December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: questions about bits and bytes
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:36 AM 4/11/96 -0400, Blake Coverett wrote: >> At 06:29 PM 4/10/96 -0700, Simon Spero wrote: >> >No, bytes are no always 8 bits - some machines use(d) 9-bit bytes. >> >> I notice you gave no examples. Why is that? >> >> Jim Bell >> jimbell(a)pacifier.com > >In a past life I worked on a Honeywell DPS8 box that had >36 bit words and 9 bit bytes. I'm seeing a few notes of this sort which make such claims, but there is not enough information included to establish that anybody _originally_ called those 9-bit data items "bytes" or not. It appears to me that after the fact, 20+ years later, there is a tendency to call ANYTHING other than a single bit a byte, at least during that time frame. What I'm looking for, however, is an indication that this was actually the term used, THEN, for that data structure.

1 0

washington post notices archives
by Andrew K. Bressen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi-- we here at HKS.net have today received a cease and desist letter from the washington post regarding editorial copy of theirs that was evidently posted to c'punks and then abosrbed into our c'punk archives. Once the archives are restored (RSN) we'll probably manually edit out the messages from the archive. We're trying to get the post to give us URLs for their copies of the content in question so that we can point to their archives, but their legal dept wasn't sure whether or not their archives were on the web. The posts in question date back some time (archive volume 1); I'm not too concerned about a recurrance (though it would make an interesting attack), but thought it was interesting enough to warrent mention, since it seems likely that the washington post was grepping the net looking for themselves. I wonder if robot exclusion on our site would have prevented this? Although the legal staffer who sent the letter did come up with a URL for the offending messages, she seemed unaware of the concepts of "mailing list" and (semi-automated) archives according to the person here who spoke to her. - --andrew k bressen bressen(a)hks.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.3, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAwUBMW17+1u2h42ZEVfZAQFslQP/avVguGOK/hRz/1SmZtZpld79edoDyJnf yeBkX7WdrfVt1/xSkOdD4xtVHf1FENfeFr50xnt2PPVb8g0E0DQqMv6Cz4ZNy5Su bXzsmvK/zCvLKPn7gueeRjk3jQKohGRf7R9Y6rr6N6jNbCS4zZQQ/nwN7sWdhZA2 epRRPjbH52A= =8d5T -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: questions about bits and bytes
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:50 AM 4/11/96 -0400, Richard Martin wrote: > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >On Apr 10, 6:57pm, jim bell wrote: >> At 06:29 PM 4/10/96 -0700, Simon Spero wrote: >> >No, bytes are no always 8 bits - some machines use(d) 9-bit bytes. >> I notice you gave no examples. Why is that? >Perhaps he thought that most people who were interested could go look >it up themselves. > >- From a really quick web search, we find that the SGI Impact jams 9-bit >bytes [that's what it says] across the Rambus internally. I'm not sure >if the memory itself is 9-bit. Are you sure they're not referring to 8 bits of data and a parity bit? In any case, please give the address to the list so that it can be checked out.

