December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Advances in Quantum crypto
by Niels Provos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi! AFAIK is 24 km the longest connection ever realised so far. The group of N. Gisin at the Univsersity of Geneva tested a quantum channel below the Geneva lake with a length of 24 km. To be found at: A. Mueller, H. Zbinden and N. Gisin, Nature 378, 449(1995) A Bibliography of Quantum Cryptography can be found at http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~crepeau/Biblio-QC.html I think there is something on Quantum Cryptography from Los Alamos National Laboratory on Crypto'96 in August. They managed 7.5 km so far ? Greetings Niels Provos =8) - - PHYSnet Rechnerverbund PGP V2.6 Public key via finger or key server Niels Provos Universitaet Hamburg WWW: http://www.physnet.uni-hamburg.de/provos/ Jungiusstrasse 9 E-Mail: provos(a)wserver.physnet.uni-hamburg.de Germany 20355 Hamburg Tel.: +49 40 4123-2504 Fax: -6571 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAgUBMetz8sweILHCAJhBAQFRCgP/ZX4KomR7kOMrozj56iksT6Cej/Xmpoo7 WviBQFbE5SMwaDmm+z2qRMPdcmpGHVkB1ct7zElS25gDT38IglIQqn77F3/hHpdO 4a6+bE28Qy/rR4kSTUjCzWHYsI6Q9U8ZoHpLpZKT8i90Y9KwSvfK1yd+9eIj/q3S g8c9XgoyRaM= =IVfw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Stego Software
by sparks＠bah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- cypherpunks(a)toad.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCXAwUBMeudE+J+JZd/Y4yVAQFk1gQKA34V+zLw4kfr2kGFy4mLIVQ64cvY6LIo hnqAbX83gIkIgyDcs7DTEpwcanxsdGM4b0ggulvuAFJVPv3VgkK3iw/9lXhEeswG UA6En0v0s9apR5JFGiGIqSnqRt11X+jehgSLMDI/IVALazn9SE9bbw03osv4xF33 Lh/Z7HOKS4071g== =SjHE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Charles E. Sparks Booz Allen & Hamilton http://www.clark.net/pub/charley/index.htm In God we trust, All Others we encrypt Public Key at: http://www.clark.net/pub/charley/cp_1.htm

1 0

Re: Surf-filter lists
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:06 PM 7/16/96, David Sternlight wrote: >YOU and I may find it so, but you simply don't understand the mentality of >those who will buy such filters without question. Vast numbers of people >take the word of their minister, government, morality "guide", guru, or >teacher without question. Why do you think Scientology has gone as far as >it has? Furthermore, I saw absolutely nothing "surprising" in the topics filtered by the NetNinny and similar filters. That is, it is not surprising to me that G-rated filters would filter all mentions of homosexuality, "safe sex," condoms, anal sex, sex in general, etc. There may be those who think that children need to be exposed to proper condom use in the third grade (California's public schools think this, for example), and those that think abortion information should not be blocked, but there are clearly many parents who are happy to have little Johnny not exposed to any of the above and similar topics. If this means little Johnny is denied access to the NOW web page, or the NAMBLA safe sex page, so be it. If enough people want detailed explanations of what is being blocked, and will vote with their dollars, then probably some filter vendors will choose to make this information available. Sounds fair to me. --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

Re: How I Would Ban Strong Crypto in the U.S.
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The emerging consensus is, in fact, nonexistant. Gorelick trotted out the same fiction when she, Leahy, Sen. Kyl, and White (deputy defense secretary) testified before the Senate permanent subcommittee on investigations this morning. (Note that Leahy is only occasionally a friend of the Net. His original crypto bill had troubling additional criminal penalties; he shepharded Digital Telephony through Congress; he is a co-sponsor of the vile copyright bill pending right now. In sum, he'd hurt the Net more than help it. This becomes a problem when netizens hold him up as an champion of our freedoms -- and then when DT II comes along his fellow senators think it's okay to vote for it 'cuz Mr. Net, Leahy, is a cosponsor.) My rebuttal to Gorelick's fantasy is: well, what about Japan, where the country's constitution forbids wiretapping? -Declan Michael writes: >On Sun, 14 Jul 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > >> So, who is in this "emerging consensus"? >> >Foreign governments? >(Process of elimination, not inside info...) > > > >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 hot here. And humid.

