December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

BIG_dif
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

7-19-96. NYP: "AT&T and Wells Fargo Investing in an Electronic Cash Card." The companies said that they would form the American affiliate of Mondex. Any one with a Mondex card can transfer electronic cash to anyone else with a card. This flexibility has raised concerns both about the possibility of counterfeiting and of money laundering. Because of these concerns, Mondex has been modified in the United States so that banks will be able to track card use. That will allow them to audit for fraud, if not recreate every transaction. Data from Mondex cards will be used for various product marketing. "We believe there should be privacy, but there is a big difference between privacy and anonymity," Dudley Nigg, executive vice president of Wells Fargo, said. ----- http://pwp.usa.pipeline.com/~jya/bigdif.txt (4 kb) BIG_dif

1 0

Re: Gorelick testifies before Senate, unveils new executive order (fwd)
by David Lesher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

SternFUD claims: > There are exceptions to ITAR for this purpose (overseas offices of US > companies). Clearly UnProfessor failed to read recent Phil Karn's testimony at the Senate Subcommittee. Phil, representing both himself *and Qualcomm* explained how Qualcomm had attempted to export a Triple DES application to their own Hong Kong office, *for use by the AMCIT employees there* to communicate with Califunny. The request was denied with a FORM LETTER checked "resubmit a non-Triple DES method" or words close to that. Further, Phil told the Subcommittee that every time they need a bug fix on the CDMA code running on the system in HK; they must resubmit the whole package back for approval. A BUG FIX! They've been through this many times, each one taking eons. Just suppose ARCO needed all new permits every time they adjusted the crude mix, or retuned the cat cracker? -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

Re: BIG_dif
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Because of these concerns, Mondex has been modified in > the United States so that banks will be able to track > card use. That will allow them to audit for fraud, if > not recreate every transaction. Data from Mondex cards > will be used for various product marketing. > > "We believe there should be privacy, but there is a big > difference between privacy and anonymity," Dudley Nigg, > executive vice president of Wells Fargo, said. So, how will the identity of the cardholder be tracked when they are transferred physically from one person to another? Presumably bank tracking will only work when the card is submitted to a "public" terminal. "Wallet" transfers won't be tracked immediately. Also, if an API is realeased, interesting possibilities are created. DCF

