December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: National Socio-Economic Security Need for Encryption Technology
by Bart Croughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy Sandfort wrote: >On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, Bart Croughs wrote: >> You claim that I must show that foreign capital investment >> will not flow back to US workers. But in my original post, I >>said: > >> "Of course there are advantages also for the US (shareholders >> will get higher returns, trade will increase), but how can you >> proof that these advantages will offset the disadvantage of the >> lowered amount of capital in the US? " > >> You haven't answered this question yet. I don't claim that the >> U.S. is worse off when US capital moves abroad. I only ask: how >> can you proof that the US isn't worse off when US capital moves >> abroad? >The movement of capital from the US was an *assumption* in Bart's >argument. He has done nothing to show that it would in fact >happen. When he proves that, they it would be reasonable to >expect me to offer proof that foreign capital will flow to the US. So you are saying that no American capital is invested overseas? That would be a remarkable claim. But maybe you mean that I assume that there is a *net* movement of capital from the US to other countries. That is, you think that I assume that more US capital is invested in foreign countries, than there is capital invested from foreign countries in the US. But I don't assume this. I just assume that *some* American capital is invested overseas. That's enough for my question to be relevant. And even if there is absolutely no American capital invested abroad, there is still the question for other countries: if investors in country A decide to invest their capital abroad, how can you proof that this wouldn't have a negative impact on the standard of living of the workers in country A? >While I'm sure per capita capital investment is a *factor* in >determining how high wages are, it certainly is not the only >factor. It appears that Bart has fixated on this one to the >exclusion of other (probably more important) factors. For my argument to work, it really doesn't matter *how* important the amount of capital invested is in determining wages. My argument works the moment that you agree that, other things being equal, the higher the amount of capital invested in a country, the higher the wages will be in that country. Bart Croughs

1 0

Re: National Socio-Economic Security Need for Encryption Technology
by Bart Croughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy Sandfort wrote: >On a personal note: Bart the people on this list are highly intelligent <snip> Don't waste your reputation capital being a jerk. S a n d y< I agree that there are intelligent people on this list, but those who constantly have to take refuge in name-calling are obviously not among them. So I have an even better idea to protect my reputation capital: I won't answer your posts any longer. People could start thinking I have nothing better to do with my time. Bart Croughs

1 0

Re: Lunch with Bill, anyone?
by Charley Sparks 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I would rather bee with Bella Abzug ( probably spelled wrong ) At 05:31 AM 8/16/96 -0700,John C. Randolph wrote: >Meeting Bill Gates would be every bit as exciting as meeting Tony >Orlando. Or maybe Wayne Newton. I don't mind the sarcasm regarding Gates, but watch what you say about Wayne Newton!

1 0

Announcement: Mac-Crypto Conference Sept 5-6, 1996
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Membership of the Mac-Crypto List invites you to The First-Ever- Last-Minute- Under-the-Radar- Ask-Forgiveness-but-Not-Permission Macintosh Cryptography and Internet Commerce Software Development Workshop September 5 & 6, 1996 Apple R&D Campus, Cupertino, CA, USA This is a free workshop, but we'd *really* like it if you register (see below). SOME INVITED SPEAKERS Martin Minow Tim Dierks Marshall Clow Kay Guyer Will Price John Callas Quinn Sari Harrison Vinnie Moscaritolo Bob Hettinga Lucky Green Kee Nethery ...and the inevitable mystery speakers... (If you find your name on this list, and we haven't gotten ahold of you, you're invited to speak ;-).) (Also, if you're not on this list and you should be, you're invited to speak too!) WORKSHOP TOPICS: Introductions and overviews: Introduction to crypto technology, what is it who are the players. Introduction to electronic commerce and finacial cryptography How to use electronic commerce technology today Opportunities for the Mac Tech stuff: How to write internet software on the Mac Random number / password generation on the Mac (the key to strong crypto) Password management and the Mac Intenet Config - the next generation, working group Secure networking Open Sessions: We scheduled lots of time for developer demos and open discussions. ...and plenty of time for developers to network with Apple. We have also left time open for last-minute speakers. If you would like to present a paper or give a talk, please contact Vinnie Moscaritolo at <mailto:vinnie@apple.com>. For more details and registration: <http://webstuff.apple.com/~opentpt/crypto.html> The workshop is free. Please register now, though. Local Hotels: Cupertino Inn, 800-222-4828 Pretty much Across the Street. Cupertino Courtyard by Marriot, 800-321-2211 5 Minute Drive Inn at Saratoga 408-867-5020 About 3 Miles See you in Cupertino on September 5th and 6th! Vinnie Moscaritolo Apple Developer Tech Support http://www.vmeng.com/vinnie/ Fingerprint: 4FA3298150E404F2782501876EA2146A ----------------- 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

