December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Cellular phone tracing
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:49 PM 9/6/96 EDT, E. Allen Smith wrote: > From comp.risks: > >Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 22:24:13 -0400 (EDT) >From: glassman(a)sunsite.unc.edu >Subject: FedEx monitoring of cellular phonecall locations > >[...] nowhere near either of those places, so I did not bother to mention my >current location to the operator. The next day, Saturday, I called FedEx >with the same cell phone from Blowing Rock to arrange the pickup. The >operator immediately asked if I wanted them to come to the intersection that >I had placed my call from the day before. > >Two days later, a FedEx operator confirmed that they are getting "new >systems" at some locations that are able to record the locations from which >cellular calls are placed. > >I have now asked Cellular One three times to explain to me why they do not >tell subscribers that they pass this location information through the >system, but to no avail. [...] > >========== end fwd. You should DEFINITELY start worrying when the FexX operator says something like, "I see you're the guy in the red shirt and brown pants." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Junk Phone Calls, Metered Usage, and Cellphones
by Martin Janzen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) writes: >I am about to start worrying about "junk phone calls" more so than I have >been. I just bit the bullet and bought a digital cellular phone, with a >nifty rate plan called Digital Flex: I get unlimited free airtime from 7 >p.m. to 7 a.m. weekdays, and unlimited free airtime all weekend. From south >of Salinas to north of Santa Rosa and as far east as the Central Valley. In >other words, the entire Bay Area and outlying communities. I can send and >receive calls over this entire region, from anywhere in the region (of >course), without any charges. > >The downside is that calls _from_ or _to_ my phone during "business" hours >are charged 42 cents a minute, airtime (tying up a channel and all), plus >whatever other fees may be applicable at each end. Thus, every "junk call" >I get trying to get me to buy aluminum siding, or to vote Democratic, or to >switch my long-distance carrier (!), costs me a minimum of 42 cents, >depending on how fast I can realize who they are and get rid of them I have a similar plan. My cell phone company includes call forwarding in the package, so I deal with the possibility of junk calls by forwarding calls from my cell phone to my regular number (which has voicemail) during the day, then turning off the cell phone. This way, the calls are intercepted right at the switch (I assume), so no airtime is used, and no charges are incurred. Works for me... -- Martin Janzen janzen(a)idacom.hp.com

1 0

Re: Metcalf and Other Net.Fogies
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:27 AM 9/5/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >Robert Metcalfe, inventor of Ethernet and founder of 3COM, and how >publisher of "Infoworld" and sailing enthusiast, was interviewed on CNBC a >few minutes ago. He repeated his prediction of an "Internet collapse" in >1996, based on overuse, on bad pricing models, on lack of controls, and on >other concerns. Some are griping just to gripe. Metcalfe may have a valid prediction here. I have a machine that I use for work that is connected to the net via ethernet. No 28.8k bottlenecks involved. Most of the time I am lucky if I can exceed 14K bps to anything outside the local area. When I run traceroutes, the blockage is in MCI or Sprintnet land. (Except for the one to ftp.funet.fi early this week where where two of the machines somewhere in California were caught in some sort of weird DNS loop.) The bandwidth to the net has been oversold. If the government were *Really* concerned about "protecting the net", they would be on MCI and Sprint's cases, not looking for virtual terrorists. (Virtual Terrorists are to Terrorists the same way that Virtual Reality is to actual reality.) There have been days where you could not move anything at any reasonable speed from certain areas of the country. Yes, people have been predicting the end of the net (GIF/JPEG/WAV at 11!) since it was founded. In this case, I think that the person has enough network experience to be right. With the way things are now with oversold bandwidth, the DNS numbers getting close to being used up, many of the routers needing to be replaced and/or upgraded, and software that uses bandwidth like candy (phone conversations, video conferencing, huge interactive web page animations (like shockwave), real audio, and more as the marketing droids can sell you on it.), the chances of a west coast power-system style collapse does not seem that far from reality. (There are many who I know in the industry that are amazed that it has lasted this long.) On a smaller scale, those collapses happen in a small regional area, get fixed and things go on. But just like the earthquakes in California, everyone is waiting for "the Big One". (At least this one is preventable. Lets hope that the fixes can occur before the government gets involved, otherwise the net *IS* really doomed.) --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "Microsoft -- Nothing but NT promises."

2 1

Re: Court challenge to AOL junk-mail blocks
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-09-06 23:31:06 EDT, rwright(a)adnetsol.com (Ross Wright) writes: << Everyone on this list seems to want to limit government intervention EXCEPT when it comes to spam, then every one just holds the door open wide and let them in. If they get that inch, they WILL take the whole 9 YARDS!!!!!! Get a clue, delete or killfile those who spam and keep the government out of cyberspace!!!!!! >> Tell me about it. Im on AOL. WHO CARESSSSSSS if ya get one MAYBE two pieces of mail you take LESS than a second to delete them both with the handy delete key. These people are wasting more time complaining about it than they will ever do actually deleting it.

