2X64dRInXftEnZ54QoIhJyCuIjg74QZ HDS7ceYlAusoWAnnHs+cF/pfV7GW4G4GDYvWGLzruUHaivKd9Ko4fDDR1GvXBFwT xELr0hGDkGSqJfJfCyB+0KBdHjURX4AjZS1FcY/wRg== =iwD2 - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- - -- Scott Kenney >|< saken(a)chardos.connix.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMV4TfpQgY7wl3Gh1AQGDOgQA0Ku8KYda8AdM7FmKUm7dXkOYM0wI/ZcT BPXCnkbEwPhpoiuKNtTRjSUuFS9LyCulEuawH+B1mm2TqMy5W/zEu14YV7+mw1UL J0VZoMx1hAbxd3ruNX+afa15QsMDEgo6BBx/zCE9VQphCdT8YTni8yUB2KHo2xYJ TFO1kZUwMmY= =4R2d -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:56 PM 3/30/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >> Actually, he doesn't know this. As long as the data being held "looks like" >> random data, and contains no headers, as far as anybody knows it IS random >> data. The data holder cannot know. > >I didn't say he had to know anything about whether the data was encrypted >or not. I would point out that the data holder who is convinced I was >spending good money to store random bits would probably not be the data >holder I would pick to hold my data in the first place, but this is a >tangent, as knowing if the data is encrypted is irrelevent. >But I'm sure my view is just a Nazified one. In Bellville (Bellview?), >I'm sure everyone pays money to store megabytes of random data. Justa sec! "Megabytes of random data"? Pardon me, but we're talking something which is alleged to be a KEY! Perhaps you're too dense to follow this idea, but an IDEA key is 128 _bits_, and even a long RSA key is 2048 bits, or only 256 bytes. So where did you get this "megabytes of random data" anyway? Unfortunately, it appears that your brain is in neutral while your fingers are in 5th gear. I don't suppose it would be particularly merciful at this point to mention steganography. Unicorn is already vastly discredited as it is; I wouldn't want to be accused of rubbing it in, right? Aw, why not. He deserves it. Steganography is, basically, hiding data (usually already encrypted) in an existing file (often an audio file or a GIF) in such a way that it is undetectable. The file it's hidden in, which is usually far larger (10x, 100x, or even more) than the data to be hidden, is not appreciably changed by the process, and if it is well done the data is undetectable. This means that if the picture is a 25,600 byte GIF of your late granny, which you are keeping for sentimental reasons, for every 99 bits of granny there is one bit of RSA key. Show the file to the judge, say "that's my late granny!" and he'll see that it is. Now, if you're operating according to your normal clueless level, you'll try to claim that the judge will fine the person ANYWAY. Perhaps, but that merely goes to further justify my favorite method of dealing with these miscreants: I work from what I consider a reasonable assumption that people shouldn't be obligated to tolerate shit from the government, and fining people on principle is an excellent example of the government going too far. Only if you can demonstrate a reliable method of stopping this, permanently and rapidly, should anybody bother with your opinions. Asking people to resort to "the political process" is probably what King George did for the American colonies 220 years ago. >Easier said than done. If you want to use this system, be my guest. >Saying the Gestapo is a bad thing doesn't make it magically go away. Sadly, saying Unicorn is clueless doesn't make him shut up, either. >> Naturally, you won't address this >> problem, but the man-on-the-street is more realistic about his own privacy. >> How many times must I raise this issue? How many times do you ignore it? >> Face it, people are smarter than you give them credit for. They will simply >> not tolerate any more shit from the government. > >Funny, the latest primary has been one of the highest voter turn outs in >quite a while (except in Deleware). Considering those are the law-and-order >types who are most likely to invade personal liberities, I think its a >bit hard to make the case that the temper of the country is anything but >very pro-political process. Unicorn again displays his cluelessness. If people know that the system is sick, and they believe (even wrongly) that the only way to fix the problem is through "the political process," they can reasonably be expected to take one last, desperate effort at fixing the situation. That doesn't make anybody "pro-political-process," in fact they could be disgusted with the lack of progress that this system produces. They simply believe that they have no alternative. To put it in simple terms that even you should be able to understand, the fact that a drowning person moves his arms and legs around a lot doesn't mean that he LIKES to swim, it may merely mean that he likes drowning even less. >Again, this will be my last posting on yet another thread. Mr. Bell has >devolved again into ranting lunacy and that feedback loop that prevents >him from confining himself to the merits of the debate. He's going to keep saying "this will be my last posting" whenever he grows tired of getting his butt kicked. I guess that's the Unicorn equivalent of an EOF (end-of-file) character. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:12 PM 3/30/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Sat, 30 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote: > >> At 02:19 PM 3/30/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >> >On Sat, 30 Mar 1996 JonWienke(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> principals are still safe. The escrow agent doesn't have to send any >> >> encrypted "rosebud" message to anyone, and he can bend over backwards to make >> >> the LEO's happy, so his butt is covered, too. At this point, the LEO's can >> >> either (a) send the keys to the NSA for decryption, and thereby admit that >> >> the gov't can break IDEA (or whatever cryptosystem was used to encrypt the >> >> keys before the escrow agent got them), (b) rubber hose the unencrypted >> >> key(s) from the principal, or (c) go home and pout. >> > >> >(d) [which may be a subset of (b)] impose contempt sanctions on the >> >principal until he releases the key to the key. >> >> ...which would be a clear violation of the 5th amendment, > >This is not at all clear. The ONLY reason this is "not at all clear" is because of those 9 morons-for-life they have currently sitting in that wasted building near the Congress building have never been particularly careful to follow the rules. I believe that this would be a "clear violation of the 5th amendment." Whether those 9 nincompoops agree is still up in the air. Given the fact that they were chosen for their current jobs after a long history of "getting along" with system, their "reliability" to hold the government's line is quite understandable. >> Of course, you've also assumed that the escrowed data >> actually represents some sort of key, which it may not. (The data-holder is >> never told that the data he's asked to hold is REALLY a key!) > >The data holder is ordered to turn over the data. He does in this >scenerio, the data is encrypted, Actually, he doesn't know this. As long as the data being held "looks like" random data, and contains no headers, as far as anybody knows it IS random data. The data holder cannot know. >LEO goes to the principal, principal >refuses to provide key for the encrypted key that the escrow agent was >holding, compelled discovery is ordered, 5th amendment is invoked. > now your right back into the >case where the principal never gave the data to the escrow agent in the >first place. What you seem to have forgotten is that if the scenario you describe could really occur "in real life," this is all the more reason for ordinary citizens to REFUSE to use any kind of key-escrow system, or to do so in a way which is completely undetectable. Naturally, you won't address this problem, but the man-on-the-street is more realistic about his own privacy. How many times must I raise this issue? How many times do you ignore it? Face it, people are smarter than you give them credit for. They will simply not tolerate any more shit from the government. Was the government lying to us when they claimed that "key escrow will be voluntary"? Or was this some odd new usage of the word "voluntary" that only appears in the "Newspeak Dictionary"? With every new post you send, you simply go to prove that every concern that anybody ever had about the government's behavior is potentially reasonable. You really ought to quit while you're behind. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Netscape Navigator 3.0 beta
by Jyri Kaljundi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I found today Netscape Navigator 3.0 AKA Netscape Navigator Atlas available for download from Netscape. Things of interest for this list are client or personal certificates, have a look at Options->Security. I do not have a WWW server with client certificate support right now, so I can't tell if it is actually implemented in the beta. Jüri Kaljundi jk(a)digit.ee

