December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Reverse Engineer
by elfgard＠pooh-corner.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> What do you mean by "reverse engineer?" I have heard this word several times especially in the world of hacking, but... can someone tell me what it really meant? Interesting question. Hmmm... I would answer this question for you but then I would have to kill you. That is basically like asking a car thief to tell yuo about how he breaks into cars and what cars hes broken into lately. My suggestion to you is to pick up one of those MEGA lame books like "What is a Cyberpunk!" and read that. It may not tell you shit, but it will give you a broad understanding about what you want to know. Elfgard *The One and Only* elfgard(a)netlite.com http://www.netlite.com

2 1

Inventor of radio...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, I would like to correct a misconception about who is credited with the invention of radio. Nikola Tesla has held the credit for the creation since the resolution of the original lawsuit in the mid-80's. Tata. Jim Choate Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: Mail-order Ph.D.'s > From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) > Date: Fri, 19 Jul 96 07:37:24 EDT > > He also invented the radio, but Marconi+Popov stole the credit from him.

2 1

Home Made Telephone Voice Changer
by Jerome Tan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone know how to make a home-made telephone voice changer?

2 1

Re: Surf-filter lists
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:31 PM 7/17/96 -0500, you wrote: ><rant>A Private organization cannot "censor" anything. The fundamental >definition of the word require some agent of the government take action >to censor. To accuse Surf-Watch, net-nanny, AOL, MSU, AT&T, or whatever >of "censorship" accomplishes nothing except to make us look the >fool.</rant> I am not going to go into petty details about the actual definition of censor, and how private organizations do censor, but private citizens have the option of getting their information from an uncensored source, the same as when a government censors. The only difference is the government is allowed to use physical coercion, whereas on the surface corporations are not yet allowed to do so. I will, however, address your argument on a different level. Your view of this issue typifies one of the primary objections I have to many of the arguments amongst libertarians. The problem is NOT JUST GOVERNMENT. It is with any authority that has power over you. When a private entity becomes powerful enough that they have the ability to forcefully exert their influence over you, they are just as bad as Government. Granted, Surf-Watch and so forth haven't yet become that big, but there are some rather large Media companies who have, as well as institutions such as the Church. For example, I think our mainstream news IS censored, and not necessarily by the government, more by corporations intent on keeping us in the mindframe that will make them the most money and prolong and extend their power. I am not saying that a private entity doesn't or shouldn't have the Legal Right to censor, but I am saying that censorship of any form by any entity is a Bad Thing and the public (not the government, mind) should fight it on all fronts. This, in my mind, is the only reason to be dismayed by the decision on the CDA. It was found that the government shouldn't censor on the Internet because there were forms of Corporate censorship available. It would have truely been a great day if the decision had been that the government shouldn't censor on the Internet because censorship is wrong. >I agree that the problem with the "bait-and-switch" filtering of net >materials by these various filtering packages needs to be addressed. If I >want to protect my kids from seeing alt.naughty.pictures, I shoudl still >be able to unfilter political and health speech. The real problem isn't >censorship, it's disclosure by the makers of filtering packages about >what exactly their packages are going to filter for me and my family. That is another problem, not the Real Problem. The Real Problem is that parents are scared to have to explain to children why something they've seen is wrong or bad. They are afraid to teach their children their beliefs and values, so instead would rather just filter everything that conflicts with those beliefs, so that they believe it by default. This is a big problem when those children grow away from their parent's influence though, and creates bigotry and intolerance. (They don't know why they believe what they do, but believe it with fearful vengeance). //cerridwyn//

3 2

Re: Opiated file systems
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:05 AM 7/18/96, jim bell wrote: >It has long occurred to me, considering the size and low power of the >typical 3.5" hard drive compared with the size of the typical house or >apartment, that it might be an interesting project to remotely connect such >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 >inductive pickup. In any raid, they'll have to decide what to take, and >chances are very good that they won't find every hidden item. I think the druggies call this a "rat line": two apartments next to each other, with the humans living in one and the drugs stored in the other. The drugs are gotten through a hole in the wall. (Hey, I'm not saying it works, or that it stops raids, prosecutions, convictions, etc. Just noting the existence.) Any multi-unit apartment can do this already, with data. The hard disk can be upstairs and two units away, connected with Ethernet (as many apartment buildings out here in California already are), or whatever. Any raid on Unit 3B, for example, finds that no files are stored locally. A separate investigation and/or search warrant for whereever the files actually are stored would be of course problematic and/or delayed. (Friends of mine have worked on "remote storage" ideas for exactly such applications. Clearly there are many options: storage in other local sites, storage in offshore sites, encrypted storage, even storage by a "priest" functionary ("Son, I am ready to receive your digitally transmitted confession.").) Lots of possibilities. For various reasons, few have been pursued. (Mostly because, I think, there have been relatively few raids on data, and when there have been raids, there were usually other HUMINT-type factors involved. E.g., few child porn rings are going to be broken only on the basis of seized disks. As this situation changes, expect more "data archival" services to evolve.) --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."

