December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Burden of proof
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:53 AM 8/15/96, Alan Horowitz wrote: >In the USA, we have a system that ensures that the burden of proof is on >the accuser. Which explains why in the U.S. the tax authorities take the money first and then require the citizen to be the "accuser" in Tax Court, pleading to get his seized assets back. (To outsiders, the U.S. tax authorities have broad powers to seize properties without any court process, to attach wages, to deputize employers and banks as unpaid tax collectors, and to harass citizens. Citizen-units may sue, of course, but the burden of proof is on them to prove that they are owed a refund. A man who saves money and puts it in his mattress can have it seized and taken from him. He must produce proof that it is his money, never mind that he already paid taxes on it and never mind that there is no way someone who saves currency can have a proper paper trail. So much for "burdens of proof.") --Tim May HOW TO MAKE A PIPE BOMB: "Buy a section of metal water pipe 1/2 by 6 inches long, threaded on both ends. Buy two metal caps to fit. These are standard items in hardware stores. Drill a 1/16th hole in the center of the pipe. This is easy with a good drill bit. Hanson is a good brand to use. Screw a metal cap tightly on one end. Fill the pipe to within 1/2 inch of the top with black powder. Do not pack the powder. Don't even tap the bottom of the pipe to make it settle. You want the powder loose. For maximum explosive effect, you need dry, fine powder sitting loose in a very rigid container." (more information at http://sdcc13.ucsd.edu/~m1lopez/pipe.html, or by using search engines)

5 4

Re: [off-topic] Locating cell phones with power off?
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: 2.6.3 hQEMAy1onm9OaF05AQf9HrOT3gvf+p/v9oNWcClCrgNPxHqR3Ro+Ai3OdYJOgmPK neIs5I7bQ0g4vfdN/T1daZRXMhmwIBD0JUZeZqjNGYHczBT5poxQSgrruHx3dHa6 hvZDRkH4YV2nynRWpQ3tGcsMPiEU2yHIfG8ts8XGF4AoikCPSAy4rJaZl856V5KM 1K5lLZA+kL5meAGaN4o0HxTnNU3KxPctKd1UJUruZvDSBx03rYYGGLIlI6i0JCA8 3lCPcIGFhEehV8UWy9xdoinM5oF23hB80gIEtrV//dpXk9aKE6OfKs0d6lTO1Gq/ EDIxgKnwOvX+zGd6UjubvomfH1Z+GOVtQi7oFHlvaqYAAAGQj8eyiz0s8Sgq3c7a eIxcUZ5TwMgFnfCFTuJrXZ5K4/pVdPAMvDZzGXI6J/1Fry89NQ3zup34RbR2HxTz E64QgkF+mzrWu18SaVgggHAwxhpje56ahbolX4E72l/LN3y/FiDhiBL33jxcBwuD DztcLr/4wbE3Van+luAvYBKJ7tueEiv0JGcl0jHFo3DOAyC+11qeouSir36SlBKs Aj3oBhYwaC9op/RAZlzXyq3wqnnrqHKG7MGOrIRjJdId2i8QTGVtATKDQwn9eZ+U AQftEaIEyzxo/IKeCiLjFFTeGFYDg9F7vwJbYNA14T5RBqmom6XsHvRVpfiHmhxn YnD0ULKGl2VNX+E/v2uacpjIWglULaWARO4pjbPHl8YNryGbYfTt3LOYCZVtfwM2 li8ZJjuaJuoXultzBIkAsDes0JTIW929gsWPjnTsMn9yPb0fy1Ia1W3czF0v/Fwx MpYbUalRKqi7Tg1WlkBDra4AEW60oUBpHbQaccSZ5xDrCu/HzlPAaeloQAwdLFF+ MDX2vg== =jH3M -----END PGP MESSAGE----- -- 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: photographed license plates
by Erle Greer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:51 PM 8/10/96 -0400, you wrote: >In the UK they now use cameras to deter speeding; the cameras are >triggered by vehicles passing by which exceed the speed-limit, so in >theory it's only naughty people who get photographed. Interestingly >enough, there are far more places with camera warning signs than there >are actual cameras; the actual cameras are moved around at random. Even >though most of the time there isn't a camera there, almost everbody >seemed to slow down in the marked areas; probably because there's almost >100% chance of being caught if there is a camera there. I speed a lot, but I wouldn't mind seeing an automated system !!! AS LONG AS TAXES THAT PAY SPEED COPS' SALARIES GO DOWN !!! This system would free up the police force's time so greatly that they would have time to make our neigborhoods safe. hehe Vagab0nd<br> <a href="http://ww2.sd.cybernex.net/~vagab0nd/index.html">Visit web page for public key.</a>

