December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: unsuscribe
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:47 AM 3/28/96, "Declan O'Donovan/ITP/IE" <Declan_O'Donovan/ITP/IE.ITP(a)bonzo.it wrote: >unsuscribe Declan (the other one), you have misspelled "unsuscribe" and you have sent your request to the wrong place. To let others know that you have been told what to do, for the usual game-theoretic reasons, I'm leaving the CP list copied on this reply. How to subscribe to the Cypherpunks mailing list: send a message to "majordomo(a)toad.com" with the body message "subscribe cypherpunks". To unsubscribe, send the message "unsubscribe cypherpunks" to the same address. For help, send "help cypherpunks". Don't send these requests to the Cypherpunks list itself. And be aware that the list generates between 40 and 100 messages a day. 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: CDT Policy Post 2.12 - Sen. Burns Announces New Bill To Lift Crypto Export Controls
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:52 PM 3/28/96 -0500, Bob Palacios wrote: > The Burns bill is different from the other proposals in several respects. > Specifically, the latest bill does not contain any new criminal provisions > or provisions imposing liability on third party key holders. Wow!!! Have I been excessively cynical? Perhaps, but the argument "You should support the Leahy bill or they will hit you with something worse" did nothing for my paranoia. Now I expect the NSA to do a little tour of the halls of congress telling the Senators "If you knew what we knew -- we would have to kill you", but let us applaude Burns anyway. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Re: The limits of my patience.
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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.

1 0

Re: New crypto bill to be introduced
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In my previous posting, I said that the Burns bill suggested that I had been too paranoid. Wrong. As usual, not paranoid enough. The Burns bill, and the "assault" weapons bill, and several other bills, are like TV wrestling. The participants are working to a script with a predetermined outcome that they have agreed to in advance. The Burns bill will not only fail, it is intended to fail. That is why it was introduced now, when it is guaranteed to be painlessly guillotined by the elections. Politicians have their ear to the ground. They are very much aware that the elite and the middle class are increasingly cynical about democracy and hostile to the corrupt poltical process, that many large groups see the government as unconstitutional and illegitimate, and see no hope or benefit in participation in politics. The purpose of these bills is not to change who gets screwed, but to draw those who are screwed back into the political process. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

RE: Why Americans feel no compulsion to learn foreign langua
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A foreign language is useful only when there are large numbers of folk around who speak *one* *particular* foreign language, and these folk have knowledge and skills and power and wealth, for example if you are close neighbor of Germany or France. Americans feel no compulsion to learn foreign languages because the only time they need a foreign language is spanish to negotiate with whores. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

