December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: ABC news on Internet Telephony
by talon57＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Since this thread has continued I would like to start my comments by making a public apology to David Sternlight for my bad manners the other day. He had done nothing to give me cause for my bad attitude. I was rude and expressed myself poorly. I apologize to him in particular and to the list in general. Brian D Williams - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAy7eA7wAAAEEAJgUoJWlE/7ntxpdfFKJC0EIx1nPmOrfBkIz3N/qyqPsqY6A WJ9jx1oNow8sMjFPET6kbMw2cScfVOUisekK7xVQWuADUPscRXg8zI3x0ws9z2KV ITL+cO7zODIA1+wZS8v14RJpG4dXF1Q9YsydU8T5bodAcsF5TnsfmVh/uI7xAAUR tChCcmlhbiBEIFdpbGxpYW1zIDx0YWxvbjU3QHdlbGwuc2YuY2EudXM+iQCVAwUQ MWkT/XsfmVh/uI7xAQEZKgP+M15YYXXdVAufR2cIkg964EoBubvUj/3liKbRpkCC hPOm9ed/CJR73+IsgIRUot1LrmT9QRQIy7p9rjYSSOK7Wsf3EuU5Vx2iklUQiuy2 zLexnjxf1VWF+RMe1/NG7TO/J7HzqYVAgWb7EiWYNua2NDPSLNmYsJx+BkhPq4jf vGA= =sIcA - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMfPYoXsfmVh/uI7xAQGmZgP/afFTovJ7HUfyyfpqnmjP07Gpx6uLSswy 5LFy1YGCQW1/PVpQvS+B+dJB/uj88s6r4OXx7F1GUQbCZfzx6lkD7Bv+EX6f4yvw 7VOBRMQhnHl+H+MD+n/blaR8P1gCx3Yau2uJuT1r8f7f7GccaD+dQJtpabACyz2T Nh5wo6v/MmA= =pC7P -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Digitally signed apology ^^^^^^^ pretty neat eh! Remo Pini wrote: >--- all the following points are based on swiss circumstances, > >they may not apply to US --- A good point, my views are based/biased by being a Chicago based Ameritech (RBOC) employee. DISCLAIMER: all opinions are my own, I do not speak for Ameritech or it's alliance partners. >>point to point circuits are more efficiently handled by circuit >>switching rather than packet switching networks. Nicholas >>Negroponte wrote an interesting piece about asynchronous vs >>synchronous, I believe it is in his book "Being Digital." >Well, from a users point of view, sending packet data over a >packet mode bearer service is more efficient (and cheaper). An >interesting developement in this direction is the PMBS-A/B modes >of ISDN (packet switching to the public switch). The existance of >this service suggests its usability. I agree 100%, I expressed this poorly. I meant to say that asynchronous packet data was more efficent over a packet network, and synchronous data (like voice) was more efficient over a circuit switched network. I share your admiration of ISDN. >>ADSL is an interesting attempt at digital telephony but expensive >>and basically would mean replacing existing central office >>switches. (backbone bandwidth) >We have a well developed DQDB-MAN and ATM net around, and >bandwidth is available (and getting cheaper by the minute). >Currently, a onetime investment of around $2500 per client is >necessary to provide 5MBit/s transfer volume (via the cable TV >networks or the existing broadband networks) One of the problems with a conversion to ADSL here would be that most point to point copper has been replaced with "slick 96" muxes which use 4 framed T-1's (1.536 mbs) to provide 96 voice channels. It is difficult to run 6mbs over a 56kbs channel. ;) Of course this equipment could be replaced. (maybe just new line cards!) The good news is that it is fiber based. >>In a packet network you have to either dedicate a portion of the >>bandwidth for a synchronous circuit, or you have to have a very >>fast network and use very small packets (ATM), expensive either >>way. >Not if you have a dedicated packet switching network for >asynchronous packet transfer only. If you use it for both you >don't have to have a very fast network, you have to have a network >with predictable and constant packet delay. (that's not the same >as fast!) You are correct, actually fast is always the wrong term to use since we are always refering to a portion of the speed of light. Because of different technologies and bandwidth some devices have faster data throughput. >>A single central office has many times the bandwidth of the >>widest part of the internet, and the average state has hundreds >>of CO's. If even a small portion of the Internets current users >>tried placing a call things would grind to a halt. A huge >>increase in the number of backbones and their bandwidth would >>solve this, but who will pay the bill? >I guess Internet-telephony is one of the bandwidth killers. Yes, this is the point I was trying to express. >>Sometime ago the discussion was on the cost of laying new fiber, >>may I suggest the realworld heuristic of "a million dollars a >>mile." >There are of course a lot of alternatives: >- Existing wiring (5 MBit/s over 6 copper wires is possible) >- Usage of the cable networks >- Radio transmissions (RITL - radio in the loop) >- Satellite transmissions Yes, we should always check the alternatives, but lets face it if we have to redo the infrastructure, and redig 250 million trenches, I feel 100% fiber is the way to go. jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> writes >>Sometime ago the discussion was on the cost of laying new fiber, >>may I suggest the realworld heuristic of "a million dollars a >>mile." >In most cases, "new fiber" isn't needed, and will probably only be >rarely needed on long-distance links. As I understand it, most >cableways are laid with extra tubes, into which new fiber cables >can be blown in (using compressed air) long after the trench is >filled. The specific example I saw, there were three 2" diameter >tubes in a larger tube, and according to the contractor (I >asked...) only one of the tubes would be filled at that time. In >addition, while he wasn't sure, he thought that at least some of >the 36-fiber cable in that one tube would remain "dark," or unused >until it was later needed. >I don't know how expensive it is to add that extra fiber cable >into an existing tube, but it would be VASTLY cheaper than the >original trenching operation. Further, much of the improved >transmission technology can be used on the older fibers to >increase their capacity: A fiber now used to transmit a single >2.4 gigabit signal can be upgraded, simply using new channelized >transmitters and receivers to increase the data rate to 8 or 16 >times the previous rate. Jim, the above quote was by me not Remo Pini. I was giving a rough figure for new underground fiber, and yes when we have to install new we always lay extra tubes. The information your contractor friend gave you was very accurate. There is still a great need for new fiber, we are still installing it at a rate of a billion dollars a year. Brian Sacred cows make the best hamburgers.

