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: Court challenge to AOL junk-mail blocks
by mccoy＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

frogfarm(a)yakko.cs.wmich.edu writes: > 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. The gubmint isn't doing SQUAT, except forcing > AOL to allow the spammers access. AOL has a service agreement with their customers, and they are not allowed to change the rules just because they feel like it (I believe that this is called a contract :) This is the jist of the injunction. jim

2 1

ASP_oil
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

9-7-96. FiTi: "Indian herb trick turns water into kerosene." A young, unemployed south Indian has flummoxed India's top government scientists by demonstrating an apparently simple recipe for producing a kerosene-like fuel by boiling a "mystery" herb in water: prospectively, he hopes, revolutionising the world energy industry. "We have no doubt we are sitting on something very big," said Mr Valangiman Ramamurthi, India's top science bureaucrat. Watching scientists professed little idea how or why the process worked, but said it conclusively produced "a clear oil separation in substantial quantities" which tests have identified as a hydrocarbon similar to kerosene. "Its properties make it better than petrol," said one. "Apparently the herb can grow widely in all types of soil -- it is very exciting." 9-7-96. WaPo: "More in the Pipeline." In the 1970s fear gripped the Western world that Earth was running out of oil. Since then, vast new reserves have been discovered that can be extracted with current technology. The known crude oil reserve now amounts to one trillion barrels -- enough for 45 to 50 years at current world production rates, and estimated reserves are at least one trillion barrels more. ----- http://jya.com/aspoil.txt (6 kb for 2) ASP_oil

1 0

non-interactive forward secrecy
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[This discussion is driven by the desirability of having forward secrecy in mixmaster for the mix packets delivered by email where the interactive nature of normal DH is incovenient] Anyone have any ideas for a non-interactive forward secrecy protocol? Aside from actually doing the DH key exchange via email (painful), I have one suggestion for a protocol, perhaps people can improve on this: Assuming common prime p, and generator g: Two remailers A and B. A wants to send messages to B without having to wait for replies from B. B generates ys (y0,y1,...,yn), where y(i+1) = hash(y(i)) then computes Ys (Y0,Y1,...,Yn) where Y(i) = g ^ y(i) mod p B sends A Ys, and discards ys. Now A can send B n consecutive packets with forward secrecy before receiving any more packets from B. (B keeps y0, and overwrites it with y1 = hash(y0), etc, so that all B ever has to hand is the current y(i), and y(i-1) is hard to compute from y(i) because of the hash functions properties.) This isn't truly non-interactive, it just reduces the number of interactions, to an interactive exchange in 1 out of n cases. (you could randomly chose ys rather than having related ys, and delete y(i) after use, but this has higher storage requirements (n rather than 1 on the recipient)). Heres the obvious construction for a truly non-interactive forward secrecy protocol based on DH. (That is it only requires 1 interactive exchange). Aside from the obvious of having a huge n, and the above protocol, which would have large space requirements, what we're after is a way to do this with negligable space requirements. Say that we have the two parties Alice and Bob. Bob doesn't loose much by having his secret (x) related as above. 1. x(i+1) = f1( x(i) ) 2. X(i+1) = f2( X(i) ) 3. f1 is non reversible f1 should have hash-like properties (it should be non-reversible). Do functions f1 and f2 satisfying 1, 2 and 3 exist? Is there another way to achieve this? (My closest attempt so far, based on the hardness of discrete square roots: f1(x) = x^2 (mod p) f2(X) = X^2 (mod p) doesn't work because g^(x^2 mod p) mod p != g^(x^2) mod p) Adam -- #!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj $/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1 lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)