1 0

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by Vinnie Moscaritolo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim, I understand you are pissed about what's going on in society but this really isnt a great strategy; >Personally, I think all folks should be armed at all times in their homes. >Those who aren't are taking their chances. doesn't this make you a prisoner of sorts... it is not healthy to go through long periods of time in orange alert. this might sound macho but it's impracticle. > My personal choice is a Heckler >& Koch USP .45. loaded with Federal Golden Sabres, a hollowpoint round that >has a 92% one-shot stop rate, with adequate penetration through Kevlar >vests (typically worn by BATF raiders). >Fortunately, though KTW ammo is no longer available to "marks" (= >civilians), .45 ACP +P does a pretty good job. Certain +P .357 Magnum >rounds are even better penetrators, but recoil and muzzle blast is pretty >severe with these loads.) Your choice of weapon is admirable, but I would suggest that something more akin to Glaser safety slugs, SW.40 or .45 would be better. with proper training you can perform an upward stitch, legs first. the point is the Glaser won't pentrate the walls and nail your neighbors. The +P penetration is way to strong and most likely to pass through. A scatergun is generaly a better weapon for home defense. there is something about looking down a 12 guage that changes your mind, Ninja suit or not. Besides this kind of strategy is better used on gangsta types. >I may die, but I hope I can take at least two of them with me. pretty dumb attitude, I would also profess that One Live Tim May, even in Jail is worth more to the protection of freedom than one martyred nekid hippy. getting into a gunfight with an entry team that has had much more practice than you can only lead to one conclusion, really the only protection from these Ninja's is through some form of covenant community. All joking aside that what Bo Gritz was really trying to do in Idaho, build a place where your neighbor watches each others back. It doesnt mater whether your agree with his politics or not, the point is he has an workable idea, Now couple that with redundant instant communication..the kind that is hard to jam. hmm imagine what Waco would have been like if the Branch Davidians: 1) were not morons. 2) knew how to use the news media 3) had redundant, spread spectrum, satilite, and underground comms into the net. This equals instant net coverage, to rival CNN. It makes for a hard target.Armed with your Militia-Mailer(tm) the strong crypto edition and live video, these folks would never consider getting near you. In some ways we already have one now, there are quite a few Cypher-punks out there, and it's pretty easy to get the word out. Historicaly folks like BATF prefer softer targets, they are safer. Ever wonder why doesnt the Reno squad hit the crack houses..well thats kind of dangerous, these folks know what they are doing and the cost to raid them can be very expensive in lives. And what do you get when your done, another well payed judge simply lets em out again.. It's also clear that there is another manufactured arms race going on, this time instead of Communism it's the "war on some drugs" It is costing us an incredable amount of tax dollars, it fucks with our freedoms, and produces limited results. This war also has the side-effect of producing a general feeling of disenfrancisement among the very citizens it is designed to protect. Folks like Her Klinton, piss off the the American people, when on one hand they spout rhetoric about how drugs are bad, and on the other hand condone them. Fighting back through firepower is unlikely to acheive the goal you want, It endangers innocent (if there are any left) folks and leaves you looking like a HCI poster child. I can see it now, "Crazed Naked Hippy Dies in battle with Federal Officers, linked to ITAR regulated Munitions factory". A better approach is to disarm and expose these bozos for what they are, and for christ sakes get out there and VOTE... dammit... and get your friends to VOTE.. But what do I know.. I just play a lawyer in Bob's rants.. Vinnie Moscaritolo "Law - Samoan Style" http://www.vmeng.com/vinnie/ Fingerprint: 4FA3298150E404F2782501876EA2146A

2 1

Re: Responding to Pre-daw
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-=> Quoting In:hallam@ai.mit.edu to Harka <=- In> If you want to own guns then you should accept the fact that you risk In> having your head blown off in the middle of the night by a SWAT team. In> Just as the car has introduced the risk of being killed in a trafic In> accident the gun has introduced new risks. If society dosen't like the In> risks then it can opt to ban the technology. Except that getting killed in a traffic accident IS an accident (mostly :)) while having black clad Fed's storming into your house was _consciously_ decided by them, because THEY have a problem with YOUR guns (?!)... Harka ___ Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR]

1 0

VRML
by brianh＠u041.oh.vp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, Does anybody know of a mailing-list for VRML? I have tried www-VRML(a)wired.com but there is nothing, least not returned. Any help and/or direction would be appreciated. Thanks in Advance, brianh(a)u041.oh.vp.com UNTIL WE MEET AGAIN :-)

1 0

Netscape
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi! There appears to be some new Netscape files with US encryption in ftp://utopia.hacktic.nl/pub/replay/pub/incoming/ netscape-fts2-hp10.tar.gz Fast Track Server 2.0 for HPUX10 netscape-fts2-nt.exe Fast Track Server 2.0 for WinNT netscape-hpus-30b5.tar.gz Navigator 3.0b5 for HP-UX netscape-linux-30b5.tar.gz Navigator 3.0b5 for Linux netscape-ssl30-src.tar.gz SSL 3.0 source code netscape32us-30b5.exe Navigator 3.0b5 for Win95/NT By the way, is it possible to get a certificate for the Fast Track 128 bit servers outside of north america? Or would the certificate issuer be conspiring to export crypto if he exported a certificate?