1 0

forget photographing license plates!
by The Prisoner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

from comp.risks: Date: Tue, 13 Aug 96 15:52:22 PDT From: Greg Dolkas <greg(a)core.rose.hp.com> Subject: RISKy cars coming! "In the 22 Jul 1996 issue of Fortune was an interesting look into the future of automobile electronics, "Soon Your Dashboard Will Do Everything (Except Steer)". " >>> Does that include reporting your movements to the Central Bureau? "The topic of steering has already been discussed in this forum, but what caught my eye was a review of the "OnStar" product from GM. Besides being a navigation aid, it also contains "some anti-bonehead features". " >>> Thank God people keep trying to save me from myself. "These include the ability for you to call GM's "control center" for help if you lock your keys in the car, or forget where you parked it. >From the control center, they can "electronically reach into the car" to unlock the doors, or honk the horn and flash its lights." >>> It is extremely comforting to me -- I don't know about you -- to think that GM will maintain a control center able to communicate with my auto electronics. Shit, why not TRW?

1 0

Re: Stealth Buildings Was Re: "X-Ray Gun" for imperceptible searches
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:08 PM 8/13/96 -0400, Alan Horowitz wrote: >> If foil or metal mesh would block it, then many recently built houses >> would be already set. Usually that 1/2 - 1 inch styrofoam used >> on almost all exterior walls has a reflective layer of foil to help >> keep the heat/cold out. >Take a course in Tempest practices. Casual residential practice >implemented by construction workers do not a vault make. The context of the discussion wasn't TEMPEST (as you say, it's not enough for that), but new high-frequency hand-held radar imaging, which ostensibly uses radio emissions from human skin or some technique to create images. Foil-backed insulation ought to do a good job stopping that, as well as making infared snooping less useful. Now, the police _claim_ that the product that lets you see the shape of objects under people's clothes has the resolution to find guns and knives and non-naughty-bits of human flesh, but not enough to let those dirty-minded privacy-invaders leer at their victims. Uh huh. At least they probably don't come with printers or data links, so they'll just have to leer at the screen and not save and distribute copies.... Somebody ought to complain to Phyllis Schlafly about this! [less serious material follows:] [Not only will you need the tinfoil lining to your hat, you'll have to get some metallic-lined underwear to avoid being entrapped into aiding and abetting police pornographers. Maybe Erik's gold-lame' suggestion will catch on, at least here in San Francisco....] # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Defuse Authority!

3 2

Re: Fun with M$
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:07 AM 8/12/96 -0400, Dan Siemon wrote: >> > Exploder is an Active X control which demonstrates security problems with >> > Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Exploder performs a clean shutdown of >> > Win95 and will turn off the power on machines that have a power >> > conservation BIOS (green machines). > >I don't see how anyone can call this a bug. If somebody can write a web page that, when you view it, turns off your PC, the only way I can see calling it a positive feature is to say "it's easy to make people stop using really insecure products like MSIE!" or "Turning off Win95 is a Kind Thing to do!" >Microsoft has chosen what Sun should have: leave the security to the user, >don't take it away from everyone. Java has been severely crippled by the User? What user? The poor unsuspecting fool who hits the web page? The kind friendly person who writes web pages that turn off Win95? Executing signed code from web pages is semi-ok, if the default is to trust no one and make the user explicitly grant permission to code authors. Executing anything that comes down the wire is foolish, and writing software to do so is rabidly negligent. The Java approach is to define a security model that _should_ let you safely execute code if you implement it correctly, do some academic-style analysis to validate the security model, document the level of trust you can expect from the system, and then put out a mildly buggy implementation of the system so grad students can rip it to shreds :-) So far the security problems that have been discovered have been with the implementation, not with the underlying security model. And then add a similar-looking language called Javascript with no underlying security model, make it impossible to turn off, and get taunted mercilessly until you add a "Turn it off" checkbox. The Microsoft approach was to take a hacked-up word-processor gluon, from the folks who brought you the Word Prank Virus Propagation Tool, hack it up some more, add Internet hooks, and replace a few bugs with different bugs while trying to catch up with the market leader on features. Yes, some of the removed bugs were security bugs, but it's nothing near secure, and there's no reason to expect it ever can be. (Brought to you by the folks who added features to Winsock so that their PowerPoint disk-hogging-and-slideshow system chokes to death if you install standards-based networking software, even if you don't use the network features....) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Defuse Authority!

