December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: "Soft Targets" as Schelling Points
by eli+＠gs160.sp.cs.cmu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May writes: >The connection should be clear, but in case it is not: many soft targets >are Schelling points for terrorist actions. I see no coordination problem here. Schelling points are a useful concept when you have several actors, each of whom benefits from making the same choice as the others. Here, I think you want to say "soft targets are easy to attack". -- Eli Brandt eli+(a)cs.cmu.edu

1 0

CBO study of electronic payment systems now on Web
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 15:16:31 -0400 From: PHILIP WEBRE <philipw.nrd(a)cbo.gov> To: rah(a)shipwright.com Subject: CBO study of electronic payment systems now on Web The new Congressional Budget Office study on electronic payment systems (ASCII or Word Perfect Formats available) is now available at: gopher://gopher.cbo.gov:7100/1 The Executive Summary Follows: July 1996 EMERGING ELECTRONIC METHODS FOR MAKING RETAIL PAYMENTS Financial intermediaries such as banks and credit card companies are developing products that will enable consumers and businesses to pay for retail, or small-dollar, purchases electronically. Increasingly cheaper computing power and advances in data communications technology have made those new payment methods possible. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study Emerging Electronic Methods for Making Retail Payments examines the effect the new forms of payment will have on the market for retail payments and the issues they will raise for federal policy. The two primary types of payment being advanced for use in retail purchases are prepaid stored-value cards and on-line payments made with personal computers through the Internet. Stored-value cards will function much like prepaid mass transit or phone cards but could substitute for cash in small-dollar purchases. Payments proposed for use over the Internet will include both familiar and new methods. Familiar methods use existing credit cards and checking accounts that are suitably modified for secure on-line use. Breaking new ground, several companies have proposed or issued types of on-line scrip, which essentially functions like privately issued traveler's checks. This study assesses the market potential for stored-value cards and on-line payments by analyzing both the current use of cash in the economy and the specific markets commonly cited as likely candidates for such payment methods. An eventual market for stored-value cards of $20 billion yearly is not inconceivable but will develop gradually. The introduction of electronic payment methods raises a number of policy issues. Existing laws and regulations, for example, do not clearly cover some of the new methods, or cover them only under certain circumstances. Questions arise as to whether the balances of stored-value cards and on-line scrip will be covered by deposit insurance or be subject to reserve requirements, and whether consumers will be protected by current regulations that limit liability for unauthorized use of credit cards and electronic fund transfers. Even in areas that existing laws cover--such as antitrust policy and law enforcement against money laundering, fraud, and tax evasion--applying and enforcing those laws may be more difficult. Two major concerns are the effect of the new payment methods on monetary policy and the effect of having nondepository institutions issue them. Issuance by firms other than federally regulated depository institutions raises competitive issues and concerns about the safety and soundness of the financial system. Given the expected small size of the market for electronic payments, however, monetary policy and the financial system are unlikely to be seriously affected. Questions about the study should be directed to Judith Ruud or Philip Webre of CBO's Natural Resources and Commerce Division at (202) 226-2940. The Office of Intergovernmental Relations is CBO's Congressional liaison office and can be reached at 226-2600. For additional copies of the study, please call the Publications Office at 226-2809. --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "'Bart Bucks' are not legal tender." -- Punishment, 100 times on a chalkboard, for Bart Simpson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

1 0

Re: Secure drive?
by Geoffrey C. Grabow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:56 07/29/96 -0700, Alan Olsen wrote: >At 11:31 AM 7/29/96 -0400, you wrote: >>Greetings all, >> Does anyone know if the 1.4a version works correctly with Win95? If not, >>is there an updated version? If not, will there be one anytime soon? If >>not, will PGPLIB (aka PGP3.0) provide a similar function? If not... heck! > >My understanding is that is does. I need to test if the new version also >works with the Zip Drive. (It used to not, but it was supposed to get fixed...) > >I will be trying it soon and will post my results to the list... > > I assume that when you say that "it does", this means that I can access the encrypted drive from Win95. If so, can you tell me how. I have a 50mb partition that's encrypted and if I boot to DOS everything works perfectly, but from Win95, the drive is always encrypted. I've tried entering my passphrase prior to Win95 loading... no effect. If I try to enter my pp from a DOS box, it says that the SECTSR isn't loaded, but MEM says that it is. Any thoughts? G.C.G. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Geoffrey C. Grabow | Great people talk about ideas. | | Oyster Bay, New York | Average people talk about things. | | gcg(a)pb.net | Small people talk about people. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------| | PGP 2.6.2 public key available at www.pb.net/~wizard | |----------------------------------------------------------------------| | That which does not kill us, makes us stranger. - Trevor Goodchild | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