1 0

Re: CDT Policy Post 2.27 - No New News on Crypto: Gore Restates
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:47 PM 7/15/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote: >>Despite trying to hide behind the smokescreen of calling the >>government's GAK position "voluntary," we all know that they are trying to >>misuse their influence to gently force us to use GAK, if by no other means >>that forcing the taxpayer to pay for the system as they have done already. > >I agree, though I would not have phrased it in such an offensive way. Please explain why you think my comment above is phrased "in such an offensive way." Hint: If I'd really wanted it to be "offensive," I could have easily done that. >This isn't some conspiracy of evil but people with a legitimate policy >disagreement. I notice your insertion of the term "legitimate." As opposed to what? Do you mean that you acknowledge that there is such a thing as an ILLEGITIMATE policy disagreement? How can we tell the difference? And there goes that word, "policy," again! Containing with it, the assumption that governments (despite ostensible freedom of speech) have some sort of authority to regulate encryption. >>The opponents of GAK, on the other hand, are not denying to anyone the >right >>to implement a truly voluntary "key-escrow" system, or more likely many >>privately operating ones. > >I disagree again. It is evident from the effort to shoot down Clipper I, >which WAS voluntary, that this is another case of your version of >"voluntary". If an offeror, even the government, offers something voluntary >and you don't like it, you attempt to suppress it. It's kinda like "freedom >of speech only for those who agree with me". Huh? Developed in secret (secrecy, not merely for the technical details, but also for the broad overall concept: the former might have been justifiable to some people, the latter was not!), using stolen tax dollars, and presented as a fait accompli to the public. Oh, one more thing: Apparently designed to NOT be able to talk to non-escrowed encryption systems, in an obvious attempt to freeze out competition. The government was trying to misuse its influence here. Obviously some new strange usage of the word "voluntary" that I wasn't previously aware of. >> However, such systems will be a service for the >>customer, not the government, and the key will almost certainly not be >>provided to the government on request, and in fact the key will likely be >>stored in an encrypted form that the government won't be able to use. > >To the contrary, business records are always available on legitimate >subpoena by the government, There you go again with that word, "legitimate." Give me an example of an "_illegitimate subpoena_," will you? One that someone is not obligated to fulfill. What?!? You can't? Then why did you use the term in what is obviously (to you) a redundant fashion? > and this would include escrowed keys. YOU don't >have to like it, but it's the law. Not currently it isn't. Laws concerning "escrowed keys" haven't been written, and in any case since they don't have to be stored in the same legal jurisdiction, cooperation with a given set of authorities is not only not guaranteed, but isn't wise. Besides, the only thing I see in the US Constitution which compels a person's participation in and cooperation with a trial is a right of defendants to have witnesses appear in their _defense._ I see no corresponding right on the part of the prosecution to compel ITS witnesses to appear. And you ignored the part about the ENCRYPTED stored keys. If they're encrypted, then even if they're presented to the police, they won't be able to use them, law or no law. Given a choice, I think most people would prefer to use an "escrow agent" (if they chose to use one at all; which I doubt) that is either guaranteed to be uncooperative to the government, or one which CAN'T be cooperative, because the material it has is not in a form useful to the cops. As long as key-escrow is TRULY "voluntary," in the broadest and most accurate sense of the word, market forces will migrate to a practice which is best for individual customers as individuals. >>Quite simply, we do not require your "assent." You should be trying to get >>OURS. > >"Silence does not constitute assent" to your personal attacks, your policy >assertions, and what I think to be your misrepresentations of fact. I was >not speaking of assent to GAK in that sentence. > >I think your attempt to pseudospeciate me and create an "us and him" >situation in this group is bound to fail with those who have paid attention >to what I think and say, particularly my most recent thinking. On many >matters we are agreed at bottom. However, I place high value on policy There you go again with the word, "policy." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Can't block caller ID in Massachusetts?
by Alan Horowitz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> There are businesses that _only_ list their 800 numbers, and you can't > find out the real phone number associated with them through directory > assistance. I'll leave it to others to call such a joint and give their name, address, and credit card number to such an establishment. > It's especially annoying when they've got an in-state or other non-nation-wide > 800 number, or when you're calling from outside the US, especially when > they're a business you'd like to be able to reach from anywhere, any time, > like the travel agent your office uses Your straining my credulity to claim that you can't get ahold of the regular phone number of them. Come on, are you 7 years old? > And they may _only_ have > the bank of phones that's got ANI service on it, and not have other phones. I don't think phone service is sold that way.