2 1

Hack MSN anyone?
by gorkab＠sanchez.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The names have been changed to protect the innocent... I need say no more I'm sure. - ---------- From: MSN Support JosephB Sent: Sunday, April 07, 1996 4:05 PM To: xxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: Connection, Member ID: xxxxxxxxxx, Country: United States (1), Locale: English (United States) Yes, windows95 dialup networking uses compression to send the password when connecting. Thanks for using the Microsoft Network Joseph Beasley msn Member Support - ---------- From: xxxxxxxxxx Sent: Friday, April 05, 1996 5:57 PM To: MSN Member Communications Subject: Connection, Member ID: xxxxxxxxxx, Country: United States (1), Locale: English (United States) Ye[Ask Member Support] MemberID=xxxxxxxxxx Problem Description= Microsoft being security conscious and all, I would hope that when I connect to MSN over the Internet, that my MSN client has the decency to ENCRYPT my password when it sends it over the net, yes? This is the first time I couldn't get through to a dial-up connection and had to access MSN using my ISP. Having done so, I find it extrememly convenient, and would like to continue to do so. Thanks. xxxxxxxxxx -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMW18MRhOHC4UmUYJAQHxvAf+NXAoqm8RUIskjtODUE9MYA+0JRs6x8f9 SMD70zWDRpF7mSPB6QaJcWfnufK5VqynrQ6iHfoNO9rC2yRlmkV04Ce3QW2m1z6P NVgAayVofN0Cjd1vITgdrB1XB9u3PnjXUggyTBLnAprTy79dCQsiTgen/2YujsaV Tzx6Xt87CFS8GwQcKWj5VonTkFQVjOuQIa6GbcVwEFiqVaXp2tLf3RUHXBtJ8B0H nC4wecTyra6CW2AAqFVXXmwVGeDh87caSy4Y3oFEQ8mxgZHFxOZLUeLo3MdaE+nx 33Yl2VdsjxTIlkog1R8d+6A1VDqpVqAJzcdjKnPLm8Sivm9wdGgsag== =TSTX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: On computer face recognition:
by David Loysen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:02 PM 4/10/96 -0700, you wrote: > >On computer face recognition: > > >>> Shaving probably will not be a problem, but holding your head at a >>> slightly different angle... will screw up the system totally, >>> unless the system has radically improved since the last time I read >>> up on it. > >At 11:45 AM 4/9/96 -0500, K00l Secrets wrote: >> Well, the systems I have seen are quite good at finding people's eyes. >> Scaling (for distance), and rotation (for the angle of your head) >> therefore don't really confuse the system once it has your eyes. > >Finding the eyes can only control for rotations in the plane of >the image, when you tilt your head to one side. They cannot >handle the much more common case of 3D rotations, where you >look slightly to the right or slightly to the left of camera. >Facial expressions also throw them badly. > Take a peak at http://www.neci.nj.nec.com/homepages/lawrence/papers. One of Lawences papers is on using Neural networks to recognize faces. Methinks that the state of the art is advancing rapidly and such problems as not looking at the camera or changing your expression are rapidly being overcome. ===================================== dwl(a)hnc.com Zippity do da, zippity ah, my oh my what a wonderful day. Ya right, and hear I am without time to finish a cup of coffee.

1 0

Re: (political) Privacy, Regulatory Arbitrage, Free Speech
by Michael Froomkin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you for the thoughtful comments. On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. wrote: > I just read your paper and had a couple quick comments, I used to think that > the Internet would be an ultimate promoter of liberal democratic values, > however given recent events in asian countries (which you mention) > particularly actions of China (which you didn't) I am not at all sure that > this will be the case -- of course, one can't prove these things, but I tend > to believe that China could actually clamp down on the freedom of speech > with respect to the following: I agree that the next draft should discuss China more. I think China could probably clamp down very effectively. I am not persuaded it could do so without giving up a very large share of the benefits of access. > > "Like it or not, we live now in an age of completely free speech..." I think > it would be very worthwhile to examine what is meant by "free speech." I > don't think free speech means, if I want, I could say what I want and no one alas, this is beyond the scope of this essay. There's a huge literature on this in the law reviews, though. [...] > > So perhaps the Internet shall provide a mechanism for practical free speech > (allowing some to speak their minds, and the others that get trapped will > get crushed) but it shouldn't be considered a subsitute for political free > speech (in which no one gets crushed). In the case of countries like China, I agree. It's not a substitute. Just an enabler in places that don't choose to practice draconian access control. > the hope is that the practical free speech will enable political free > speech, but based on news reports I am seeing this is less likely than I > used to think, and as you mention in the section of "Mobility of Personal > Data" the capability of this technology to abuse the citizens' and > customers' rights are also increasing, but their isn't an open mailing list > on which everyone can examine the conversation between the organizations > which wish to accomplish this. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.

1 0

Re: "Contempt" charges likely to increase
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:59 PM 4/12/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Fri, 12 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >> >I might add that the Cayman Islands are full of trust companies with >> >provisions which forbid the disclosure of data to a client who is >> >coerced. A law on the books refuses to recognize "consent" orders made >> >under judicial compulsion. This would give the appearance of total >> >unavailability of evidence and suggest the futility of contempt >> >charges. Yet courts have still, and with no small measure of success, >> >imposed sanctions on witnesses so protected. >> >> What measure of success? Getting the data, or locking up the witness? >> -Allen > >Getting the data. If the IRS or a private plaintiff wants it bad enough, >they can usually get their hands on it, or at least find out where it is. > >The government of the United States doesn't play "fair" when they want >something. But if the government of the United States does play "fair," then why can we not play "fair" and kill their agents who violate what we feel is our rights? After all, the government is merely the representative of the people (at least in theory!) and it 'must' follow the rules (laws, Constitution, etc). To whatever extent it exceeds those limits, and to whatever extent the public can't get justice to prevent those violations, why would the public be obligated to accept them? To believe otherwise is to believe that the government has some sort of special dispensation to violate the law. I don't believe this; it wouldn't surprise me to hear that you do, however. Which is it? Jim Bell