5 4

Re: What the NSA is patenting
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:50 AM 9/7/96, Jean-Francois Avon wrote: >A maybe usefull program would be a little tsr that constantly >overwrite unused sectors of the entire drive with random patterns >(maybe seeded with a fast keyboard interval timer). Like at the very >moment I am writing this, my HD has been idle for several minutes... > The NSA STM method is related to reading _very subtle_ variations in magnetic domain modifications. Jitter in read-write head positions can be thought of as a noise (N) added to some signal (S)l. Extraction of signals in low S/N ration environments is a well-developed science. Not to start another round of "thermite bomb" posts, but I would not trust n-pass erasures. Of course, this is about the least of my concerns. If the Feds are planning to use STM probes on your seized drives, you've got more serious problems. (The oft-discussed possibility of more secure dongles, or secret decoder rings. is still off in the future. Most of us just enter our various passwords, and our local disk drives reveal all.) --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Court challenge to AOL junk-mail blocks
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Or About: 6 Sep 96 at 23:16, Damaged Justice wrote: > > This is utter horseshit. AOL, like any private individual or organization, > has the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason, or > even for no reason at all. Sure. I agree with that, no shoes no shirt, if you are on AOL you accept "internet-lite". > The gubmint isn't doing SQUAT, except forcing > AOL to allow the spammers access. Right now. Yet it has been apparent to me that many people are begging for restrictions to be put in place. Restrictions on spammers. The government saying anything about regulation of the internet is bad... Yet people still scream about a couple of unwanted e-mails. I'm saying that this spammer thing could be the "kink in our armour" that lets the government into our little playground here. Just suck it up and delete those messages. Jog it off. Ross =========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

2 1

USF_avv MS's Martha Stewart
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For MSerfs and groupies: A NYC local rag has a salacious article, "Microsoft's own Martha Stewart," on Michael Goff, the newly appointed editor of Cityscape, MS's upcoming urban-slurp-fuck-and-vomit vanity. Excerpts: The key to why Bill Gates hired Mr. Goff may lie in the fact that Mr. Goff is a marketing maniac, a self-confessed "media whore." "He became more of an egotistical asshole overnight than anyone I'd ever seen when the magazine [Out] came out," said one prominent gay journalist and acquaintance. Mr. Goff is indeed a family man, of sorts: He confirmed that he is considering donating his services to two lesbian friends who want to raise their own child. He bristled at being pigeonholed for being gay, rather than being recognized for his creativity. "It has nothing to do with me being gay or not," he said. "I've always been focused on doing mass consumer media." Besides, he added, "They're not paying me like that. I don't have a jet or anything." ----- http://jya.com/usfavv.txt USF_avv

1 0

Re: Race Bit: C
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:49 PM 9/6/96 +0000, jonathon wrote: >On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, jim bell wrote: >> used to test out hypotheticals, for example a "SimEconomy." For example, > > They are very hard to program, and the ones that do exist are > based on the usually flawed assumptions that the designers make. > EG: taxation is a requirement for government stability A few months ago, somebody posted onto CP a phony story, which claimed that "somebody" had developed an artificially-intelligent program which would take the place of the judge and (?) jury in the (so-called) justice system. It was an obvious phony, but I thought it was even more obvious, even if we assumed the existence of a program which is smart enough to interpret evidence and laws. The problem is, the "legal system" is practically saturated with unwritten biases which favor the rich over the poor, the strong over the weak, and the government over everybody else. Any program which read the Constituion and the laws wouldn't see those biases, and would start writing decisions...respecting the Constitution! It would presumably view the violation of someone's Constitutional rights as a criminal act, and it would be hard for the cops to stay out of jail. The standard for conviction, "beyond a reasonable doubt," when religiously adhered-to would make convictions difficult to obtain. The program would look for Constitutional justification for anti-drug laws, and finding none, would ignore such violations but would convict anyone trying to enforce them. Likewise, it would read the second amendment (and the lack of authority for regulating guns in the rest of the Constitution) and conclude that guns were un-regulatable. The program would see that nothing in the Constitution requires people to testify for the prosecution. The program wouldn't see any justification for the judge-written concept of judicial civil immunity, or government-employee immunity in most cases. The program would notice that double-jeopardy is prohibited, and would prohibit any retrials in which there are "hung juries" or government errors. In other words, the government would actually have to start OBEYING THE CONSTITUTION! Ask most lawyers, and they'll say, 'No, that's not the way we do things.' In a sense, they're right! That's NOT the way they do things. And that's the problem! This would be considered unacceptable; the program would be declared "broken" and "useless." Sure, it could be fixed, but they'd have to qualify and quantify all of the biases currently present in the system, and write them into the program in the form of subroutines. The problem is, nobody who actually supports these biases would want to acknowledge what they are and why they're there, and nobody who opposes these biases would agree to keep them. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: What the NSA is patenting
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>(Used to be they just kept stuff secret; now they patent some of it.) > >United States Patent Patent Number: 5264794 > Date of Patent: 23 Nov 1993 > >Method of measuring magnetic fields on magnetically recorded media using a >scanning tunneling microscope and magnetic probe > >Inventor(s): Burke, Edward R., Silver Spring, MD, United States > Mayergoyz, Isaak D., Rockville, MD, United States > Adly, Amr A., Hyattsville, MD, United States > Gomez, Romel D., Beltsville, MD, United States >Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Director, > National Security Agency, Washington, DC, United > States (U.S. government) That isn't NSA research, it was merely sponsored by the NSA. Those are all university people who have published their work on MFSTM in journals, papers, and theses (I used some of it in my paper at the Usenix Security Symposium, and two of the images in my talk were provided by one of Mel Gomez' students). What the NSA is doing in this area is still classified (although I suspect the techology isn't much different from what's publicly available), in this case all they were doing was protecting their investment (just like the various PKC patents originally assigned to universities). Peter.

2 1

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by mccoy＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

wb8foz(a)nrk.com writes: > > So switch to Fedex. The P.O. gives lousy service anyway. Privitize. > > > > Try & mail an anonymous FedEx package. Just lie on the sender label, isn't that obvious? I know people who actually use "codeword" sender labels, in case FedEx or federales ask about a package they can tell by the sender mentioned which to disavow :) > Try and pay cash in most Fedex offices. I always do and as long as I have exact change I have never been hassled. jim

2 1