December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Secret Swedish GAK and ITAR
by Asgaard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Gunnar Klein, a Swedish MD, is chairing a EU committee dealing with standardization of security measures in medical information systems. Recently, in a full-page anti-GAK debating article in a national Swedish evening newspaper (Aftonbladet 9/25/96), he chose to reveal some secret information he's gotten hold of: Sweden's representatives in the OECD GAK proceedings have declared that Sweden is willing to sign bilateral or multilateral GAK treaties, if other countries so demand. This declaration, along with the OECD records per se, has been classified. He also discloses that Sweden in late 1994, effectively in total secrecy, issued a completely new law against export of 'stretegic products', principally including all cryptography, without permission from the 'Inspection for Strategic Products'. In theory this law would cover export of a crypto program on a notebook. Gunnar Klein suspects US strong-arming behind all this. Obviously, Denmark has taken a different, anti-GAK, position in the OECD proceedings. Denmark is less susceptible to US blackmail than Sweden - they don't build fighter-planes with lots of US high tech parts inside (like the JAS/Gripen). Asgaard

1 0

RE: DESCrack keyspace partitioning
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Another thinking step: most real-world DES keys are derived from hashes. Not (P)RNGs. The distributions are **not** uniform. I am talking about FAMILIES of predictable bit patterns in keys, not any specific pattern. I'm doing the stats. The goal is to search the most likely keys first, and not all keys are created equally. Your reasoning is thin. ---------- From: Mike McNally[SMTP:m5@tivoli.com] Sent: Friday, October 04, 1996 6:10 AM To: geeman(a)best.com Cc: 'cypherpunks(a)toad.com' Subject: Re: DESCrack keyspace partitioning geeman(a)best.com wrote: > > (P)RNG's just aren't that likely to produce a key of 010101010..... > nor 001100110011... etc etc Right. A good CSPRNG is ulikely to produce the pattern 010101010101. It's also unlikely to produce the pattern 0011001100110011. Oh, and it's also unlikely to produce 01100100101001011. In fact, a good 32-bit CSPRNG has only a 1/2^32 chance of producing any particular bit pattern. Of course, another way of saying that is that it's just as likely to get an "obvious" bit pattern as it is to get any other one. You can't just throw away part of the keyspace based on such bogus reasoning. (There may be other reasons to throw away part of the keyspace, of course.) ______c_________________________________________________________________ Mike M Nally * IBM % Tivoli * Austin TX * How quickly we forget that mailto:m5@tivoli.com mailto:m101@io.com * "deer processing" and "data http://www.io.com/~m101/ * processing" are different!