3 3

Re: My impending death
by Remo Pini 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:22 PM 7/14/96 EDT, you wrote: >> Since Vulis decided to drag in a disagreement from elsewhere, I have a brief >> invitation. > >The cripple is lying again, as usual. Twice he reposted to cypherpunks >his Usenet lies with no cryptographic relevance just to slime me. Since >not even Perry told the demented cripple to quit, I'll respond in kind. > I don't want to seem overly squemish, but wouldn't you agree, that stuff that get's so "personal" as this discussion doesn't really belong here? (Personally I even think, that such primitive mudslinging doesn't belong anywhere) Calm down, relax, have a cigar and be a nice boy. ----------< fate favors the prepared mind >---------- Remo Pini Fon 1: +41 1 350 28 82 mailto:rp@rpini.com Fon 2: +41 1 465 31 90 http://www.rpini.com/remopini/ Fax: +41 1 350 28 84 --------< words are what reality is made of >--------

1 0

CookieScan 0.0 rev 0
by Christopher Hull 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Do y¹all think there might be an interest in a utility which would allow the user to deal with browser cookies? What I imagine is a little utility that would display the cookies stashed on a machine and give the user the option to either delete or <snicker> edit </snicker> any given cookie. (Hey, it¹s *your* computer, not the website¹s). This little app would also come with help text explaining what a cookie is (and is not). In future it might run in the background and alert the user when a cookie is being dropped and the user could give or deny permission (Netscape 3.0 will do this as well). As it is an ³anti-virus² type product it would be offered for free. I could just stick it up on Apple¹s (or Netscape's) website when finished. Do any such utilities currently exits? -Chris ... ... smtp: nozefngr(a)apple.com .. page: 1.800.680.7351 .. http: http://virtual.net/Personal/nozefngr/ .. icbm: lat37*21'.lon121*5' .. .. the kabuki project: http://remarque.berkeley.edu/kabuki/

3 2

C'punks T-shirt idea?
by Simon Spero 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Currently reading John Keane's biography of Tom Paine,] Picture of Paine with superimposed text Atlanticus [crossed out] Forrester [crossed out] Common Sense [crossed out] Common.Sense(a)alpha.c2.org --- Cause maybe (maybe) | In my mind I'm going to Carolina you're gonna be the one that saves me | - back in Chapel Hill May 16th. And after all | Email address remains unchanged You're my firewall - | ........First in Usenet.........

1 0

Re: CDT Policy Post 2.27 - No New News on Crypto: Gore Restates
by Arun Mehta 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:13 15/07/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote: >actions in the Netherlands, the UK, and in the European >Parliament suggest that an independent European escrow initiative might >happen within a year. When it does it will be a trivial matter to harmonize >it with some US offering. The mills in various countries are grinding too >coincidentally for my taste. I don't doubt that the Europeans are quite likely to toe the American line -- they not seldom do in international negotiations, plus they share the NATO mentality. However, that does not constitute international agreement. GAK basically requires companies and individuals to trust their government, and here in India people across the political and economic spectrum would laugh in your face at the suggestion. Also secrecy from the government is crucial to most businesspersons, and I cannot imagine anyone in a country with a repressive, inept or corrupt government agreeing to this (And further, trusting the far away US government, which might misuse its powers to help its own industry in international bids). You might say that repressive governments are not likely to ask their citizens before agreeing internationally to GAK, but then, citizens are not likely to ask their government either before using good crypto. The matter will land up before the courts, and that will keep the situation confused for a while. With digital commerce seriously hindered by lack of security, I doubt the business community will stay patient, and want to opt for a hassle-free, tried and tested, secure and transparent system such as pgp. Governments cannot for long ignore the wishes of big business. > >Given the glacial pace with which standard integrated crypto has appeared >on the Internet, with Navigator only going to offer the final >link--encrypted e-mail--later this year, the above timing isn't necessarily >one which will be left behind by independent Internet developments. And >given the glacial pace of PGP movement toward integrated internet standard >products, it hasn't a hope of beating the above timing to the punch. While I share your view on the need for urgency in integrating PGP into Internet standard products (and wish the programmers on these projects God-speed!) I don't think end of this year is too late for them to come out. Arun Mehta Phone +91-11-6841172, 6849103 amehta(a)cpsr.org http://www.cerfnet.com/~amehta/

2 1