December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

PGP + Pegasus Mail
by G Ackerman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, I want to know if it is possible - and how to use PGP from within Pmail. (I want to use the Encrypt option in PMail with a method PGP - is it possible and what must I do to get it to work) (including Digital Signature, etc) Thanks |\/\/\/| | | | | | (o)(o) G Ackerman C _) Free State Education Department | ,____| gerhard(a)pyrod.ovsod.co.za | / +27 +(0)51 4074127 /__\ / \ DISCLAIMER: EXPRESSED OPINIONS ARE MY OWN AND MIGHT NOT BE SHARED BY MY EMPLOYER OR ANYONE ELSE.

2 1

Re: [NOISE] What is "laser material"?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:05 AM 4/26/96, Bill Frantz wrote: >> Moreover, a laser shot costs $3,000, compared to several >> million dollars for a missile. Army officials envision the >> Nautilus would be beamed from a truck capable of firing 50 >> shots before requiring more laser material. > >Does anyone have any idea what "more laser material" means? > Sure, most high-power lasers like this are chemical lasers, consuming reactive materials. (This is not the same as "gas lasers," a la the early CO2 lasers. And of course ruby and Nd-YAG lasers are not what is meant here, either.) P.S. I don't place much faith in laser weaponry. Some obvious countermeasures are: spin the projectile to minimize heating of any one spot, determine the wavelength of the planned laser and coat the projectile with a suitably reflective coating, apply ablative layers that can burn off without harm, etc. Such countermeasures are of course well-known to the laser builders, but they still make the game much tougher. All a matter of attack and counter-attack, and the costs of each. Like castles and siege engines. Or like crypto. --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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Guardian angels, anonymity, and the decency brigade
by Declan B. McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Attached is a message from the CyberAngels asking for rating volunteers. Jim Thomas published a fascinating and illuminating article documenting the seamier side of these self-appointed net.vigilantes in the Computer underground Digest earlier this year. (I vaguely remember some legal threats soon afterwards.) Their authoritarian and anti-privacy leanings are clear in their FAQ, at <http://www.safesurf.com/cyberangels/>: 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. So much for anonymous remailers! But the CyberAngels, in a fit of almost painful hypocrisy, use anonymous remailers themselves, as Charles Platt recounts in his book _Anarchy Online_ (their web page also says how these virtues remain anonymous online): How would this decency crusade actually work in practice? Well, later in 1995, one net user received the following not-very-friendly, not-very-literate warning, sent via an anonymous remailer: The Net is out of control, sex crimes, hate crimes and felonies. Just as on the streets, CyberCrime is committed by a minority of criminals who destroy the quality of life for an innocent majority. And just like on the streets the Guardian Angels will combat it. We have good reason to believe that you are involved in unlawful, harmful, hateful, threatening and/or harassment, particularly relating to minors. We will be watching you. The netizen who found this in her mailbox was baffled and irritated. She had no idea what she'd done to provoke the warning, and since the message was anonymous, there was no way to _find out_ what she was supposed to have done. By November, the Angels claimed they had 200 volunteers working for them, busily searching for bad guys on the net. "We have reported a number of Child Pornographers (50) to Sysadmins [system administrators] this month," Colin Hatcher noted, although he was no longer signing his real name to his progress reports, perhaps in fear of reprisals from angry pedophiles. "Letters we have received back all share our concern and promise stern action. Remember, each electronic image represents a real life destroyed." [...] Some net users wondered, though, if Hatcher was qualified to draw a dividing line between good and bad, let alone ugly. They also worried that decency vigilantes might have a chilling effect on freedom of speech. A student at Rutgers University complained that some of the Angels' public statements "are threats to violate the civil liberties of users of the Internet." In addition, he said, "the record of the Guardian Angels suggests that they will step over even the bounds that they publicly set for themselves." And, as Steven Levy wrote in Newsweek last October: "After the issue of child safety in cyberspace came up on his radio talk show, [Curtis] Sliwa decided to pursue in his usual high-profile fashion... Though the CyberAngels cannot document a single case where one of their numerous reports led directly to an arrest, they have compiled a fat file of press clippings." In the attached piece, the Angels hold themselves up as the arbiter of what is appropriate