1 0

Re: Stealth Buildings Was Re: "X-Ray Gun" for imperceptible searches
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:51 PM 8/14/96 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: >[less serious material follows:] >[Not only will you need the tinfoil lining to your hat, you'll have >to get some metallic-lined underwear to avoid being entrapped into >aiding and abetting police pornographers. Maybe Erik's gold-lame' suggestion >will catch on, at least here in San Francisco....] Maybe chainmail will come back in style. (Why does the SNL skit of Dan Ackeroid trying to get through the metal detector covered in chains and metal fetish gear come to mind...) --- 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

Jurisdictionless Distributed Data Havens
by Kevin Stephenson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

With all of the debate on offshore data havens, I've been thinking of a way to implement a distributed data haven that would not be subject to (hopefully) any local jurisdiction and therefore, would not need to be located in the place of cypherpunks wet dreams ;). If this idea has been mentioned by someone else, I am not aware of it. By distributing the data over several servers (using RAID like striping), compromise of a single or multiple servers (depending on implementation specifics) would not cause a collapse of the data haven. Here is a way such a data haven could be setup: The data is split into multiple parts. Each site is responsible for maintaining only its part. For a client to access a piece of data, he will have to contact a certain number of sites to reconstruct the data. The client could also use some sort of anonymizer service to do the data collection and then do then combining on his local machine. If one site gets shut down by Big Brother, denial of service attack, etc., the other sites either find a new site to replicate the missing part to, or they need to reconstruct the data and re-stripe it for the remaining servers. (Read any networking book with a section on RAID to see what all this means.) Another idea is that the data can be encrypted, and the client pays the key-holder for the key. The key holder would preferably be the content provider and not one of the servers. i.e.: Client finds Bombs R Us and wants to buy pipe bomb instructions. Bombs R Us gets anonymous payment from client for the instructions. Bombs R Us says to client: "collect" page 5 "parts" and use this key to decrypt. In this scheme, using anonymous digital cash, Bombs R Us can remain anonymous with his data publicly available but encrypted. He can pay each of the server maintainers in anonymous digital cash as his expense. Each server cannot (or should not) be held responsible for disseminating bomb making instructions because each server does not *have* the instructions in a complete form (encrypted or otherwise). It would be like someone calling the cops and saying, I placed a box with XXXXX in it at the airport. This in itself is not a threat. XXXXX could be anything, including OJ Simpson's bloody clothes. And if another guy called in and said "pipe bomb" and hung up, this is meaningless also. The reason data striping is better than a simple mirroring network is that no single site contains anything useful in itself for the authorities to use against the server maintainer. (Similar to a remailer network perhaps) An extra feature could be if some major attack was initiated against the data haven, there could be a dead-man button of some sort to make the data vanish altogether by sending distress signals to the other servers (or to at least one server, which could then cascade the signal). The system could either use RAID Level 5 data striping, or some hybrid scheme like this: Site 1 has bits 1 and 5 of data Site 2 has bits 2 and 6 of data Site 3 has bits 3 and 7 of data Site 4 has bits 4 and 8 of data Site 5 has 2 parity bits (1 parity bit per nibble) Site 6 has bits 1, 2, 3, and 4 Site 7 has bits 5, 6, 7, and 8 etc. In this particular scheme, it would take the downing of at least 3 of the 7 servers to prevent data collection. It would also take at least 2 sites worth of data to reconstruct the data into a usable form. As much or as little redundancy as needed can be built into the system. The only time the data is in it's whole is prior to being stripped across the servers, during data recreation and re-striping, and when in the hands of the client. Benefits: * No single site contains any incriminating evidence * Allows for a true "virtual company" to exist, with just a mail-box to receive it's anonymous digital cash payments Problems: * Requires a re-striping of data when the data source is changed * Requires a data regeneration and re-striping when a site goes down and a replacement site can not be found (could possibly use an idle standby server to circumvent this problem) Attacks: * Government sabotages site 1, then watches site 2 for data regeneration before re-striping (Can be thwarted by having data regeneration happening on a randomly picked server) Clarifications: When I say digital cash, I am not referring to Chaum's DigiCash. DigiCash will never work in my book because it requires an account, amongst other reasons. YMMV. Comments welcome. Kevin Stephenson -Silence is Security WWIIish Poster