2 1

Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:45 PM 7/19/96, Troy Denkinger wrote: >We have an interesting problem here, though. You say that the government >has no right to tell you how to set your filter; no doubt about that, imo. >However, most people who use these filters are going to be quite happy to >allow some corporate entity the privilege of setting their filters for them >and, if the consumer should ask about criteria and such, they are told that >that's a trade secret. So, people will be allowing a corporate entity that And? After all, when Coca Cola offers only one formula for Coke (these days, at least) and yet keeps the formula a treade secret, is this not similiarly restrictive of "choice"? The fact is that consumers never have full freedom about what other agents or companies offer to trade to them. >exists for profit to set their filters for them. This is a very scary thing >and perhaps even more frightening than having the government do it. I think >that the people on this list tend to maintain a healthy scepticism toward >the various TLAs, but we have to remember that a large, multinational >corporation has not even got a sense of a greater "national good" or even >"national security" to guide it. Magazines, newspapers, and other such sources routinely make editorial decisions about what to cover. And no, they do not necessarily publicize the inner workings of their editorial process. Are we to be "scared" that "Newsweek," for example, has their own filters and is a multinational corporation (gulp)? "Newsweek" has many secrets of their own; the most recent being that their own Joe Klein was the author of the anonymous novel "Primary Colors," and the publisher knew it. People and companies have their own agendas, their own filters, and their own reasons for doing things they do. Get used to it. --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

Netscrape download
by David Lesher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[From Phil Karn] Netscape's use of a CGI interface to download the US version (128-bit key) of Netscape Navigator raises the possibility that they are "serializing" or "personalizing" each copy they send out, perhaps in response to a DoS request that they do so in order to trace unauthorized redistribution. One way to test this theory without redistributing the actual code is to compare MD5 hashes of the distributions. After two days of unsuccessful attempts at obtaining the code from their overloaded server, I've just successfully downloaded the SunOS, BSDI and Windows 95 versions of Netscape Navigator. Here are the MD5 hashes of the files I received: BSDI version: 4ec4a705e2e4c6560475852fae807c8c SunOS version: e72ff352ca7c619cb31b8f8ef3651b28 Windows 95 version: 8e936813f12a1b3b77ed03d9239ebd5d Anybody care to compare these to the copies they obtain, assuming the logjam on the server breaks sometime soon? Phil -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close...........(v)301 56 LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead........vr vr vr vr.................20915-1433

5 4

Re: Responding to Pre-daw
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > > Except that getting killed in a traffic accident IS an accident (mostly :) > > > while having black clad Fed's storming into your house was _consciously_ > > > decided by them, because THEY have a problem with YOUR guns (?!)... > > > > I think the original point was that they MIGHT storm into your house > > by mistake (say, because they incorrectly accepted a informant's > > story). Therefore, it is truly a mistake. > > Well, not really. It would be severe case of neglegence which is not the > same as a mistake. When you drive, you have to prove that you know what > you are doing by getting a driver's licence. Uh ... I think you missed the point of my mail. I think I explained it later on, but here it is in different words. It may be clearer this time. > If you are a SWAT guy and some informer would come along and say "This > and that person is a terrorist, I know for sure" and you go into that > house and shoot everything that moves, well, doesn't sound much like an > accident to me... I think it would be unfortunate if you think that SWAT team members are trained to storm in and shoot anything that moves. They are trained to provide protection to themselves while attempting to apprehend the target. That, to you, may be a subtle difference, but it make a big difference to me: 1. In your interpretation, they literally rampage through the target site without much regard for the destruction they may cause. 2. In my interpretation, they are trying their best to balance the need to quickly apprehend the target, with the serious potential of being harmed in the process. In circumstances where there is beyond a shadow of a doubt that the target is criminal, then I would support their actions fully. But it is clear that mistakes have been made in the past. The tragic consequences of those mistakes are unforgivable. Therefore, the mistakes MUST be prevented. That said, I think, in most cases (and I believe most LE believe this too), there does not need to be a violent conflict. I believe they can choose a different scenario. They do not have to choose a scenario where they have to be in immediate danger. The recent Montana standoff is an example where government agents did NOT choose to storm in (good or bad decision is another debate). It is not unreasonable to be scared into doing irrational things if someone storms into your house at 4am. However, if you get a phone call saying your house is surrounded, you might have more time to think straight and realize that there is some horrible mistake. And, as far as I know, it is perfectly legal to be a little paranoid. Ern

1 0