for kids or not under the Safesurf system. So far so good -- but what criteria do they use when checking to see if a site is "genuinely kidsafe?" Where is it documented and published? What training do their self-selected vigilantes have? Will the cypherpunks list be blocked when we have messages like this one on it: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/rimm/asst/anti_porn_group_11_22_94.letter -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Those orphan kids in the terminally ill section of the hospital are so fun at night when they are drugged out. I love sucking on their tiny finger-sized cocks and probing their tight holes. Their slender little bodies are completely smooth. They're going to die pretty soon so they won't come back to me several years from now as hairy grown up men blaming me for why they are all mentally messed up. And since they are orphans with no one to look over them except for overworked staff, I could get away with just about anything. Since blocking software like Safesurf and SurfWatch is central to our case challenging the CDA, I believe we should support that software and PICS-like third paty rating systems. Fortunately, that doesn't mean we have to accept or support the efforts of their unfortunate and intemperate net-vigilante allies. But I still want to help rate some web pages, so ---- "Gabriel," I want to be a CyberAngel. Sign me up! -Declan (now a CyberSeraphim) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 19:11:16 -0700 From: angels(a)wavenet.com Subject: ALERT FOR 20 VOLUNTEERS! APPEAL FOR VOLUNTEERS Hi again everyone. I have a project that requires 20 volunteers. Read on! Most of you I hope are familiar with Safesurf - if not go visit them at http://www.safesurf.com Safesurf are not a commercial software company but are a kidsafe organization who are very involved in the ratings issue for kids and adult material on the Net. Safesurf are also our allies, and it is thanks to them that we have our website at all as it was a donation from Ray and Wendy at Safesurf. Safesurf have a very positive approach to the screening debate - they have developed a rating system whereby instead of spending time rating adult sites you focus instead on rating the kids sites. Then your screening software only allows you to visit sites with the Safesurf rating on it. This is an excellent concept, not least because it doesn't then matter if new sites come onto the web that are not rated yet, because nothing can be included in your screened browser unless it registers itself as kidsafe by marking its site with a safesurf rating mark. Don't worry about my ramblings - just go to their site and read up on it. It's a really positive concept and has been adopted by a lot of sites already. Adopting the Safesurf mark is voluntary and means that you are identifying your site as suitable for e.g. kids. Now here comes the appeal. Several thousand sites have already marked themselves as Safesurf rated - and more are registering every day. The question is - what is to stop a site registering as a kidsafe site, but in reality being an adult site? The Safesurf rating method is that sites can obtain the rating from the Safesurf site and then write in and register themselves. Isn't it possible that a site could claim to be kidsafe but in reality was adult? The answer is yes. So how can Safesurf be sure that sites registered with them are indeed genuinely kidsafe? Simple - someone has to go and check out all the sites who register with Safesurf. Ray had a proposal for me. How about if we could say that all these sites were "Rated by Safesurf, and patrolled by CyberAngels"? I thought that was a great idea - for we CyberAngels to help Safesurf in this way, by checking their sites for them. Ray is proposing to send me 200 sites a week to check out and we will share them out to a CyberAngels team of 20 volunteers - that means that each one of us would volunteer to check out 10 sites per week. Easy right? I want to make something very clear - Safesurf are not a rich commercial company making money from rating sites. They are not selling software and their rating code is free to anyone who wants it. So it's not like they can hire 20 people and pay them to patrol the Safesurf Intranet - it's a volunteer job. So there you are - I am looking for 20 CyberAngel volunteers to make up a regular Safesurf "Intranet" Patrol, with the mission to visit 10 URLs a week and make sure that they are what they say they are. Who's ready? Once I have the team established I will then brief you all on how we do this. Write to me as soon as possible if this interests you. Let's show Safesurf how much we support their positive stand for our InterNet kids! I will take the first 20 volunteers who contact me (yes you will be suitably honored - publicly if you so choose!) Gabriel

1 0