3 3

Re: New crypto bill to be introduced
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:35 AM 3/30/96 -0500, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: >A few responses to Jim Bell: > >* Why would Sen. Burns introduce *this* particular crypto bill? Would >you believe that he wanted to appear cyber-clueful and net-friendly, but >didn't know exactly how to do that -- so certain people suggested that >this bill would be an appropriate way to do it? I'm well aware of symbolic gestures. Maybe this is one of them. But having not seen it yet it's who knows how worthy it is. I'm wondering when somebody is going to post it. I'm also waiting for those people who claimed that the Leahy bill was dead (for lack-of-time reasons if nothing else) to express the same opinion of this newer bill. Not that I want it dead; I just want to see if people are using consistent levels of logic. > >* Why would Sen. Burns introduce this particular bill *now*? One word: CFP. Yes? >* Why would Jim Bell post anonymously? He writes: >> That is a silly conclusion. The primary reason for anonymity with such >> postings is to avoid controversy being associated with one's name. I, as > >No, the primary reason for anonymity is to avoid being *associated* with >one's name. I know this may be attributing an undeserved sense of >precedence, but perhaps Jim Bell has realized that his opinions are >discarded out-of-hand by many on this list, so he posts anonymously to >regain some credibility. A message from anonymous would also work nicely >to reinforce his own position, allowing Jim Bell to claim additional >allies. In view of the fact that I've repeatedly publicly stated that I'm not aware of the Leahy-bill position of many if not most of the people listed, this seems unlikely. Like most of the people around here, I'm still waiting for some sort of showing that demonstrates why any given person was listed. I'm also waiting for counter-arguments: For example, statements by those listed, or others, explaining why they they should not have been listed. There is a distinct lack of documentation from BOTH sides. This leads me to suspect that there may really be only one side there: a straw man set up anonymously, and a bunch of people racing (non-anonymously, of course!) to knock him down. (Or possibly the original anonymous message was legit, and some others were posted to discredit the original post; I may not have those messages, and I haven't looked to see if they came from a stable anonymous address.) >Anyway, last night I sat next to Dorothy Denning on the bus to the EFF >Pioneer Awards reception and dinner, and we chatted for about 20 >minutes. She's a sweet old lady -- I can't think of anyone with whom >it's easier to agree to disagree. I asked her what she thought of a >number of people -- on Tim May she said: "Let's not talk about that." >She also said she's educating a House committee about crypto next week >-- I dearly hope our side will have some experts there as well. I think we need to ask ourselves why Denning keeps getting invited to these kinds of hearings. If the purpose is to get an accurate, unbiased view of encryption, I'm sure there's plenty of experts who could take her place without sharing her conveniently pro-government position. Never having seen such a hearing, I can't say for sure, but I suspect she's billed as an "encryption expert," when in fact she should be labelled as a "pro-government-biased encryption expert." Which, I suppose, is okay too, since all sides deserve to be heard. However, there should be no illusion about her point of view in such matters. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Psuedo-Ramdom Number Generator
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Don't know if its proper to post some trivial code snippets on the list. I felt some one just might find is useful. Vipul {********************************************************************* LFSR-based Psuedo Random Number Generator LFSR is a random number generator based on a Linear Feedback Shift Register The _tap_ sequence is 31, 6, 4, 2, 1 and 0. The primitive polynomial mod 2 formed from the tap sequence is x^32 + x^7 + x^5 + x^3 + x^2 + x + 1. The function LFSRRandom generates a 16-bit unsigned word. Function SetInit defines the initial parameters to run the generator with. It should be noted that a particular set of Initial parameters will always generate the same set of psuedo-random numbers. Vipul Ved Prakash <vipul(a)pobox.com> 25th Feb '95 **********************************************************************} uses crt; var lShiftReg : longint; wLastRandom : word; procedure LFSRRandom(var wGeneratedRandom : word); var i : integer; wNewRandom : word; lFnResult : longint; begin wNewRandom := 0; for i := random(3) to random(3) + 13 do begin lFnResult := ((lShiftReg shr 31) xor (lShiftReg shr 06) xor (lShiftReg shr 04) xor (lShiftReg shr 02) xor (lShiftReg shr 01) xor (lShiftReg)) and $1; lShiftReg := (lFnResult shl 31) or (lShiftReg shr 1); wNewRandom := wNewRandom or (lFnResult shl i) end; wGeneratedRandom := wLastRandom xor wNewRandom; wLastRandom := wNewRandom end; procedure paramError; begin writeln; writeln; writeln(#07,'Syntax : RGen <random number file> <number of randoms to be generated> '); writeln; halt; end; procedure setInit(x, y : longint; z : integer); begin if x <> 0 then lShiftReg := x else lShiftReg := 1; { Anything but 0 } wLastRandom := y; randseed := z; end; var i : longint; ch : char; wGeneratedRandom : word; ranfile : text; S : string; number : longint; code : integer; dummy : integer; count : integer; begin count := 0; clrscr; setInit(4,5,10); if (paramcount < 2) then paramerror else assign(ranfile, paramstr(1)); rewrite(ranfile); val(paramstr(2), number, code); if code <> 0 then paramerror; for i := 1 to number do begin count := count + 1; LFSRRandom(wGeneratedRandom); str(wGeneratedRandom, S); writeln(ranfile, S); if count > 100 then begin count := 0; write('.'); {Write a dot after every 100 numbers} end; end; close(ranfile); writeln; writeln('Done. Press a key to exit...'); ch := readkey; writeln; end. .od8888bo. \|/ .d%::::88::888b. (@ @) .d888::::::::8:888%. ------------------oOO-(_)-OOo----------------- 88888:::::::88888::%. You walk across with your flowers in your hand d888888:::88;888888::b Trying to tell me no one understands 888888888:888888888888 Trade in your hours for a hand full of dimes Y8888888::::::888888%P Gonna make it baby in our prime. '8888888:::::::8888:%' ---------------------------------------------- '88888888:::888888%' Vipul Ved Prakash Fax : +91-11-3328849 '8888888::88888%' Positive Ideas. Internet : vipul(a)pobox.com '"Y88%B8P"' ---------------------------------------------- PGP Key : Finger <vipul(a)pobox.com> PGP Key fingerprint = 35 FF A2 CA BD 6B 80 82 61 30 F2 23 96 93 77 E4 ~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=