Unix passwd-cracker online?
by Carlos L. Mariscal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear C'punks: (this is not Sandy, jeje) Just got to know from a very close friend of mine, and Unix administrator at very famous university in Mexico, that more than one person has obtained a specific password by entering the desired adresses'passord on a submnit form in a Web page. As far as my knowledges on Unix and experience obtained from a couple of hackers (the 'ethic' kind, if they can be called so), this would imply pretty much of a piece of technical work, and probably, the presence of human support to get such a system working. Actually, i dont have the adress, and it sems to me that we'll never have it if there really is such, but this came to my mind when i read the posts on the plate-numbers-in-Oregon polemica. I would appreciate any kind of opinions on this specific topic, not the ones saying> Well, if there's ftp acces to /etc/passwd, and this is not shadowed, bla, bla, bla. I mean real opinions... __ || ==== 'If you can dream of it | |__ then you can manage it' | |-.\ |__| \\ clopez(a)nayar.uan.mx || || ======__| ________||__ /____________\ Carlos L. Mariscal

3 2

$10K offer if you can break the code
by Scottauge＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

MMMmmmm.... Money! > Big Brother is reading your e-mail. The POUCH will protect you. > Win $10,000 in our break the code contest. No purchase necessary. > Free software. See web page http://www.flagler.com/security.html >

3 2

Triple DES Encryption Now Available For Telephone Privacy Protection
by Eric Blossom 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Communication Security Corporation For More Information: Eric Blossom (707) 577-0409 Press Contact: Terri Thatcher (408) 265-7703 Triple DES Encryption Now Available For Telephone Privacy Protection Santa Rosa, Calif., August 16, 1996, -- The Communication Security Corporation today announced availability of the CS8191. The first telephone security device built using uncompromised cryptography, based on 168--bit key triple DES. Triple DES encryption technology provides an uncompromised level of security (72 quadrillion times stronger against a brute force attack) than products based on the US Data Encryption Standard (single DES). In addition, unlike the government's "Clipper" proposal, the CS8191 does not reveal or "escrow" the encryption keys with third parties. The CS8191 has been designed to work with conventional analog telephone systems (POTS). The unit connects between your telephone and the wall. In 'clear' mode, your telephone continues to work as it normally does. Pressing the 'go secure' button encrypts conversations. Communication Security has also incorporated a leading-edge speech coder. Voice clarity is undisturbed whether the system is in 'secure' or 'clear' mode. With many of today's standard technologies, anyone can gain access to our most private of conversations. The Communication Security Corporation dedicates their resources to addressing the increasing need for private, secure voice communication devices. The introduction of the CS8191 paves the way for research and development for additional communication security devices for cell phones, modems, fax machines and computers. For more information on the CS8191, please contact the Communication Security Corporation, 1275 Fourth St. Suite 194, Santa Rosa, CA 95404, Tel: (707) 577-0409 Fax: (707) 577-0413, info(a)comsec.com. ###

1 0

Re: c|net reports UK partial usenet ban
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A more precise URL is http://www.cnet.com/Content/News/Files/0,16,2181,00.html. There's a link to a copy of the original letter. It looks like the UK police are coming down with delusions of grandeur; they want to eliminate the newsgroups in question from the Internet/Usenet period, not just block them from the UK. People may want to look out for cancel messages for these groups coming from the UK, for instance, and ignore the lot of them. -Allen From: IN%"m5(a)vail.tivoli.com" "Mike McNally" 16-AUG-1996 20:07:15.62 To: IN%"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" CC: Subj: c|net reports UK partial usenet ban UK Metropolitan Police Service bans smutty newsgroups. See it all at <http://www.cnet.com>. ______c_________________________________________________________________ Mike M Nally * Tiv^H^H^H IBM * Austin TX * For the time being, m5(a)tivoli.com * m101(a)io.com * <URL:http://www.io.com/~m101> * three heads and eight arms.