1 0

Re: Metcalf and Other Net.Fogies
by mccoy＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

perry(a)piermont.com writes: > Alan Olsen writes: > > Metcalfe may have a valid prediction here. > > Metcalfe is talking out his ass. He's reached the "old geezer who's > impeding his own field" stage. Many of his articles seem to be written > as though no one was trying to fix problems. Well, having talked with people involved with the problems I can assure you that they are real. The net brownouts when MAE-East dumps its BGP core or the fact that when one of the NAPs upgraded to FDDI it soon found that by the time people had installed the upgrades to the routers the bandwidth was already saturated should indicate that there are problems. Most of the problems are in the routers, even the top of the line Cisco boxes can only handle so much. The sky is not falling, but these sorts of problems are cracking the whip behind IPv6 and pushing the companies that make the routers pretty hard (Have you ever tried to buy even a lowly Cisco 2401? Do you know what the wait is on delivery? I really wish I had bought Cisco stock earlier...) > > When I run traceroutes, the blockage is in MCI or Sprintnet land. > > How do you manage to determine where you are losing bandwidth using > traceroute? That must be a mighty powerful traceroute to do that -- > most traceroutes I've seen are hard pressed just to find out what the > connectivity path is. Then you should probably upgrade your traceroute, preferably to one which allows source routing of the packets and then couple the output to a nice udp source routing script which will bounce a few packets between links with slow response times. Most of the problems are at the exchange points where packets go from one company's network to another. It seems that users have the annoying habit of wanting to talk to other people's customers...imagine the nerve :) > > The bandwidth to the net has been oversold. > > Always the case. Big deal. Bandwidth is still increasing pretty > fast. There are, naturally, growing pains, but the outages and > bandwidth situation are pretty good, all things considered. Compared > to the way things were eight or nine years ago they are amazing; > compared to four years ago they are still astoundingly better. Bandwidth may be increasing quickly, but demand for it is increasing even faster with every moron wanting tose the web while the routers to hook it all together and make it work are still very expensive and not being produced fast enough to satisfy the demand. Compared to the way things were even a few years ago the aggregate bandwidth that one person can expect is decreasing, it seems that no one writing internet protocols passed an Intro to Sociology/Poly Sci course and assumed that the tragedy of the commons did not apply to them. The upside of all of this is that it is creating a demand for value-added services which offer users dedicated bandwidth and faster response time in return for a little coin. This will probably push micro-currency on to the net faster than any other consumer demand... jim

2 1

Re: MUD anyone?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:06 AM 9/1/96 +0000, Rev. Mark Grant wrote: >On Tue, 27 Aug 1996, Jon Leonard wrote: >Protection Agencies >Escrow Agencies >Private Law Courts (probably controlled by players rather than the computer) >Reputation Agencies > >> What am I missing? Should there be direct support for Jim Bell's >> assasination markets? It'd provide a means of demonstrating its >> ineffectiveness as a means of social control. > >I think it should be incorporated, but I think that people can set them up >easily themselves. Perhaps we should have an NPC-run 'Assasins Inc' which >would run the lottery, and then players could do the actual 'wet work'. > >But yes, I'd really like to see how this would work in the game. As I >said I'm thinking of this more as a semi-scientific experiment than a >pure game. We have some idea of how this stuff should work in theory, but >little of how it works in practice. > >I do think though that we'd have to enforce some kind of rule against >'disposable characters', otherwise people could simply create a new >character every time they were killed trying to assasinate someone. There >would need to be some disadvantage to just going in guns-blazing and being >killed ten times in a row. Wouldn't it be more realistic if instead of representing individual characters, you created composites which had a "weight" based on how many of them exist in the country/world? For example, the character "buggy-whip maker" in 1900 would be weighted in the thousands, while his number would be drastically reduced a few decades later. This would avoid the "going in with guns blazing" scenario, or at least it would put it into perspective: the number of assassins would drop by "1" (or some proportion) if that happened, although correspondingly the number of targets would also drop. With this system, a character would never die, but his number would simply drop to an insignificant quantity. ("Government-thugs" comes to mind...) And that's not the only reason the number of characters would drop: If it suddenly became "unhealthy" to accept a public paycheck, and thus the risk wasn't matched by the rewards, presumably people would shift professions. Again, this would all be part of the simulation. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Metcalf and Other Net.Fogies
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm evolving a hunch that the problems we're seeing with "old fogies" denouncing the Net, and anonymity, and "smut on the Net," are part of a larger cultural issue. Namely, the familiar case of an older generation complaining about the sloth and sin of the younger generations. (Caveat: I'm 44, so I'm certainly a generation older than many of you, and am about the same age, give or take a few years, of Dyson, Metcalfe, Kapor, Denning, and the other Net.Doomsayers. However, 20-25 years ago, when I was in college, I recall of course similar predictions of disaster. (And as it turned out, the predictions that promiscuity would lead to a disaster turned out to be partly correct, viz. AIDS.)) 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. It could be that the Dennings, Dysons, Kapors, etc. of the world are simply growing jaded with the Net and are projecting their own ennui in their comments that the Net may need to be controlled. This may come with age, as I'm sure the Kapor of 25 years ago would not have wanted President Nixon and Attorney-General Mitchell telling him what he could read and write. (In fairness, none of these folks listed have called for censorship. But all have expressed "concerns" of one sort or another. Not that discussing concerns is inappropriate--after all, we do it all the time. But I sense in many of their phrasings of concerns a stereotypical "old fogeyness" emerging.) Just a thought. Maybe the solution to the EFF problem is to "not trust anyone over 30." --Tim May (untrustable since 1981) 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."