2nd CDA decision in....
by David Lesher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just heard: Us folks 2, Ralph Reed & the Thought Police, 0. -- 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: Secure drive?
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I assume that when you say that "it does", this means that I can access the >encrypted drive from Win95. If so, can you tell me how. I have a 50mb >partition that's encrypted and if I boot to DOS everything works perfectly, >but from Win95, the drive is always encrypted. I've tried entering my >passphrase prior to Win95 loading... no effect. If I try to enter my pp >from a DOS box, it says that the SECTSR isn't loaded, but MEM says that it >is. Any thoughts? Sort of. Open "Control Panel." Open "System." Click the "Performance" tab. Click the <V>irtual Memory radio button. Check/select "Let <m>e specify my own virtual memory settings." Check Di<s>able virtual memory (not recommended). Click the "OK" radio button. Ignore the warning dialog box which appears and click "Yes." Reboot WIN95 and your encrypted partition should be accessible (if you log into it under DOS before loading Windows), and all your drives will be operating at 16-bit speeds. DCF

1 0

Re: DES-Busting Screen Savers?
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:28 AM 7/24/96 -0700, Steve Reid wrote: >On the subject of choosing keys randomly, rather than dividing up the >keyspace... > >This seems like a very good idea to me. > >One potential problem is actually choosing the random keys. Have to be >able to get entropy at a fast rate, and/or use a good PRNG. I think you chose your starting place in the key space and then proceed sequentially from there. However, if it turns our that gray code increments of the key can reduce the key setup time, then you would want to use that ordering of the key space for the "next" key to try. Another possibility is to work in randomly chosen blocks of 1000 to 1,000,000 or so keys. This approach would reduce the cost of getting good random numbers to manageable levels. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

Parsing JYA; now others?
by Damaged Justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Say, Duncan - you can do John Young, but can you make any sense of this? >From: doghead(a)psyclone.com (Blowjob Jesus) Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.admin.misc Subject: Re: ! Blacklist Spammers and Rogue ISP's !!!!!!!!!! Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 01:08:56 GMT Organization: The Mighty Psyclone - Gonna Blow Yer Mind Lines: 56 Message-ID: <31f6c6d2.439333(a)news.alpha.net> References: <4t59aq$3n0(a)park.interport.net> Reply-To: doghead(a)psyclone.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 156.46.104.253 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 On Wed, 24 Jul 96 13:41:28 GMT, tonyb(remove this garbage to email me)(a)interport.net (tony brower) wrote: >Conventional response to spam is completely ineffective. Farflung was the offense, easy is the time spent drinking salad dressing. Christian Dior, well-known parking ticket, adds his pickle fork. >Nothing currently prevents the abuser from getting another account in >another name and continuing the practise. Wendigo spake in gruff pebbles, like unto a Timex! Reginald Denny left the room with scanners on full auto. >Even ISP's spam their adverts across newsgroups. Freedom, paged in 4k chunks, permeates UDP. There never was a governor. The double nickle blowed up good. >Why can't people who spam and otherwise abuse Usenet for commercial purposes >be blacklisted? Approved for your convenience, in sterile jello molds. The Lawnboy nods assent. >e.g. after first warning, no more accounts allowed from that Credit Card or >other payment source. The sun, a gaseous ball of tomato paste and model trains, is lost among clouds of thankfullness. >Why can't providers who refuse to curtail abuse from their customers also be >blacklisted and shut out from the net? >e.g. If ISP's are held responsible for abuse by their customers they'll >enforce nettiquette ("abide by the rules or lose your account here and >anywhere for one year"). Irresponsible ISP's will lose customers to those >ISP's who care. Hell, let them make their own net for cycling and recylcing >commercial, make money fast and sex #'s posts. OJ Simpson skirvined the net and was clarified. When failed and not sanguine, there was no response to the 'sturm und drang.' >Isn't this the fastest way to clean out all the junk that has permeated the >newsgroups posted by inconsiderate, greedy assholes (who have NOTHING to fear >by conventional response)? Response time is minimal. Lost among oceans of billiard balls made of styrofoam - tiny marmots build complicated nests of velveeta. Regroup? --

2 1

RE: A Libertine Question
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I find it funny that I'm considered Conservative by most people who know me. Your opinion may vary. ;-) tcmay(a)got.net wrote: >Who takes responsibility when people fail to save enough of their >paycheck to last them through the month? Who takes responsibility when >people drink too much, miss work, and are fired? And so on. One common thread in many of these discussions is the ease with which moral judgements are made about the situation: "fail to save", "drink too much". I know the social psychology explanation that people who view the world as ordered attach these types of judgements to situations which violate their ordered view of the world. "She was just asking for it dressed like that..." However, now I'm puzzled. From what I've read of Tim May, he does not hold such an orderly view of the world. The "rules" of existence may prove to be deterministic, but the results are chaotic. So Tim, where are these moral judgments coming from? >The issue of "who takes care of" people who can't hold their liquor, or >who overeat, or who smoke too much, does not enter into the equation. Think of how many of our laws are being enacted that tacitly make being poor or indigent a crime. Curfews being a recently discussed example. If the equation is one of economics, then "who takes care of" people does indeed enter the equation. I suggest that it is more economical to provide for a minimum quality of life- if only as a form of insurance for myself. Think: Rawls. The alternative is to have garbage collectors to "take care of" those that fall behind. Think: Soylent Green. Better twisted than bitter, as Tiny Tim Cratchet used to say. James

