December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Kellstrom Calls for DT Funding
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a "briefing" on TWA 800 when one of the reporters tossed Big Jim Kellstrom (Deputy Director in Charge of the New York Office) of the FBI a softball question about what he needed to fight terrorism; he took the opportunity to call for full funding of the Digital Telephony Bill. He said the usual about how bad guys conspire and we need to tap. DCF

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

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:19 AM 7/19/96 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >> >[In California] anyone found in your house at night is >> >presumptively a threat to which you may respond with deadly >> >force. Shoot on sight, in other words. > >To which Cerridwyn responded: > >> I find it hard to believe "anyone". If "anyone" happens to be >> law enforcement, as has been proven again and again: yer screwed >> no matter what (either dead or in jail forever). > >Hard to believe or not, that's the presumption. Now in law, >it's a rebuttable presumption, but it's still a get-out-of-jail >card if you did not know the shadow at the end of the call was >a cop who was LAWFULLY in your house. In this regard, I called into a local (NYC) National Commie Radio talk show (Brian Lehrer's) last year and was talking with the host about G. Gordon Liddy's remarks on shooting federal agents who unlawfully break into your hose. I said that self defense *could* (not necessarily *would*) work as a defense to a murder charge involving the killing of federal agents in this circumstance. He asked me if I could come up with any examples from real life where this had worked and I immediately shot back with "Yeah, Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris." That was the so-called Ruby Ridge case. They were acquitted of murder. Then there was the guy in New York who shot six NYC cops who surrounded the apartment where he was hiding (none died). He was acquitted of assault and attempted murder charges because he argued that he thought the cops had been sent to kill him by the drug dealers that it was his profession to rob. Love those NYC juries. And they say that there's no justice for a black man in Amerikkka. Don't try this at home though kids. Better to be elsewhere when they come looking for you. DCF

2 1

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

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:21 PM 7/19/96, Arun Mehta wrote: >I must admit all this talk about what kinds of bullet best >penetrates Kevlar makes me >shake my head and wonder what's happening to the world -- >particularly since you are >far more likely to use this weaponry in a rage against a loved one than >against >someone breaking down your door. The "good" guys arming By "you," I have to presume you mean "me." No, I am not at likely to use this weapon in a rage against a loved one. Trust me. In any case, by far the most common weapon used for family killings is the ordinary knife. Easily available, in multiple forms, it kills efficiently (if not always quickly). >themselves so that the "bad" >don't invade reminds me of the stupid arms race between the US >and the Soviets: I >wonder how many burglars in Western Europe carry guns -- in the US, you'd >be real stupid if you didn't carry the latest weaponry. It may sound "stupid" to you...I suggest you read up on evolutionary game theory. Sometimes one has no choice but to respond to an arms buildup. Unilateral disarmament rarely works. By the way, many burglars consciously and carefully choose to be unarmed, as confrontation is _not_ what they want, and they know that possession of a firearm during a robbery significantly worsens their situation if they are apprehended. --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: NSA response to key length report
by vacuo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <199607192110.RAA07548(a)crypto.com> Matt Blaze <mab(a)crypto.com> writes: > Particularly impressive is that our key length report was hardly > above criticism from several angles, but their rebuttal managed > somehow to avoid them. > > What I find most disturbing about this is that their report was > provided secretly to policymakers in the administration and in > Congress, without independent technical review that would have > quickly exposed the fallacy of the arguments. I never would have > seen it had several of the recipients not faxed it to me. This is > the first hard evidence I've seen of NSA providing anything less > than the highest quality technical analysis to other parts of the > government. A non-specialist reader would be easily misled by the > technically dense, but completely irrelevant, "rebuttal". It smacks > of either ill-informed sloppiness, or, perhaps worse, self-serving > disingenuous cynicism. Either conclusion is scary, and, to me in > fact, quite surprising. It is only surprising because you are a naive fool. The NSA will stop at nothing to control us and you are just helping by allowing yourself to be playing by their own rules and will set yourself up for them to use as an example to the rest of us when they get your ass. Don't be an idiot - wake up and LOOK. Read puzzle palace. We can't win on there terms. They aren't playing fair and we shouldn't either.

1 0

Re: Borders *are* transparent
by David Murray 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:24 AM 7/18/96 -0700, TCM wrote: > ... Borders _are_ transparent. There are >so _many_ degrees of freedom for getting stuff across borders. The hope >that a bunch of *bits* can be stopped in ludicrous. > >_This_ is why I expect the Netscape beta to arrive overseas pretty soon. Undoubtedly. Interestingly (to me, anyway), I noticed on my last trip to Hong Kong that the Netscape products for sale in the legitimate shops had "US/Canada only - not for export" (or similar) printed on the packaging. (Also of note, the hot Pirate CD of that time "Internet Xpress", with such goodies as Symantec Java Cafe, Spry Internet Office Pro, Netscape Fast Track Server v2.0, Commerce Builder v1.5, also featured ViaCrypt PGP v2.71 for Windows. Nice to see encryption as a must have net tool...) dm

1 0

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:49 PM 7/19/96 -0500, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >> >> I may be a little nuts, but does it strike anyone else that a good >> self defense weapon against ninja raids would be a hand gernade? >> > >Maybe not even a little:) > >I suggest wiring an anti-tank mine to your door every night. If >ninjas break in, everyone goes to hell. No need to wake up and be >alert in sleep -- all will be done automatically. So before that >ninja raid you will sleep better. I've had a substantially better idea. Hang carbon-fiber bundles from the ceiling, which are charged to about 10,000 volts when an intrusion is detected. They'll glom onto anything conductive within their range, and anyone with the bad fortune to be breaking into the house at that moment _might_ live to regret it. (resistors could be added to limit the current to non-fatal but exceedingly painful levels. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

5 5

Bare fibers
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:32 PM 7/18/96 -0700, Cerridwyn Llewyellyn wrote: > >>a (hidden) drive to your computer using a reasonably surreptious link that >>is difficult to trace. Say, an IR optical link, a single bare (unjacketed) >>optical fiber, a LAN with hidden nodes, or a similar system. Maybe an > >I find the idea of the optical fiber very interesting. Is there such >a beast currently available? I really don't know anything about fiber, >and therefore it would be very difficult for me to construct such a >system myself... Unjacketed fiber exists, but since its primary use is to build up jacketed fibers and fiber bundles, it is rarely seen in industry outside of the companies which normally use it. But it is available. The fiber is usually coated with a very thin layer of clear plastic to protect against moisture and abrasion, and the diameter is around 0.5 to 1.0 millimeters in diameter. Terminating fiber is specialized; it is cleaved using diamond tools, and is usually polished after mounting in a holder. These days, transmitters and receivers are easily available. For a relatively short run, plastic fibers would probably be the best bet. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: MSNBC and cookies
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"junger(a)pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.CWRU.Edu" "Peter D. Junger" 19-JUL-1996 13:57:57.15 >It's a nuisance, but I suppose there is no reason that a commercial >service can't do such a thing. But what happens when one tries to >access it with Lynx? At least with VAX/VMS Lynx (I assume the other version would be doing the same thing), you get stopped at "Welcome to MSNBC [IMAGE]". Both links lead to the same page, namely the one you're already on. -Allen

1 0