1 0

Re: the VTW---FBI Connection
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com> responded to a nut case: > Anonymous writes: > > We have received information that VTW is run and supported by the FBI, > > which we have suspected for reasons listed here. > > You are out of your mind. What is more, in my case, it doesn't matter. My feelings on the subject of strong crypto are well known and almost always expressed over my .sig file (which gives my address and telephone number). In fact, I just asked to have my name added to a letter addressed to FBI Director Louis Freeh on the subject*. If they don't know where I stand, then they don't care (as seems likely). The United States of America has a very strong statement in the first amendment allowing people freedom of speech and "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." While exercise of these rights has sometimes resulted in certain sanctions (the Hollywood witch hunts and loss of security clearances come to mind), if people don't stand up for what they believe, then they diminish the very foundations of the country. Sometimes freedom is only available to the brave. (But I don't really think this is one of those times.) * See safe(a)cdt.org or http://www.crypto.com/safe for information on this letter. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Cave ab homine unius lebri | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | [Beware the man of one | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | book] - Anonymous Latin | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Global Net-Censorship Dispatches at EFF
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 16:28:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)eff.org> To: fight-censorship+(a)andrew.cmu.edu Subject: Global Net-Censorship Dispatches at EFF Since the f-c archives are still moribund, I've put the last five weeks of global net-censorship threads from fight-censorship at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Global/Dispatches/ Also check out the Singapore mess at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Global/Singapore/ (If those URLs don't work, try www2.eff.org.) -Declan // declan(a)eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan(a)well.com //

1 0

Re: Intel, Microsoft doing Internet Phone Software
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If these people REALLY wanted to promote the use of Internet telephoning, what they'd do is implement a system where an Internet ISP could be "called" over the Internet by a person wanting to place an LD telephone call to that area, and (presumably using A/D and D/A techniques) rather than generating and receiving modem tones, woudl generate and transmit the audio over the telephone line. That way, the target of the call would simply need to pick up the telephone and talk, as he would ordinarily do: He wouldn't even need a computer. He might not even know the call was going over the Internet. The main problem with using Internet telephone is the coordination required between the receiver and the sender. It would be like requiring a fax recipient to be at the machine when the call came in. Perhaps larger companies will install hardware to attach their telephone systems to the Internet, so that an incoming call will automatically ring lines as usual. However, being able to bypass this process for everyone, not just large companies, would be a vast improvment. It would allow motivated people to use the Internet for almost all of their phone calls, not just the small percentage to the few people who happened to have Internet telephone. At 09:48 PM 7/22/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > I would be curious if the standards mentioned include any cryptographic >capabilities. The PGPhone people might want to look into producing a patch for >the Intel (and later Microsoft) programs allowing encryption. (In consideration >of fair use, I am both editing it down and putting on the same ad I see (I use >lynx).) > -Allen > >> [The New York Times] > >> _ Monday July 22 6:03 PM EDT _ > >>Intel Unveils Internet Phone Application > >> SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. (Reuter) - In its quest to make the personal >> computer an indispensable tool, Intel Corp. Monday unveiled software >> that will make it easy to place long-distance phone calls over the >> Internet. > >> The Intel Internet Phone software is the first to allow users of >> different types of computers and software to link up, solving a >> problem that has held back use of the global computer network for >> long-distance telephone calls, even though it would save long-distance >> toll charges. > Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: No more stupid gun thread ...
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:24 AM 7/23/96, Ernest Hua wrote: >Ok. This thread has gone on long enough and covered just about every >point except the one which I originally made in my first response, >which is that I abhor the idea that kids should carry weapons (of any >sort) to school as standard equipment. In fact, I abhor the idea >that kids should carry weapons at school for any reason. > >Enough said. > >I do not care to discuss: > >1. Should kids have any weapons at any time? > >2. Should kids have guns (specifically guns)? > >3. Should kids know how to operate weapons of any sort? Fine, Ernest, then don't discuss these issues! I don't recall _anyone_ arguing the case for kids carrying guns to school. Several people commented on the training they received as children, the training they have given their own children, and their general views. Nothing about giving little 8-year-old Suzie an Uzi to carry to her 3rd-grade class. --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."