Re: [NOISE] What is "laser material"?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:05 PM 4/25/96 -0700, Bill Frantz wrote: >> The Washington Post, April 25, 1996, p. A12. >> >> >> Israelis Eye U.S. Laser As Anti-Rocket Defense >> >> 'Nautilus' Beam Burns Surface of Weapon >> >> By John Mintz >> >>... >> Moreover, a laser shot costs $3,000, compared to several >> million dollars for a missile. Army officials envision the >> Nautilus would be beamed from a truck capable of firing 50 >> shots before requiring more laser material. > >Does anyone have any idea what "more laser material" means? Hydrogen and fluorine, possibly. Some of the more energetic lasers use this combination. Jim "He only talks about one thing" Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

[fight-censorship] Guardian Angels v. anonymous remailers
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Interesting and well-written piece. Followups, if any, will be at http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/top/ I assume that Declan is just observing how Safesurf operates. My view is that these private "decency" registries are a healthy part of the free market. Of course the "Angels" are a bunch of hypocrites, but the part about rating sites I support. Let the prudes censor themselves; it's a free net. If anyone tries to sabotage Safesurf by rating things the "wrong" way, then they're an asshole. (I am *not* accusing Declan of advocating this, because he isn't -- it's just something that crossed my mind. Tempting, but highly counterproductive.) -rich ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 01:43:25 -0400 (EDT) From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+(a)CMU.EDU> To: Fight Censorship Mailing List <fight-censorship+(a)andrew.cmu.edu> Cc: angels(a)wavenet.com, mnemonic(a)well.com, cp(a)panix.com Subject: Guardian angels, the decency brigade, and cyberseraphim Attached is a message from the CyberAngels asking for rating volunteers. Jim Thomas published a fascinating and illuminating article documenting the seamier side of these self-appointed net.vigilantes in the Computer underground Digest earlier this year. (I vaguely remember some legal threats soon afterwards.) Their authoritarian and anti-privacy leanings are clear in their FAQ, at <http://www.safesurf.com/cyberangels/>: 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. So much for anonymous remailers! But the CyberAngels, in a fit of almost painful hypocrisy, use anonymous remailers themselves, as Charles Platt recounts in his book _Anarchy Online_: How would this decency crusade actually work in practice? Well, later in 1995, one net user received the following not-very-friendly, not-very-literate warning, sent via an anonymous remailer: The Net is out of control, sex crimes, hate crimes and felonies. Just as on the streets, CyberCrime is committed by a minority of criminals who destroy the quality of life for an innocent majority. And just like on the streets the Guardian Angels will combat it. We have good reason to believe that you are involved in unlawful, harmful, hateful, threatening and/or harassment, particularly relating to minors. We will be watching you. The netizen who found this in her mailbox was baffled and irritated. She had no idea what she'd done to provoke the warning, and since the message was anonymous, there was no way to _find out_ what she was supposed to have done. By November, the Angels claimed they had 200 volunteers working for them, busily searching for bad guys on the net. "We have reported a number of Child Pornographers (50) to Sysadmins [system administrators] this month," Colin Hatcher noted, although he was no longer signing his real name to his progress reports, perhaps in fear of reprisals from angry pedophiles. "Letters we have received back all share our concern and promise stern action. Remember, each electronic image represents a real life destroyed." [...] Some net users wondered, though, if Hatcher was qualified to draw a dividing line between good and bad, let alone ugly. They also worried that decency vigilantes might have a chilling effect on freedom of speech. A student at Rutgers University complained that some of the Angels' public statements "are threats to violate the civil liberties of users of the Internet." In addition, he said, "the record of the Guardian Angels suggests that they will step over even the bounds that they publicly set for themselves." And, as Steven Levy wrote in Newsweek last October: "After the issue of child safety in cyberspace came up on his radio talk show, [Curtis] Sliwa decided to pursue in his usual high-profile fashion... Though the CyberAngels cannot document a single case where one of their numerous reports led directly to an arrest, they have compiled a fat file of press clippings." In the attached piece, the Angels hold themselves up as the arbiter of what is appropriate for kids or not under the Safesurf system. So far so good -- but what criteria do they use when checking to see if a site is "genuinely kidsafe?" Where is it documented and published? What training do their self-selected vigilantes have? Will the fight-censorship list be blocked when we have messages like this one on it: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/rimm/asst/anti_porn_group_11_22_94.letter -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Those orphan kids in the terminally ill section of the hospital are so fun at night when they are drugged out. I love sucking on their tiny finger-sized cocks and probing their tight holes. Their slender little bodies are completely smooth. They're going to die pretty soon so they won't come back to me several years from now as hairy grown up men blaming me for why they are all mentally messed up. And since they are orphans with no one to look over them except for overworked staff, I could get away with just about anything. Since blocking software like Safesurf and SurfWatch is central to our case challenging the CDA, I believe we should support that software and PICS-like third paty rating systems. Fortunately, that doesn't mean we have to accept or support the efforts of their unfortunate and intemperate net-vigilante allies. But I still want to help rate some web pages, so ---- "Gabriel," I want to be a CyberAngel. Sign me up! -Declan (now a CyberSeraphim) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 19:11:16 -0700 From: angels(a)wavenet.com Subject: ALERT FOR 20 VOLUNTEERS! APPEAL FOR VOLUNTEERS Hi again everyone. I have a project that requires 20 volunteers. Read on! Most of you I hope are familiar with Safesurf - if not go visit them at http://www.safesurf.com Safesurf are not a commercial software company but are a kidsafe organization who are very involved in the ratings issue for kids and adult material on the Net. Safesurf are also our allies, and it is thanks to them that we have our website at all as it was a donation from Ray and Wendy at Safesurf. Safesurf have a very positive approach to the screening debate - they have developed a rating system whereby instead of spending time rating adult sites you focus instead on rating the kids sites. Then your screening software only allows you to visit sites with the Safesurf rating on it. This is an excellent concept, not least because it doesn't then matter if new sites come onto the web that are not rated yet, because nothing can be included in your screened browser unless it registers itself as kidsafe by marking its site with a safesurf rating mark. Don't worry about my ramblings - just go to their site and read up on it. It's a really positive concept and has been adopted by a lot of sites already. Adopting the Safesurf mark is voluntary and means that you are identifying your site as suitable for e.g. kids. Now here comes the appeal. Several thousand sites have already marked themselves as Safesurf rated - and more are registering every day. The question is - what is to stop a site registering as a kidsafe site, but in reality being an adult site? The Safesurf rating method is that sites can obtain the rating from the Safesurf site and then write in and register themselves. Isn't it possible that a site could claim to be kidsafe but in reality was adult? The answer is yes. So how can Safesurf be sure that sites registered with them are indeed genuinely kidsafe? Simple - someone has to go and check out all the sites who register with Safesurf. Ray had a proposal for me. How about if we could say that all these sites were "Rated by Safesurf, and patrolled by CyberAngels"? I thought that was a great idea - for we CyberAngels to help Safesurf in this way, by checking their sites for them. Ray is proposing to send me 200 sites a week to check out and we will share them out to a CyberAngels team of 20 volunteers - that means that each one of us would volunteer to check out 10 sites per week. Easy right? I want to make something very clear - Safesurf are not a rich commercial company making money from rating sites. They are not selling software and their rating code is free to anyone who wants it. So it's not like they can hire 20 people and pay them to patrol the Safesurf Intranet - it's a volunteer job. So there you are - I am looking for 20 CyberAngel volunteers to make up a regular Safesurf "Intranet" Patrol, with the mission to visit 10 URLs a week and make sure that they are what they say they are. Who's ready? Once I have the team established I will then brief you all on how we do this. Write to me as soon as possible if this interests you. Let's show Safesurf how much we support their positive stand for our InterNet kids! I will take the first 20 volunteers who contact me (yes you will be suitably honored - publicly if you so choose!) Gabriel

1 0

Re: Guardian angels, the decency brigade, and cyberseraphim