2 1

Web of Trust Keyring
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone have a pointer to the Web of Trust Keyring? --- My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li "In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti 00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Bank transactions on Internet
by stevenw＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On FPGAs: > And it is rather unlikely that one could make a high clock speed >high performance hardware based key cracker work without traditional >high speed logic debugging tools such as a fast logic analyzer (if we >are talking 5-10 ns clock especially) and a 1 ghz or so digital scope. >These kinds of gear, though sometimes available after hours to engineers >working for more liberal companies or schools, cost many thousands >of dollars and are not garden variety items available to any hacker. Probably not necessary. Simulators do just fine. And the FPGAs themselves top out at 50 to 80 MHz. > And finally, depending on the technology of the part being >used, there may be a significant cost in the order of at least hundreds >if not thousands of dollars for a specialized programmer capable of >programming ("burning") the FPGA with the interconnect patterns generated >by the software. These tend to either be specialized to one kind of >part and maybe modestly cheap (hundreds of dollars) or universal and >several thousands of dollars (such as DataIO gear). Easy to access. They are everywhere. The EPROMs are about $6 each and are serial. You could build a programmer at home. > And at least in my experiance (I may be unusually stupid and >careless and clumsy or may not be) even if the parts are a few times >reprogrammable (as CMOS FPGAs often are these days) one can assume >that one will fry, or break the pins off, or reprogram one time too >many the FPGA or FPGA's before one gets the design working. This >means that it would be realistic to assume several parts would be >consumed by the prototyping effort, they may not be cheap and this >adds up too. While there are OTP FPGAs out there (typocally Altera), many are in-circuit programmable *any* number of times since they use SRAM internally not EPROM cells to program the configuration. The latest twist on FPGAs is to add more RAM internally and have them reprogram themselves on the fly, hundreds of thousands of times a second. This cuts the logic requirements down for desidhns that don't need all of the logic all of the time. > So whilst someone working with these parts as part of their job >or schooling might well have access to all the required resources on an >informal basis and be able to build a key cracker in evenings or >weekends for little more than the cost of the chip and a PC board to >hold it, it should be realistically noted that the actual cost of >equiping a lab from scratch with the required resources is more on the >order of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars rather than $400. True, but $400 is probably not far low. > I must hasten to add that high density FPGAs have many many >legitimate uses in prototyping logic and producing products in small >volumes too small to justify the tooling costs of doing mask programmed >gate arrays (which tend to be significantly faster and easier to design, >but cost $5-100K NRE to set up custom masks for fabrication). The >current generation of them make it possible to build logic systems in >one small chip that a few years ago would have been large PC boards >full of PALs and other logic. My employer uses FPGAs in all new designs for production. They are *very* common for products that sell into the thousands per year. Mask-programmed gate arrays have the major disadvantage of very long lead times, usually a more pressing requirement than saving $30 per board over several thousand boards. Companies now make boards that contain just FPGAs wired in a grid. They are sold as general-purpose logic engines with software to implement circuits as hardware simulations. I'm sure that these would do just fine, though they are costly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Weller | Weller's three steps to Greatness: | 1. See what others cannot | 2. Think what others cannot stevenw(a)best.com | 3. Express what others cannot

1 0

Re: questions about bits and bytes
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:51 PM 4/12/96 -0700, Alan Olsen wrote: >At 11:34 AM 4/12/96 -0500, Doug Hughes wrote: >> >>On Apr 12 at 8:07 >>jim bell wrote: >>> >>>Are you sure they're not referring to 8 bits of data and a parity bit? In >>>any case, please give the address to the list so that it can be checked out. >> >>Come on, give it up already and admit you were wrong. At least 8 different >>people have cited examples of machines that supported non 8bit bytes. Your >>pride is getting the best of you. > >Jim is unwilling to admit his errors, even in things he has little or no >training in. (I remember him claiming at one point that he was not a >programmer or did any coding for that matter. Why he continues to persist >in such things I will not speculate on...) What I meant was the most honest answer I could give: I am not a professional programmer. I have programmed, in APL, Fortran, Algol, PL/1, Pascal, and I can read BASIC's well enough, but not recently.

1 0