4 4

Re: Just some comments on what I've read here
by Ryan Russell/SYBASE 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sure, we'll just set up our own [i/I]nternet...(We need a letter between upper and lower case...) It won't be that expensive...lesse....my WAN, for about 5000 people and 15000 machines, only runs me about $400,000 US per month. That's just circuit charges, of course... doesn't include any of the networking equipment or cost of the machines....is this a troll or what? Ryan ---------- Previous Message ---------- To: cypherpunks cc: From: Scottauge @ aol.com @ smtp Date: 07/28/96 04:39:39 PM Subject: Just some comments on what I've read here 1) Seems to be some excitment about banning information on the internet here... Setting up a set of computers for a private net is not that big a deal (just some money involved and with the availability of Linux - a UNIX variant - for free make it hardware and telephone costs.) Do it for companies all over (hence the aol address - just a local phone call from anywhere!) and it works just fine. So if people want to play by different rules.. it's possible. Think of it as a members only social club. (I can make computers real hard to get into, but social engineering kicks my butt all the time.) 2) Whats wrong with America? I've been leaning towards Libertarian for some time now. Voted for Ross last time as a message I ain't happy with how things are going over there. Likely gonna vote Harry Brown - my first vote for a Libertarian. (He is seems to have it together versus the others) - but hey, gettin off the subject here.... Seems we are no longer United in these United States... A stranger is not a potential friend or ally but a potential robber, baby raper... you fill in the blank. We're all scared of each other! Something has been happening where rich are pitted against the poor, the working against the non-working, races vs other races. Is it a conspiracy as some of my friends who look for black helicopters say, or a natural reaction of politicians and "leaders" seeing a formula that works and then implementing it. To much Hard Copy and Extra reporting out there too. I don't give a rat's a*s about most of the sh*t their putting out (censorship mine for those with delicate eyes). But US culture has become very valuable and ya gotta get them foreign markets ya know. There was a time when a famil could have a picnic on the white house lawn. Then it got gated, now the street is closed. Our leaders seem to be no longer among us. But it doesn't matter. Some beuracrat (sp) gets a bug up their butt to give you trouble, your f*cked. With a seconds thought and a signature on a peice of paper ya can have your land gone or your bank account cleared or you name it. One second and on to the next thing as far as they are concerned. Can we impeach them? Can we vote for someone else next time? They're a buffer between the ones we can give trouble too. Plus Laws are so damn big these days. It takes a ream of paper (sometimes a whole 3000 page box of paper) to print these things out. You can bet the leg. not reading these things! They got advisors to read over sections and say this is good, this is bad. The real representatives and senators are out looking for campaign money. So damn, I now speculate these guys and gals are letting the advisors put the laws together - again someone not answerable (or even known) to the public. So now, you got legislators not reading the bills they are working on and there is a whole army of serfs ready to make some regulations that are in effect the same as law and ready to start looking for people to bother so they can look busy - and these serfs are not answerable to the public. Sorry, but congress is a part time job as far as I'm concerned. These laws are the result of people with nothing to do. I listen to the TV set and I hear "Oh we gotta law comin to fix this". Bullsh*t. There are plenty of other laws out there to hassle trouble makers with. They didn't nab Capone on murder, but on tax evasion. People fix stuff, not laws. Somebody is measuring their prouctivity by the amount of paper they can spew out of their office. 3) I'm a keen believer in Social Evolution A quick definition: If your a drug addict and your stupid enough to OD, you deserve to die. Another example: Your a drug dealer and ya get shot - oh well. Goes with the choice , dude. We keep protecting people from their choices. We think we are doing a favor for ourselves but I POSTULATE we are not. We keep on fightin nature and it just ain't possible. There just might be a reason for this weedin out process. But I'll admit it - I have a prejudice against stupid people - not mentally hadicapped, but stupid people. Well, thanks for reading my ranting and raving....

1 0

Re: Just some comments on what I've read here
by Scottauge＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-07-29 18:28:06 EDT, you write: > It won't be that expensive...lesse....my WAN, for about 5000 > people and 15000 machines, only runs me about $400,000 US > per month. That's just circuit charges, of course... doesn't > include any of the networking equipment or cost of the > machines....is this a troll or what? > I dunno, are you a nob? As I recall I said the expenses where going to be in the switches (or public networks). Plus I'm thinking the most basic services of telnet, ftp, smtp, and some nnp... Plug two network boards (whether ethernet or X.25 or ATM) into a UNIX computer and you have a router. You cannot tell me that hardware (minus the hardcore ATM/X.25 stuff) is not inexpensive enough to put something together. At least for a few thousand users all sophisticated enough to know how to install a UNIX or Linux system... I'm talking about a club here - not a replacement for the internet. Open up your mind, dude....

1 0