by angels＠wavenet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks Declan for forwarding your letter to me. I'll answer some of the points you refer to: >So much for anonymous remailers! But the CyberAngels, in a fit of almost > painful hypocrisy, use anonymous remailers themselves, as Charles Platt >recounts in his book _Anarchy Online_: Some of our members use anon remailers (although strictly speaking they are pseudo anon remailers and therefore the user can be traced). These are members who are also supporters of privacy and anonymity online. I do myself use an anon remailer. There is nothing hypocritical about it at all. We are not proposing to ban anon remailers, we are simply concerned about the abuse of them. > > How would this decency crusade actually work in > practice? Well, later in 1995, one net user received the > following not-very-friendly, not-very-literate warning, sent > via an anonymous remailer: > > The Net is out of control, sex crimes, hate crimes > and felonies. > Just as on the streets, CyberCrime is committed by > a minority of criminals who destroy the quality of life > for an innocent majority. And just like on the streets > the Guardian Angels will combat it. > We have good reason to believe that you are > involved in unlawful, harmful, hateful, threatening > and/or harassment, particularly relating to minors. We > will be watching you. This message was not from our organization at all. Surely you have heard of impersonation? The oldest trick in thebook. > > The netizen who found this in her mailbox was baffled > and irritated. She had no idea what she'd done to provoke the > warning, and since the message was anonymous, there was no > way to _find out_ what she was supposed to have done. Just goes to show what happens when people abuse anon remailers, right? But it was not me. > By November, the Angels claimed they had 200 volunteers > working for them, busily searching for bad guys on the net. > "We have reported a number of Child Pornographers (50) to > Sysadmins [system administrators] this month," Colin Hatcher > noted, although he was no longer signing his real name to his > progress reports, perhaps in fear of reprisals from angry > pedophiles. LOL, Gabriel is my nickname! I think the writer is thinking too hard about conspiracies... >And, as Steven Levy wrote in Newsweek last October: "After the issue of >child safety in cyberspace came up on his radio talk show, [Curtis] >Sliwa decided to pursue in his usual high-profile fashion... Though the >CyberAngels cannot document a single case where one of their numerous >reports led directly to an arrest, they have compiled a fat file of >press clippings." People also wish to evaluate the work of the Guardian Angels by asking how many arrests we have made. But this misses the point of the work entirely. We do not patrol to make arrests. We patrol to help others. And a good patrol means that nothing happens. As for press, we didnt even send a press release until 4 months after we started, and then only to announce our website. And we've only sent one more press release out since then. We do believe however that we have helped to bring the issue of children and the Internet to the forefront and that is a good thing too. > >In the attached piece, the Angels hold themselves up as the arbiter of >what is appropriate for kids or not under the Safesurf system. >So far so >good -- but what criteria do they use when checking to see if a site is >"genuinely kidsafe?" Where is it documented and published? What training >do their self-selected vigilantes have? The Safesurf system is a voluntary rating system that URLs undertake themselves. If you want to know more about the criteria you should check out Safesurf themselves at http://www.safesurf.com >Will the fight-censorship list >be blocked when we have messages like this one on it: > > http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/rimm/asst/anti_porn_group_11_22_94.letter > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Those orphan kids in the terminally ill section of the hospital are so fun > at night when they are drugged out. I love sucking on their tiny > finger-sized cocks and probing their tight holes. Their slender little > bodies are completely smooth. They're going to die pretty soon so they > won't come back to me several years from now as hairy grown up men blaming > me for why they are all mentally messed up. And since they are orphans > with no one to look over them except for overworked staff, I could get > away with just about anything. Why ask? Clearly a site with a message like this would not be suitable for children to read. That would be an adult site rating. > >Since blocking software like Safesurf and SurfWatch is central to our >case challenging the CDA... Safesurf does not make software. It's not a software manufacturer at all. >Fortunately, that doesn't mean we >have to accept or support the efforts of their unfortunate and >intemperate net-vigilante allies. >But I still want to help rate some web pages, so ---- "Gabriel," I want >to be a CyberAngel. Sign me up! > >-Declan (now a CyberSeraphim) Declan I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news but since you clearly are hostile to our mission I see no reason why we should invite you to help us. Of course you could always sign up as an anonymous volunteer from an anon remailer , or from another account, and pretend to believe in what we are doing ;) CyberAngels is about self-regulation. Let us not confuse the fight against internet crime with the criminalization of free speech. We propose the former not the latter. Gabriel ************************************************************************* "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men and women remain silent and do nothing" (Edmund Burke) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (US First Amendment to the Constitution) "Those who sacrifice security for freedom, will have neither" **************************************************************************