3 2

Re: PRESS RELEASE: GERMANY CENSORS DUTCH WEBSITE WWW.XS4ALL.NL
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>A Modest Proposal: > >* as Germany is bent on blocking sites which carry this subversive >pamphlet, "Radikal," let us mirror it on thousands of sites around the >world. > >* when the Germans went into Danmark and insisted Jews wear badges, >ordinary citizens (and the Danish Royal Family, as I recall) also took to >wearing these Star of David badges. Add this plug to signatures and web pages: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Lebt und lest radikal! http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/radikal/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Then, your messages are "promoting a terrorist organization" (cf. http://www.anwalt.de/ictf/p960901e.htm) and may no longer be carried in Germany. [It just says to live radically, and to read "radikal". But "radikal" is a terrorist magazine after all.]

2 1

IDC_ard
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

9-8-96. NYP Mag: "The True Terror Is In the Card." Faced with rising crime, illegal immigration, welfare fraud and absentee parents, many bureaucrats and members of Congress insist that the nation would run more smoothly if we all had counterfeit-proof plastic identity cards. Let's be clear that this is a one-way street. Once having established a requirement to carry photo ID, it will be difficult if not impossible to reverse. Don't we realize the dangers of allowing the Government to establish identity and legitimacy? Isn't it, in fact, the responsibility of the citizenry to establish the legitimacy of the Government? ----- http://jya.com/idcard.txt (11 kb) IDC_ard

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

On Or About: 6 Sep 96 at 18:04, E. Allen Smith wrote: > list-managers list, a consent arrangement would thus be preferable. The > other argument of the Cyber Promotions jerks is nonsense - how does AOL > blocking affect the rest of the Internet? It's affecting the rights of these fine spammers, Cyber Promotions. That affects spammers everywhere. More rules by our government affects all of us. > >PHILADELPHIA, Pa. (Sep 6, 1996 12:23 p.m. EDT) -- A federal judge has = <<<<SNIP>>>>> > >"We feel that America Online has violated the civil rights of their = > >members and has violated our rights to send e-mail through the Internet, = > >which AOL does not own," he said. > > >Although unsolicited mail sent through the post office in the United = > >States is not considered illegal, the rules have yet to be defined in = > >cyberspace. That's the real point I have always made. No rules and we should not want rules. Why are we INVITING the government into OUR internet??? Just cause we have to read spam? That is just plain stupid!!! Just cause we have to read spam, oh well, let the government come on in. Do we let the government into our bedrooms because our wife says no to sex tonight or because we don't like to make our beds?? 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!!!!!! By the way, I get about 2 or 3 spams a day in my mailbox and it is not killing me! Don't get the wrong idea, I don't like it. I like the government WAY LESS!!!!! =========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

4 5