1 0

Re: Electronic locksmiths are watching you (Belgium's ban onPGP)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:07 PM 3/30/96 -0500, Dave Del Torto wrote: >At 1:25 am 3/30/96, jim bell wrote: >[elided] >>I think it's obvious that governments around the world have a very poor >>record of responding "well" to encryption with any kind of acceptable >>legislation. Arguably, laws should exist for the benefit of the public, but >>what's happening is that governments are using their authority to try to >>restrain the political consequences of technical developments. I see no >>benefit to the public in laws against encryption, and certainly no net >>benefit. >> >>We should be particularly suspicious of any hint of a pan-European ban or >>control of encryption, because that is exactly the kind of development that >>could usher in a secretly-negotiated treaty that might be argued to be >>binding on the public. [elided] > >IMHO, this represents a very America-centric, and a rather innacurate, view >of the world. Sure, we live in a great country in many ways. Sure, we still >enjoy many priviledges, such as owning and using strong crypto. In point of >fact, though, the US is by far the most "behind" country in the wired world >as far as Privacy protections and legislation. You _COMPLETELY_ misinterpreted what I said. I was referring, obliquely, to a tricky practice whereby the US government writes up a treaty, and pushes it through the Senate, requiring only 51 votes (or even less, depending on the quorum. Participation of the House is not required, BTW, for treaty ratification.) The resulting "treaty" is interpreted as being binding not merely on the government, but is also (and incorrectly, I believe) on the citizens as well. The reason, as I recall, is a misinterpretation of a portion of the Constitution which states that treaties are the law of the land. The proper interpretion would be that such a treaty is indeed binding on the government, but not the citizenry who didn't sign it and whose Representatives didn't vote on it. The question is, "is it possible for the government to pass a law that violates a citizen's constitutional rights by putting it into the form of an international treaty?" In my opinion, this is unconstitutional, but sadly, I believe that this practice is nominally tolerated. I believe there's at least one anti-narcotics treaty, in the 1960's, which was foisted on the citizenry in this way. Naturally, I welcome details and clarification by any REAL LAWYERS around here. But if I'm right, the danger is that once Europe agrees on some sort of broad anti-crypto rule, all the US government needs to do to force such a rule on US citizens is to do their "write a treaty" schtick and we're all screwed. It wouldn't _have_ to be Europe; but this would be the most convenient excuse they could dredge up. >Cypherpunks like Jim need to keep doing their homework before they make >such quasi-factual statements. Cypherpunks like Dave need to pull their head out and read text carefully before responding to it. If you really have no idea what I'm talking about, you need to do your research. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

No Subject
by peterson＠bitterroot.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsubscibe ----------------------------------------------------------- peterson(a)bitterroot.net -----------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: The limits of my patience. (suggested solution)
by Adam philipp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:48 AM 3/30/96 -0800, you wrote: >At 08:43 AM 3/30/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >>On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote: >>> Explains a lot! You _are_ paid for this. In an earlier era, you would >>> have gladly run the ovens at Auschwitz if you'd gotten paid for it. >>You're way out of line here. >>I expect an apology. >And as a form of protest, I recommend that you refuse to post any more >messages to CP until you get it! That would solve a lot of problems, I think. An apology was warranted. This is not a flaming ground. Your remarks have undermined any credibility you may have had. That whirring sound is the kill files and filter --> trash being cranked up. I am CC:ing to cypherpunks to recommend this simple soluton. Adam, Esq. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\ | My PGP key is available on my |Unauthorized interception violates | | home page: http://www.rosa.com |federal law (18 USC Section 2700 et| |-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|seq.). In any case, PGP encrypted | |SUB ROSA...see home page for definition|communications are preferred for | | -=[ FUCK THE CDA]=- |sensitive materials. | \-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/ Success: If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

1 0