1 0

Re: The Joy of Java
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:27 AM 4/26/96, Mike Duvos wrote: >I completely agree with this. Java incorporates the type of >automatic corruption-proof memory management found in languages >like APL, the basic notions of object oriented programming, fast >dynamic linking, and a C-like program structure. > >This is powerful combination of features and gives Java the >potential to do all the platform-independent things that were >advertised for C before the rude reality of thousand line >makefiles reared its ugly head. . The complete specification of >the Java Virtual Machine means that the behavior of Java programs >is perfectly well-defined, and one does not have to tweek >anything which is processor or operating system dependent. Let's hope that this is really true. Your point about C is an excellent one, as certainly the "lingua franca" of C pretty much failed, except when enough work was done to properly port an application. (However, the bytecode/JVM approach exacts some performance penalty, albeit partially ameliorated with JIT compilers that are likely to be widely available. Some apps will just have to be tuned for speed. But when I look at most crypto apps such as we are ultimately interested in--digital money, mixes, crypto protocol building blocks, etc.--I see that first and foremost they aren't getting done and distributed. The applet model looks pretty good here.) >In the future, I expect Java bytecode to become a significant >channel for the distribution of popular applications, with >compilation to fast native code on numerous platforms. One interesting remark I read from someone was that the Java distribution model returns us to an era of easier distribution of small programs. The "application bloat" of very large programs may be at least partly fixed. We'll see. >Java is clean, and its concepts are easily understandable even by >persons whose eyes glaze over after the first 30 pages of the C++ >manual. My background in programming was in Lisp when I was with Intel (I started Intel's AI lab and was the first person to look at neural nets for them), and then Smalltalk for "fun." But, like I said recently, I knew that Smalltalk had about zero chance of becoming widely used, despite fairly impressive year-to-year growth rates. (I also got Lightspeed C in '86, but barely played with it over the years...good intentions, though.) Anyway, Mike is right that Java is a lot of fun. Enough good OO stuff to keep Smalltalk folks happy, but with familiar C syntax. And going to garbage collection/eliminating pointers is a major plus for reducing errors and headaches. A huge number of books are hitting the shelves. Besides the "Teach Yourself Java in 21 Days" book, I really like "Core Java," a hefty tome with lots of asides about how Java compares to C, C++, Lisp, and Smalltalk, and with more of the "rationale" than most of the other books. The "Java in a Nutshell" book is also well-regarded. And Peter van der Linden's "Just Java" is good. (These are the four I have, and my eyes haven't been glazing over yet.) Gosling's book arrives soon. I looked at an advanced draft and it looks excellent, too. >Java Applets, mobile crypto agents, and the new Web-centric view >of cyberspace will go a long way towards encouraging the >planet-wide use of strong crypto, as well as effectively swatting >annoying mosquitos like ITAR. > >Indeed, with Java, I can put up a Web page which teaches someone >about a cryptographic algorithm, allows him to try it out and run >sample data through it, and provides him with a >platform-independent implementation of it to use as he wishes. >All in one fell swoop. That's a pretty powerful concept. > >Java has come at the right time, and it will produce chaotic >change in the existing order. > >Should be interesting. I agree with all of Mike's points. Interestingly, I've been having an e-mail dialog with a friend who avers that Java is just another temporary fad, just another ho-hum interpreted language. He claims that Perl and TCL were similar fads, and didn't change the world. I disagree with him, of course. I think the flood of books, compilers, incorporations into browsers and operating systems, etc. is strong evidence that Java is a bit more than just this year's version of TCL. But, the great thing about a market anarchy is that people get to vote. By deciding what to buy, what to work on, what to build applications with, and so forth. The first "killer applet" (tm) will be what? (There's a fair chance it could be a digital commerce applet, something to exploit correctly the pent-up demand for online purchases....I can imagine folks on this very list becoming the Scott Cook's of this market....) --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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2

