December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Why does the state still stand:
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 15-MAY-1996 18:59:01.44 >For these a company running at a constant net operating loss could be >formed to purchase cars for resale (funny how no one ever buys them) and >manage property (which no one seems to ever lease). But won't such a company run into tax problems? In other words, the IRS is going to look with some suspicion on a company that keeps showing no profits (and thus no taxes) but keeps going anyway. They're going to think that the owners are making a profit anyway but concealing it - which is the case. I'm not sure how to handle this one, other than not owning major property (rental et al). -Allen

2 1

Re: SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FAST
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"jamesd(a)echeque.com" 16-MAY-1996 00:44:57.85 >What do I need to do to support a remailer that posts to non binary >newsgroups? (I do not have root control on a unix machine other than my >employers machine, for which I am unlikely to receive approval to use >in this fashion.) Well, there are some mail-to-news gateways; I believe someone posted on them a while back. You could write to the operators and ask them for a copy of the software. I would suggest only accepting messages from mixmaster remailers; this would reduce the likelihood of successful lawsuits against you for the logs, since they won't give any information. -Allen

1 0

Re: S-Tools 4 now available
by Matts Kallioniemi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 17:41 1996-05-13 CST, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: >> You will need either Windows 95 or Windows NT (at least v3.51) to use >> this, and all further releases of S-Tools (Win32s is not sufficient). ><sigh> >I suppose this is market pressure, but it means you are alienating a >number of potential users (including myself). Some of us are working >toward being Microsoft-free, you know. It's not just marketing, it's a fact of life. 16 bit operating systems are not supported any more. Just as 8 bit OSes haven't been supported for quite a while either. There will come a day when 64 bits are considered the minimum for useful software (large database systems are already there). You just can't stick with 16 bits forever, MS-free or not. Face it. Matts

3 2

Re: RSAREF for Mac?
by timd＠consensus.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:26 PM 5/14/96, Jay Haines wrote: >It seems that I have seen this question asked before, but as I had no need for >the answer at that time, I trashed it. So, without further ado: > >Can anyone point in the direction of RSAREF for the Macintosh? Sorry for the delay. RSAREF for Mac is the same as any other RSAREF; RSAREF is distributed as fairly portable C source. For a recent project, I just added the sorce files to a Metrowerks project and built and it worked fine. It compiles without errors or warnings on all the Mac platforms I've tried thus far (it does generate "possible unintended assignment" warnings (for assignments inside of if statements) if you've got that turned on). If you're having problems, feel free to drop me a note. - Tim Tim Dierks -- timd(a)consensus.com -- www.consensus.com Head of Thing-u-ma-jig Engineering, Consensus Development

1 0

Re: Why does the state still stand:
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"jf_avon(a)citenet.net" 15-MAY-1996 19:11:14.65 >But here, I think that AP would be the single most important factor >ruling the socio-economical behavior of individuals or entities in >the world. It already works that way in many countries of the >world, especially in south america. In many places, you don't screw >around too much or you get killed. As a friend of mine who lived in >the jungle told me "if a guy fools around with you wife, you just >shut up and take it, but if a guy fools around with your girlfriend, >you have the sorcerer mix you a beverage... One of my friend had >one and he died within ten days..." However, this is depending on being able to target the people involved. Anonymnity kind of prevents that, if it's enough to avoid governmental intervention. -Allen

1 0

Re: (Fwd) New Anonymous Remailer
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Addressed to: dsmith(a)prairienet.org Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> ** Reply to note from David E. Smith <dsmith(a)midwest.net> 05/15/96 11:33am -0600 Is this for real --with an intialial address of ARL.MIL So, does this mean we now have a fourth option for a NSA dummy remailer besides the three the scuttlebutt says they already operate? = ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- = From: privacy(a)interlink-bbs.com = Subject: New Anonymous Remailer = Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 06:34:02 GMT = To: info-pascal(a)ARL.MIL = = = = = You may be familiar with anon.penet.fi, which give you an = anonymous account. = = Our service allows YOU to choose what the return address will be! = = Please write for more info. -- "the slammer and the firing squad are just stones on the road to freedom." --attila

1 0

Re: crosspost re remailers
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"frantz(a)netcom.com" 15-MAY-1996 18:54:28.83 >I thought the statement that remailers are supposed to be ephemeral and >common was the answer. If one is shut down, a dozen spring up in its >place. Advertising new remailers does become an issue. What mechanisms >are in place for new remailers to advertise themselves? Emailing to Raph Levien (sp?) would seem to be the current way to do it, as well as announcements on cypherpunks. If we do get increased remailer turnover, Raph's increasing the frequency of such postings (possibly with moving the increased-frequency ones to a dedicated mailing list for the subject) would be advisable. >I find it interesting that this remailer is being shut down by private >action and not by government. (Yes, they are threatening government >action, but if they couldn't do that they would find some other threat.) It does look like governments really haven't noticed remailers much, at least publically. I'm sure the NSA, etcetera know about them, but I would guess they see no reason to give remailers publicity. -Allen

1 0

Re: Fingerprinting annoyance
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 15-MAY-1996 00:00:25.51 >On Tue, 14 May 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: >> At 3:22 PM 5/14/96, Matthew Williams wrote: >> >Although knowingly providing a fake social security number when one >> >has any expectation of gain is, I believe, a felony. >> >42 USC. sec. 408. >Note the key provisons, for gain, and when submitted to those entitled to >the number legally. But is "entitled to the number legally" meaning anyone who _must_ have the number legally (IRS & other government agencies, those dealing with the IRS, etcetera), or anyone who can require it as a condition of doing business? There is a difference between the two, at least according to the Social Security Number FAQ that I last read. -Allen

2 1

Re: Fingerprinting annoyance
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 15-MAY-1996 19:40:34.88 >It means essentially the IRS and banks. Even banks have little recourse. >They make you sign a piece of paper that says you gave them the right SSN, >but practically speaking no one cares. >Equifax (a credit reporting agency) refuses to take bank records as >evidence of SSN's because they KNOW the banks don't care or enforce and >that people lie to or make mistakes to the bank on a daily basis. Fascinating. I would think the IRS would care - that's how they know how to tax interest. They don't put any pressure on the banks to get the right one? I seem to recall showing the bank a driver's license or some such with a SSN on it the last time I opened an interest-bearing account. As I recall, government branches are authorized to get SSNs - if they show you the privacy act paperwork. If they forget, I would suppose that lying to them is perfectly permissible. What about if they do? -Allen

1 0

Re: Any DLL's that handle Public Key Encryption or Key Exchange?
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tall men in dark suits made draven(a)infi.net (Greg Morgan) write: >I'm in the process of writing a freeware IRC client in Visual Basic 3 and >wanted to encorporate a secure variant of DCC chat. Trouble is I can't find a >precompiled library that has either RSA or DH in it. This doesn't do me much >good as I don't even own a Windows C compiler... (is that a crime in some >countries? :) ) The next release of my encryption library (currently available as ftp://garbo.uwasa.fi/pc/security/crypl110.zip) will contain a nice fast RSA implementation. It includes 16 and 32-bit DLL's. Actually the current version has support for it, but I took out the code because the key management routines weren't ready yet. There are two things worth noting, the first is that RSA itself isn't much use without a *lot* of key management code (which is what's holding up the RSA-enabled version). The second is that if you're in the US you're probably going to run into legal hassles using this code unless someone wants to do an alternative RSAREF implementation which you can plug in in place of the existing RSA code. Peter.

1 0