December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

NANDO: Radikal
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've sent (using wURLd Presence) the URLs of some of the mirror sites to several search engines. -Allen > _________________________________________________________________ > The Peanut Roaster > _________________________________________________________________ > GERMANS PROBE COMPUTER FIRMS OVER ELECTRONIC PAPER > __________________________________________________________________________ > Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net > Copyright &copy 1996 Reuter Information Service > BONN (Sep 13, 1996 4:05 p.m. EDT) - Germany's Federal Prosecutor's > Office said on Friday it was investigating a number of so-called > Internet providers because they were giving computer subscribers > access to a radical left-wing electronic newspaper. > A spokesman for the office said the firms were suspected of inciting > criminal activity and advertising for a terrorist group because they > had failed to block access to the left-wing Internet page "radikal > 154." > Among other things, the electronic site provides instructions on how > to sabotage railway lines. Prosecutors consider it to be terrorist > propaganda. > On Friday, the page was still available via major Internet providers > CompuServe Inc, AOL and T-Online, the online service of > telecommunications giant Deutsche Telekom. > AOL said in a statement that it was technically impossible to block > the server where "radikal" originated, and that the page was anyway > now available via at least 30 other servers and in thousands of > electronic copies. > Authorities have been getting increasingly frustrated that radical > left- or right-wing material whose distribution is a criminal offence > in Germany can be picked up here on the Internet from computers in > foreign countries. The server where "radikal" originates is located in > the Netherlands. Chuckle... > Firms giving access to the Internet -- a network of interlinked > computers providing access to millions of electronic pages -- say they > are no more responsible for the contents than a telephone company is > for the conversations it carries. > On Thursday Germany's office for the protection of juveniles for the > first time put an Internet page -- produced in North America by > leading Nazi apologist Ernst Zuendel -- on its list of banned > publications. > But officials conceded that the move was likely to have little > practical effect, and provider T-Online said it had no intention of > blocking the page. [...] > Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net

1 0

Re: did you go to school?
by hipcrime 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

JMR, is everybody WRONG, who does not follow your line of thinking?????????????? We just disagree, nobody's WRONG here. CypherWimps need, more than anything else, to get down off their high-horses for once. CyberSpace ain't Reality . The reverse is true as well. --HTTP://www.HIPCRIME.com

1 0

Re: really undetectable crypto
by jim＠suite.suite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Your assumptions are correct. Applied Cryptography by > Schneier discusses this method, referring to it as a > "subliminal channel". Why am I not surprised. :-) > Because of the very (VERY) slow transmission times (on > the order of 1 bit/message), he notes it primarily as a > secure method of exchanging keys. > I would think you could do better than 1 bit per message. Using just hashes, I would think you could get at least 4-8 bits per message using a standard Pentium-class machine. Maybe more, I haven't actually run any tests to see how long it would take to generate innocent messages that produces hashes with specific bits in certain positions. > In his discussion, he also incorporated a bit in the > signature, thus assuring the communication is > travelling to the intended recipient unmolested. I don't see why this is necessary. If the hidden message is encrypted using a key (or key pair) known only to Alice and Bob, then Walter should not be able to fool Bob. Walter could disrupt the communications in any number of ways, but he wouldn't be able to generate innocent messages that produce hashes that contain bits that combine to form a message encrypted using a key (or key pair) known only to Alice and Bob. > However, to be "extremely sublime", your method could be > incorporated with otherwise signed messages: while the > signature appearing with your message includes an MD5 > hash, the real "stego bit" is the first bit of an RC4 hash of > the same file, as computed by an external program on the > receiver's end. > The above paragraph has given me an idea: You don't need to send hashes or digital signatures to send hidden encrypted messages. All Alice needs to send is the carefully constructed plaintext. Bob can generate the hashes himself, extract the proper bits and attempt to decrypt the hidden message. If the hidden message does not decrypt, then either the plaintext was tampered with, it was forged, or not all of the plaintext arrived. That being the case, then I think we have a very simple proof that any communications channel, even one that allows only unsigned plaintext messages, can be used to send arbitrary encrypted messages (if a bit slowly). So much for Clipper. Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

1 0

Re: 56 kbps modems
by William Ehrendreich 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Yeah... and besides that ... if your local telco has lifted your load coils then you have a much better chance! ---------- > From: Enzo Michelangeli <enzo(a)ima.com> > To: Asgaard <asgaard(a)Cor.sos.sll.se> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: 56 kbps modems > Date: Friday, September 13, 1996 10:24 AM > > On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Asgaard wrote: > > > >U.S. Robotics and Rockwell International are planning new modems with > > >speeds up to 56 kbps a second, almost double the speed of the fastest > > >rate now available. The new devices should be available by the end of > > >the year, although their top speed initially may be less than 56 kbps. > > >(Wall Street Journal 12 Sep 96 B11) > > > > People who seemed to know used to say that 'the Shannon limit' > > set an absolute upper limit around 40 kbps. Has Shannon been > > proven wrong, or what? > > Well, it all depends on the signal-to-noise ratio. Also, if the noise is > not white gaussian the situation can be even better. > > Enzo >