Re: trusting the processor chip
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:14 PM 4/25/96 -0700, Paul S. Penrod wrote: > > >On Thu, 25 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote: >? >> >> This analysis seems to assume that the entire production run of a standard >> product is subverted. More likely,I think, an organization like the NSA >> might build a pin-compatible version of an existing, commonly-used product >> like a keyboard encoder chip that is designed to transmit (by RFI signals) >> the contents of what is typed at the keyboard. It's simple, it's hard to >> detect, and it gets what they want. >> >> Jim Bell >> jimbell(a)pacifier.com >> >> > >This is getting more rediculous by the minute. If NSA wanted to find out >what you were typing, they dont need to subvert microcode or chips on the >board. Unless you have a tempest device - all they have to do is pull RF >from your vicinty and they can *see* just exactly what your typing. You don't understand the subject, do you? While it is possible to determine a great deal of information from RF, there is an enormous difference in effort between analyzing the output of an uncooperative, inadvertent transmitter and a "cooperative" one. The most commonly understood source of RF signals come from CRT's, called Van Eck radiation. But passwords don't generally appear on CRT displays, so that is of limited value. I don't doubt that standard keyboards produce RF that might be analyzed, their output is probably not particularly easy to detect against a background of processor RFI. (It's short and low-amplitude) Far easier to analyze would be a chip that loudly and longly transmitted the current typed keyboard character, perhaps in some sort of serial binary code, possibly by driving the keyboard scanning lines according to a pre-arranged pattern designed to emit RF at a particular rate based on the clock oscillator. This transmission would be just about undetectable to anyone who didn't have a whole raft of sophisticated detection equipment. However, to those who know what to look for, it would probably be relatively easy to see. One particularly important reason for using such a chip, which you entirely overlooked, is that many computers are at sites with more than one, and in some cases many more than one computer. Their signals will mix, obviously, and will be very hard to separate. If it is possible to replace a keyboard chip with a Trojan Horse, the one desired target will be far more identifiable. Jim "He only talks about one thing" Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Is the public involved in the crypto policy debate?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:50 AM 4/26/96, Alex Strasheim wrote: >> In the United States and Europe, encryption policy is formed by a mix >> of interests. Advocates of business, national security agencies, and >> more recently the police -- all play a large role in the policy >> debate. > >Someone's conspicuously absent here: us. To be fair to Jim Bell, he made the same point a day or so ago. I don't necessarily sift Stewart Baker's words for hermeneutical signs of what the government is planning. He might just as well have included "public opinion" in his list, and nothing would change. And I'm quite sure that Baker, Denning, Nelson, et. al. are acutely aware of the role of the "public" in these matters. The "public" as made manifest in newspaper articles critical of Clipper, in "Wired" features against key escrow and in favor of Cypherpunks-type themes, and so on. While the "vocal minority" that rails against Administration policy in sci.crypt, talk.politics.crypto, comp.org.eff.talk, this list, etc., are not the public at large, we are certainly a part of the public. I think the rejection of Clipper by "the public" is proof of this. (If we were leftist theoreticians, we could debate for years or even decades whether our movement is truly a mass movement, or just a vanguard movement, etc.) --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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: PGP + Pegasus Mail
by Jim Byrd 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:50 PM 4/26/96 +0000, G Ackerman wrote: >Hi, > >I want to know if it is possible - and how to use PGP from within >Pmail. (I want to use the Encrypt option in PMail with a method PGP >- is it possible and what must I do to get it to work) (including Digital >Signature, etc) I don't know the answer to this question, but there is a pgp-users mailing list where someone might know. Here's how to subscribe: "To subscribe to the list, simply e-mail "pgp-users-request @rivertown.net" with the word "subscribe" in the subject **NOT THE BODY** of the e-mail and you will be automatically subscribed to the list. To subscribe to the digest, sent your request to "pgp-users-d- request(a)rivertown.net" and your subscription will be likewise processed. Depending on list volume, digests will go out from once a day to several times a day."

1 0