1 0

What happened with Cypherpunks?
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: what happened to Cypherpunks? Date: Sat Mar 30 10:30:44 CST 1996 Hello, Sorry if it is an offtopic question... Has something happened with this mailing list? In the last two weeks I received only one article. My system log indicates that no messages have been received by our machine. Thanks! - Igor. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMV1ib8JFmFyXKPzRAQHrPAP+LkI7K5Xpvi2NpnlL8f72VuCkJ+3ZuYFj 6brj+3dzkgwb6Wiq0ayMQylM1uOGl3xrvsvqnKOaTgEu/c9KfmtiDL+/d/COt2pg H9k8Hu/OpKiWGNU+6wPrGRsHDxzE4Q3e8OOoRFv3n5vxi8eHC3oXpOBpqSzT2LYd 3wzCS0puldg= =alQh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Note: Problems Confronting the Asset Concealer [Part 1 of 2 of Volume I]
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:40 AM 3/30/96 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: >Black Unicorn wrote: > >| While direct crypto relevance is limited, I thought that this work >| might interest many on the list and so I decided to post it in any >| event. The sections on fourth and fifth amendment protections, or >| lack thereof, for banking documents might shed some light on the >| eventual disposition of crypto keys under the same circumstances. > > Actually, this is not all all irrelevant. The question of how >a non-American living in the US can benefit from writign crypto code >has been a topic of discussion the last few days. A real >understanding of laundering is needed for the time between now and >when the bad guys stop trying to tax the non-physical. While your interest in Unicorn's essay is understandable, I think you've missed the problems with his point of view. He's apparently suffering from a disease which is supposed to be common among first year law students, specifically: Citing legal precedents as if they are some sort of justification for themselves. You correctly referred to "the bad guys" above as taxing the non-physical, so you're obviously on the right track. Unicorn, however, does not REALLY think of them as being "the bad guys," in fact his gravy train _depends_ on them! It is this conflict of interest which drives him to cite precedent after precedent as somehow supporting his nebulous positions. What he misses is that citing these precedents merely destroys whatever confidence we could have in the legal system. And since the legal system will be charged with interpreting whatever bills are passed by Congress, by extension these precedents show that all the all the potential benefits promised by bills such as Leahy's are conditional. Similarly, even a negative which appears minimal today could easily turn into a "killer" problem tomorrow. Peter Junger's analysis of the Leahy bill was far more useful, primarily because it focussed on the areas that this bill could be abused. Unicorn cites cases of abuse frequently, but does not identify them as such, leading me to conclude that all he can do is to cite precedent. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

At 02:19 PM 3/30/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Sat, 30 Mar 1996 JonWienke(a)aol.com wrote: > >> The concept of encrypting a key before escrowing it is excellent. It >> prevents the escrow agent from misusing the key, and protects the principal >> from government snooping. If the escrow agent is served a subpoena, he can >> say, "Here is the key you want. Go ahead and take it. In fact, here is my >> entire key database. All keys are encrypted by the principals before I get >> them, so I can't guarantee that you will be able to use them, but here they >> are anyway." At this point, the LEO's can take whatever they want, but the >> 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, and would (by informing the person targeted) defeat the entire purpose of getting the key in the first place. 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!) Insisting that the target of an investigation provide something that may not even exist is a sure way to fire up the populace. Remember Madame Defarge (sp?) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1