3 3

Re: Gorelick testifies before Senate, unveils new executive order
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David Sternlight writes: > Here's the problem in a nutshell: Everyone who has looked at our systems, > from Cliff Stoll A *famous* security expert. >on to blue ribbon scientific commissions, The last of which recommended that crypto be entirely deregulated. > Serious studies have shown that the kinds of protections to make the > systems we depend on robust against determined and malicious attackers (say > a terrorist government, or one bent on doing a lot of damage in retaliation > for one of our policies they don't like), have costs beyond the capability > of individual private sector actors. Defense is cheaper than attack in encryption because it is easier to make coherent information incoherent (see Usenet) than it is to make incoherent information coherent. > In such a case, where public benefits from government action greatly exceed > public (taxpayer) costs, and the private sector cannot (or will not) act > unaided, the classical basis for government action in the interests of the > citizenry exists. It's the economist's "lighthouse" argument. But since the Internet and the WANs and LANs that you are talking about are all "private value-added networks," the benefits of enhanced security a fully captured by the users of those networks and there is no "public goods" problems. (BTW, there were private lighthouses too.) Note too that major money center banks disagree with you. There was a recent article about the fact that they are not reporting computer intrusions and just fixing the problems themselves. They don't seem interested in official security "help" with all the disadvantages (publicity and security leaks) that it brings. DCF

2 1

MSNBC and cookies
by Joel McNamara 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In attempting to check out different Net media coverage of TWA 800, it appears the msnbc.com site won't let you in without a cookie. Repeated cookie cancels with Navigator 3.0 drop you into an indigestive loop of the server continuing to try to force feed you cookies. When you finally click OK, you get in. Am I spacing, or is this the first site anyone's stumbled on that requires a cookie for access? I've never been shut out of a site for canceling a cookie. The first cookie request does have a user ID field. If the server (or client) isn't misbehaving, this seems like a wee bit of a privacy issue. I tried accessing the page (http://www.msnbc.com) on 7/18/96 around 9:15 PM PDT. Anyone care to confirm this. Joel

6 5

Internet Through Radio
by Jerome Tan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone know how to Internet through radio using packet modems? By next year, our telephone company will be implementing metered phones, this will be unfair to modem users since they do that to prevent people from talking to the phone for long hours.

2 1

The risks of information warfare
by Clay Olbon II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I would like to put forth the assertion that "society", of late, has become exceptionally poor at judging relative risk. I think this is due in large part to the sensationalism of the media (although this is not an entirely new phenomena - "remember the Maine"). I will cite a few examples: 1. Radon causes 25% of all lung cancer. Of course every study but one shows no link between radon and lung cancer. Still, Americans spend billions testing and reducing the "threat". 2. Second hand smoke kills. Probably, but the only statistical link was found by picking and choosing which studies to use. And the freedoms of millions of Americans are dramatically restricted based on this premise. 3. Terrorism is a big threat to the "national security". Of course more people are killed in the bathtub than by terrorists, but that is beside the point. My reason for bringing these up is that I think much of the "information warfare" 5th horseman is overblown hype - in the same category as 1-3 above. Of course, many security professionals will disagree, because it is in their best interests to do so - their level of funding depends on it. Sure, there have been break-ins and some loss of $$ (of course that is what insurance companies are for). I have seen nothing, to date, that would justify massive increases in government power over the private sector; this of course, has never stopped them before. The desire to "do something" appears to infect every politician, fortunately our system has checks and balances to limit the ability for them to "do something" - because more often than not it is the wrong "something"! Unfortunately, these checks and balances have been seriously eroded over the past 60 or so years. It is now much more necessary to actively oppose such idiocy as the FDA regulating tobacco or the govt imposing "policy" over the entire information infrastructure. It is hard to "buck the tide", but those of us who are skeptical of government "solutions" to "problems" that may or may not exist must actively oppose them. Clay *************************************************************************** Clay Olbon II * Clay.Olbon(a)dynetics.com Systems Engineer * PGP262 public key on web page Dynetics, Inc. * http://www.msen.com/~olbon/olbon.html ***************************************************************** TANSTAAFL

2 1

Re: US versions of Netscape now available
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <199607190709.IAA00119(a)server.test.net> you wrote: : Jeff Weinstein <jsw(a)netscape.com> writes: : > Adam Back wrote: : > > Presumably as this latest netscape beta is freely distributable, once : > > it's out it will be on ftp.unimi.dsi.it, ftp.ox.ac.uk, etc, etc. : > : > Just a minor nit. No netscape software is freely distributable. : > The license agreement does not allow people who download it : > to redistribute it. : Oh dear! So I am incorrect... but wait, what about people like : sunsite northern europe (Imperial College London: ftp.doc.ic.ac.uk) : who already have a license to be a Netscape mirror site. Would this : license allow them to distribute this latest 128 bit netscape beta : (were it to leak)? I would like to know what Netscape's position on the above mentioned scenario is .. (Uploading "possibly" received 128 bit binaries to official netscape mirrors outside the US, that is) (guess why ...) bEST Regards, -- -AJ-

2 1