2 1

Re: Brute-forcing DES
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:06 AM 7/23/96, Steve Reid wrote: >> Any one up for a distributed brute force attack on single DES? My >> back-of-the-envelope calculations and guesstimates put this on the >> hairy edge of doability (the critical factor is how many machines can >> be recruited - a non-trivial cash prize would help). > >Count me in. I've got a couple of net-connected Pentiums that are mostly >idle. > >Did you consider the possibility of DES chips in your back-of-the-envelope >calculations? They are hundreds of times faster than PCs. I don't know >where to get them or how much they cost, though. I would expect they >wouldn't be too expensive. The cash might be better spent on DES chips >than on a prize. Specialized DES-cracker chips have of course been considered. Diffie and Hellman's nearly 20-year-old paper on cracking DES considered this. Wiener's calculation of a few years ago did more that this: he also architected a basic system. And the "how many bits is enough?" (sorry I don't have the official name on the tip of my tongue) panel considered such designs last year. But actually building a DES cracker entails a level of commitment very difficult to achieve in an informal, volunteer effort. Not exactly something that 10 or 20 people can work on usefully. The advantage of the cracks done last year, the French and Australian cracks, and the MIT cracks, were that the "entry costs" for joining the project were low. --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."

4 3

RE: [Noise] was Re: Giving 6 year old kids Uzi's
by Bill Olson (EDP) 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 22 July 1996, Brad Dolan wrote: > >On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, Ernest Hua wrote: > >> >> > > > Thanks, but if it is all the same to you, I'd rather live >> > > > in a country where everybody << including six year olds >> >> > > > carry, and can use Uzi's, etc, as a matter of course. >> > > >> > > Would you just hand out guns to all teenagers? >> > >> > My twelve-year-old daughter asked for and received a .22 for her >>birthday. >> > Her four and six year old siblings enjoy shooting it, under close >> > supervision. >> >> The question was not whether you might let your little girl operate >> a gun. The question was whether you might let her carry it as part >> of her standard equipment. Would you let her go to school with it >> loaded or with ammo within easy reach? I mean, what's the point of >> carrying a gun without bullets? > >My daughter often carries her gun to school, complete with large >quantities of high-velocity long-rifle cartridges. > >She's homeschooled and marksmanship is one of her extracurricular activities. > >bd > >p.s. In two years of homeschooling, she has advanced 6 grade levels on >the state-mandated achievement tests. > I don't care if it takes my son 6 years to get through 2 grade levels, anyone who allows there kid to pack a gun (or a rifle?) should get their head examined (or join the Freemen--I hear they are short a few members).

2 1

Re: Curfews again
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 21:14 7/20/96, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 6:37 PM 7/20/96, Alan Olsen wrote: > >>I bet the "National Curfew" crap that Clinton is trying to push is not going >>down well either. He seems to think that the problems of a small fraction >>of the country apply to the whole country... (But it makes for good sound >>bites.) What National Curfew? Haven't watched the news all week. Did I miss something? TIA, -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

1 0

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 15:10:04 -0400 > From: Hallam-Baker <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> > Subject: Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids > > The "laws" of social scienst are not the "laws of physics". The "laws > of physics" aren't so constant either. Theoretical results should > inform the intellect not serve as a substitute for it. The laws of social science are the consequence of the laws of physics. One of the primary, if not the primary, assumption of Physics is that natural laws are isotropic and homogeneous. If they are not then we are all in deep deep trouble (Vinge not withstanding). The relationship between the laws of social science and physics is analgous to the relationship between the base pairs in DNA and the concept of a gene. There is a distinct difference in the nature but the latter can not exist without the former. > If you apply genetic programming techniques to the system the strategy > that evolves is typically a cooperative one. The facts is that the > theory applied in an evolutionary context disproves Perry. One of the primary observations about genetic programming is that the max you get is best considered local and 'good enough', not optimal. An argument based on genetic programming must admit prima facia that there is the potential for a better answer. Jim Choate

1 0

Re: Netscape
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 13:38 7/22/96, Tom Weinstein wrote: >Yes, and that's what we're trying to do. Get strong crypto in the hands >of as many people as we can. I can hardly wait until we get S/MIME in. What will Netscape do to about the 40bit RC-2 default and the signatures on the outside of the encryption envelope design flaws in S/MIME? I can't imagine Netscape releasing software that has these two properties. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

3 6