5 5

Re: Schlafly on crypto
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:47 PM 8/14/96 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SANDY SANDFORT > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > >C'punks, > >On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Alan Olsen wrote: > >> Well, I can think of a few reasons to come to that conclusion. >> >> - Schlafly is the head of one of the more right-wing >> organizations in the country. > >Some right-wingers don't like free speech, most do. This >characterization is not enlightening on the question at hand. Actually, i have found that it does not matter which side you choose, right or left, they desire free speech for themselves and not for others. >> - She is very closly associated with the Buchanon campaign and >> the Christian coalition. > >Does Buchanan favor censorship of the Net? If so, what leads you >to believe Schlafly shares that particular view? This guilt by >(assumed) association is not fair nor persuasive. I am not certain about Buchanan, but i do know that the Christian coalition is very much in favor of net censorship. Actually, I can find no statements in either direction on the Eagle Forum web site. Do you know of any statements by Schlafly and/or the Eagle forum either for or against net censorship? I know of none for, and the circumstantial evidence available does not reinforce the conclusion that she is against it. >> - Her organization, the Eagle Forum, distributes a couple of >> anti-porn rant tracts (http://www.eagleforum.org/users/eagle/ >> public_html/misc/order.html) called _Pornography's Victims >> $4.95 (paperback) by Schlafly, ed._ > >Being against porn does not mean one is pro-censorship. (I don't >like smoking, but I don't think it should be illegal.) We need >something more concrete to support such an accusation. I have yet to see anyone who publishes anti-porn screeds based off of the Bundy case that does not support censorship of such materials. Can you point me to any? Or any material that would lend credence to the argument that she supports freedom for anyone except "Good God-Fearing Christians"? >> I know that he [Phyllis' son] is gay. His mother seems to have >> had some problems coming to terms with the implications of alot >> of her rhetoric involving such things... > >Really? I though she very clearly has stated that she hates the >sin, not the sinner. What evidence does Alan have that she has >had "some problems coming to terms..."? Lon Mabon also claims to "hate the sin and love the sinner". It does not prevent him from dredging up as much hate as possible for those who are gay. Actually my beliefs are based opon statements she made at the time. You may have more information on the subject than I do... >> (She seems to confuse her religion with reality on this point.) > >As does Alan. Without evidence to back up your claims, I cannot make any judgement than what I have made. Her associations with people who believe in censorship and her devotion to a branch of Christianity that supports censorship, as well as her sales of publications used to justify censorship makes me believe that she follows that course. Without specific examples that show that she does not believe in such measures, I have no reason to assume any other conclusion. >> I would say there are alot of reasons to assume that Schlafly >> would try and impose her morality on the rest of the country if >> given half the chance. > >Well Alan can say anything he wants, but he has given no >*substantive* reasons to support his prejudices. By her article >against Net censorship, Schlafly has given us at least one piece >of evidence to the contrary. Has she published against net censorship? The quoted article was about wiretapping. My search of her web site did not reveal any articles on that topic. If you have specific pointers I would like to see them. >> Look at the people she chooses to associate with. > >Jesus hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes. Look at the >people he chose to associate with. Guilt by association again? But Jesus did not try to get the prostitutes and tax collectors elected to high office... (But then again, there are no contemporary records for the existence of such a being in the first place.) >Look folks, in this battle, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Actually I view this as a fallacy. Just because the Christian Right opposes Clinton for good reasons, does not make them friends for causes that I view as just. >We KNOW what Clinton and his gang think of our privacy and >freedom of speech on the Net. Let's not cut off our noses to >spite our faces. If Schlarly wants to lend a hand, let's not >bite it, okay? Lets also not accept them just because they oppose the current threat. I believe they have a number of threats of their own. I do not disagree with the Eagle Forum on everything. (I have just read enough of her early works to make me consider her a danger to herself and others... Especially her screeds on Communism.) She has some points I consider valid on education and other areas. But just because he makes sense in some areas does not mean that I will trust either her or any of her minions in any position of power. Control freaks of either stripe worry me... If they are willing to fight against the Clintonocracy, then i will be glad to see it. Just do not expect me to be willing to swallow their religious beliefs as an alternative. If you have pointers to material that shows that she is against net censorship, then post pointers. I would like to see them. The posted article does not address the net at all, other than as communication on a one to one basis. It does not address the issues of those who post unencoded messages to the public at large. Until I have text that shows otherwise, i have little data to show that she supports freedom of speech other than on a one to one basis. --- 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."

1 0

Re: forget photographing license plates!
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 22:43 8/14/96, The Prisoner wrote: >>>> It is extremely comforting to me -- I don't know about you -- to think >>>>that GM will maintain a control center able to communicate with my auto >>>>electronics. Shit, why not TRW? Hacker's delight. -- 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.

4 4