1 0

Re: 56 kbps modems
by norm＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:09 AM 9/13/96, Asgaard wrote: >>U.S. Robotics and Rockwell International are planning new modems with >>speeds up to 56 kbps a second, almost double the speed of the fastest >>rate now available. The new devices should be available by the end of >>the year, although their top speed initially may be less than 56 kbps. >>(Wall Street Journal 12 Sep 96 B11) > >People who seemed to know used to say that 'the Shannon limit' >set an absolute upper limit around 40 kbps. Has Shannon been >proven wrong, or what? > >Asgaard I imagine that both modems in a connection become phase locked with the underlying 8K digital carrier. Then each modem signal element is carried by just one 8 bit digital sample. That carrier moves 8 bit bytes 8000 times per second. Stopping at 56 Kb instead of 64Kb means that a 7 bit DA converter for the sending modem and a 7 bit AD converter in the receiver, plus some fancy analog filters to undo the subscriber loop effects. Going for 64Kb would require twice the signal to noise ratio on the local loops. I think that modern PBXs have a digital link to the phone company. This would mean that an ISP would not have to buy fancy modems. A modified PBX could transmit and receive bits to a computer directly. It will impact the phone compnany's ISDN service but I don't think that they can stop this.

1 0

Re: TWA 800 - Serious thread.
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:30 PM 9/9/96 -0700, Dale Thorn wrote: >If govt. protects its "sources and methods", however nefarious, to the >extent that the public is never asked to assent to these methods (even >though a few of us know about them anyway), then the public doesn't have >to become overtly cynical about what's going on. But the public *is* asked to assent to those methods - your chance to vote on them is known colloquially as "jury duty". -- Greg Broiles |"Post-rotational nystagmus was the subject of gbroiles(a)netbox.com |an in-court demonstration by the People http://www.io.com/~gbroiles |wherein Sgt Page was spun around by Sgt |Studdard." People v. Quinn 580 NYS2d 818,825.

6 6

Re: common sense (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 11:33:24 -0700 > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > Subject: Re: common sense > > HipCrime wrote: > > And rather than "dispensing drugs in clinics," why not simply > > scrap the drug laws entirely? People have a *right* to do as > > they please with their bodies. > > Let's hear it for common sense. It's the first decent posting I've > > seen to this list. > > -- HTTP://www.HIPCRIME.com > > A question for you: In the Civil Rights era (1960's mostly), we dealt > with the question of whether people had the "right" to not only choose > their neighbors, but whether they could extend that logic, so once they > move in, whether they could "enforce" the status quo by preventing other > people from moving in if those other people didn't "fit in" somehow. > > If drugs and/or other items of Vice are liberalized, there will be a > tremendous marketing opportunity created, and new stores and new > departments within existing stores will pop up everywhere offering the > newly-liberalized goods and services. So my question is, since there are > "dry" areas in the country now, where the citizens can vote to exclude > alcohol sales, for example, will drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. > fall within the purvey of citizen democracy as in the "dry" county > example, or will there be new problems with this analogy, and will any > of those new problems relate to the Civil Rights issues I mentioned > previously? > History already has examples of such incidences. Alaska, California, and other states have tried various levels of legalization. To date I believe that all such experiments have ended because of federal pressure on the uncooperative states. The Indians 'right by treaty' to operate gambling casino's is another good example of a contemporary situation. Jim Choate

1 0

Re: Internet Drivers' Licenses
by mpd＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> writes: > I'm crushed. > Seriously, what is the import of the "real identifiable > human" or the "posting under their legal names" point? It's been a bad spam day. If someone offered me a switch that would separate academicians from AOLers, I would throw it. That doesn't necessarily mean I would leave it in the "ON" position forever, or that I would consider such a thing to be the correct Cypherpunks approach to the problem. > If an AI program posts quality stuff, what's the difference? > Why the import of true "legal" names? Why not simply > develop reputation signatures? > The concept that "legal names" are some how a credential is > silly. I have a friend who has four, with matching SSN > cards. These are all good points, but today (as opposed to days when I am in a good mood, and think correct political thoughts), I would opt for the quick and dirty solution. > What your suggestion basically says is "instead of > developing our own decentralized reputations system for > filtering lets use one already in place, i.e. the state > Department of Motor Vehicles. Let's develop our own decentralized reputations system for filtering. Could we have it installed in the "sci" and "comp" hierarchies by tomorrow morning please? > Mr. Duvos' idea is, in my view, a step backwards. Mr. Duvos, like other humans with Net fatigue, is occasionally not in good humour. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

2 1

Re: [RANT] Giving Mind Control Drugs to Children
by ddfr＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> If they were teaching anything, I bet the kid _would_ sit still. >I sure would have been a lot less distracted. Or, as Adam Smith put it: "but after twelve or thirteen years of age, provided the master does his duty, force or restraint can scarce ever be necessary to carry on any part of education." and "No discipline is ever requisite to force attendance upon lectures which are really worth the attending, as is well known wherever such lectures are given." David Friedman P.S. sorry to be so late--I just came across this post.

1 0

No Subject
by zac 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0