1 0

Re: FCC_ups
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:31 AM 8/17/96 +0000, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote: >> 8-10-96. WaPo: >> "Phone Service Via the Internet May Slash Rates." [deleted] >This kind of report is often confusing and more often misleading. >Most of the internet still runs on "the infrastructure provided by >the giants of the telecommunications industry, who according to the report >would cease to exist after some time". > >Bigbells and Babybells provide cheap [flat rate local calls] and >expensive long-distance calls. They make most of their money on the >later. This money goes into development and maintainance of their >infrastructure. Once they loose these profits 1. They won't be able >to provide cheap local-calls and/or 2. They would go bankrupt and shut the >entire network which is used by many to connect to the internet. > >This is complex problem and the only solution I see to it is a >different pricing policy. [Prolly a differential pricing system might fit >the scenario but I don't have much idea about that] > >First flat rates would have to go out. >If Alice uses her phone for 5 hrs in month and pay _x_ dollars and Bob uses >his for 100 hrs and pays _x_ dollars, then Alice is subsidising Bob, which >is not really ethical. Everyone should pay for the amount of bandwith >one is using. I'm afraid you're promoting what I consider a rather old (and, now, odd) way to look at it. Unlike old mechanical telephone switches, the new hardware does not "wear out" and thus a person who uses it more doesn't cost the phoneco any more bucks. If that's the case, I don't see the logic in charging a person more for greater use. The only remaining argument for charging for use is that if everybody were to start using the telephone 3 hours per day, it is possible the switches would have to be upgraded to allow more simultaneous connects. However, this is unlikely to happen, and as I understand it electronic switches have plenty of capacity for current needs and substantially more. There's a good reason that Internet-connect traffic won't substantially impact telephone network limits: My impression from my local ISP is that peak times for him are between 9pm and 11 pm. This is a time which relatively small numbers of voice calls are made, certainly compared with the peak times during the day for business calling. Because telephone networks are designed to meet peak usage needs, there is plenty of unused capacity at other times. This is connect capacity that would otherwise be "wasted." In other words, telephone switch capacity is starting to be more efficiently used, looked at on a 24-hour basis. This costs the phoneco not a penny more, so they have no reason to charge more for it. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Protecting floating datahavens?
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:36 AM 8/16/96 -0700, William Knowles <erehwon(a)c2.org> wrote: >Now this is a completely doable concept, and likely more realistic >than the Oceania project, Oceania was perfectly doable, if you're cynical about its objectives :-) It did great T-Shirts, got people to pay for newsletters, and even got enough donations to get an architect to build a cool model while keeping its head promoters in the Floating-Country-Promotion business. One of the things that inspired people to believe in them is that there's a floating hotel that used to hang out in the South Pacific, though it may be in the Caribbean by now, which cost something like $20M for a 200-room hotel. The Oceania folks designed a billion-dollar exravaganza that would be far more affordable per resident, but it's a much bigger, and unrealistic, risk. The basic risks with such things are: 1) Getting governments to agree to leave you alone. If you're doing a high-visibility call-yourself-a-country approach, and your country doesn't include Real Above-Sea-Level Dirt, you're really gambling on whether the UN and big countries will recognize you. If you're just calling yourself a big houseboat, and don't upset the US Drug-Confiscation Pirates too much, you don't need to care as much about this one. 2) Getting governments and other pirates to actually leave you alone. The Republic of Minerva, back in the 70s, had real dirt (or at least coral reefs, and met the UN 1-foot-above-high-tide standards) near Fiji, but the Kingdom of Tonga invaded them after about six months. Calling yourself a country is one way to attract adverse attention, but also has some protection. Allowing people to use politically incorrect substances is another, and if you're allowing politically incorrect data, you're inviting governments to plant child-terrorist narco-pornography to justify "police actions" against you. 3) Making it work financially, for the proprietors and tenants/co-owners. Free-market enthusiasts generally assume this is doable, if the upfront/interest costs of the place aren't really prohibitive. 4) Convincing investors that you're safe enough on 1) and 2) that they're willing to risk the money to build/buy a country and hope it stays independent long enough to make a profit. With Oceania, it would have made much more sense to raise $25M, which is doable, to buy the floating hotel and declare independence. (Either one really rich guy, or a hundred yuppies of the type that buy quarter-million-dollar condos in Maui will do.) Raising a billion dollars against that risk isn't. Raising a million for an oil rig, if they're that cheap, is also doable, though the politics for something anchored are different from a ship. There's also a Laissez-Faire City project, which proposes to lease a 10-mile-square chunk of land to rent from any cooperative third-world government for 50 years or so with a deal of local autonomy. It's much less threatening to the Old World Order than calling yourself a country, and you've got a government which is making money by leaving you alone that at least discourages the most likely invaders (itself, and the US) without having to provide much national defense. Who knows, maybe they'll actually do something, and rent a chunk of Costa Rica or Somaliland or whatever. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Reassign Authority!

2 1