1 0

The attitude of US peoples toward govt WAS: [AP stuff] (fwd)
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jean-Francois Avon asked me to forward this to the list. It is part of a conversation that He and I had last week. The Crypto Relevance if any is in the attitudes we are discussing, and in the the last couple paragraphs of Mr. Avon's writing. Forwarded message: > From jf_avon(a)citenet.net Fri Sep 27 23:59:05 1996 > Message-Id: <9609280545.AB01676(a)cti02.citenet.net> > Comments: Authenticated sender is <jf_avon(a)pop.citenet.net> > From: "Jean-Francois Avon" <jf_avon(a)citenet.net> > Organization: JFA Technologies, Montreal, QC, Canada > To: snow <snow(a)smoke.suba.com> > Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 01:45:30 -0500 > Subject: The attitude of US peoples toward govt WAS: [AP stuff] > Priority: normal > X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.32) > > On 27 Sep 96 at 20:01, snow wrote: > > When I talked about driving for 48 hours straight, I was trying to > > impart an idea that many midwestern people are rasied with, the > > total VASTNESS of the world. We (midwesterners, and some of the > > westerners, and a lot of older people (in their 60's & 70's) > > honestly believe deep down inside that this country is too vast to > > effectively control that the government simply CAN'T do it. They > > can't enforce any control they wish to have with the army, because > > WE have guns, and a lot of us are ex-army (a little older, a > > little slower, a HELL of a lot more devious and a lot less > > impetuious<sp>). We simply don't accept the fact that any one CAN > > control us. > > This might be why I liked NM, and AZ and TX. I can understand the > feeling you describe as you can barely escape it while visiting the > place. I suppose our canadian politicians also understood that: c.f. > Bill C-68 :( > > > Anyway, [the person's] point was that [some type of software] took > > control and decesions out of peoples hands, and that is why it was > > a market sucess. This I see as a European disease, the looking to > > government & the church for the solutions to every day problems. > > That is the feudalist attitude and philosophy. Absolutely > disgusting. Although we have, here in Quebec, french roots and > civil laws based on the Napoleon Code (Common Law everywhere in > Canada except in QC), the population have a very american way of > seeing life. Every time I have political discussion with French from > France, the feudal mentality always surfaces up and I always have > problems with them. They have a hierarchy-worshiping attitude, > coupled with an abdication of the power of their own reason (at the > individual level). In short, they are brought-up to become yes-men. > It litterally gives me an uncomfortable feeling in my guts. > Disgusting. > > > The original Colonists didn't have that attitude (well, they did to > > some degree, but not the people on the edges) In fact the attitude > > really didn't develop fully in this country until the 1920's, and > > still hasn't caught on everywhere. > > Roosevelt and his New Deal... I got the chance to find a magazine > who explained how the Federal Reserve was created. Politicians > sneaking into trains as "duck hunters", grand political socialistic > schemes sprung on peoples in secret, etc. The magazine did not say > that but I am leaning on the Objectivist side and I tend to read > what *is* written... > > > politicians started paying for votes with government largess > > As a 70 years old englishmen, ex-company managing president & very > friend of mine once said: Everyday, they buy us with our own money... > > > These two attitudes are pretty diametrically opposed, but coupled > > it with a school system that doesn't encourage extra-curriculer > > thought, and you have some pretty incosistent people. > > Unfortunately, you are absolutely right. > > > [slight topic drift...] I was wondering lately... Words have a lot > of power. They are the building blocks we use to materialize > concepts. Think about the word "Government". You would think of it > as a body that governs. But the american peoples think the > government ought to be a body that acts under a mandate to > administrate and oversee certain things. > > The very word "govt" seems to (conceptually) almost "justify" the > actions of present govts, while any other word (like, for example, > "overseers", "Mandated", etc) would stress out that they are under > *our* orders (and nowadays, exceeding their mandate). > > Maybe we should start using a new word to describe *exactly" what it > is that they ought to be doing. Doing so would also stress out > *exactly* what they are pulling on us... > > Comments? > > jfa > > Please e-mail me directly since I am not on cypherpunks anymore. > Thanks. > Jean-Francois Avon, Pierrefonds (Montreal) QC Canada > DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee > Finest Limoges porcelain and crystal > JFA Technologies, R&D consultants > physicists and engineers, LabView programing > PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon > ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 > ID# 5B51964D : 152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C Petro, Christopher C. petro(a)suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow(a)smoke.suba.com

1 0

Re: DESCrack keyspace partitioning
by Mike McNally 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

geeman(a)best.com wrote: > > Another thinking step: most real-world DES keys are derived from > hashes. Not (P)RNGs. Hashes? Hashes of what? > The distributions are **not** uniform. Then that's a wonderful weakness in the cryptosystem. Let's fix it. > The goal is to search the most likely keys first, and > not all keys are created equally. Any cryptosystem for which one can compute likely vs. unlikely keys has already been partially compromised. ______c_________________________________________________________________ Mike M Nally * IBM % Tivoli * Austin TX * How quickly we forget that mailto:m5@tivoli.com mailto:m101@io.com * "deer processing" and "data http://www.io.com/~m101/ * processing" are different!

1 0

The Myth of the "Balanced" Middle Ground (Was: Re: gack vs. key recovery)
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri(a)netcom.com> > > ... I feel > that cpunks are equally guilty, by branding anything that emanates > out of the government as inherently orwellian. do you always have > to have an enemy? is the government always going to be your > enemy, no matter what they do? Actually, the government encourages this view by lying. We can get into the many examples on encryption and wire taps, but if the TLAs keep using lies and PR instead of honesty and facts, then no one will accept anything they propose as-is. There will always be some suspicion of hidden agendas. And really, the agenda is obvious, but they have always refused to acknowledge the full extent of it, probably because it would forever damage their credibility. At least right now, Freeh has done enough PR (paid by your generous tax dollars) to make him look like a good guy. Janet Reno already looks innocent enough (hey, who could criticize someone who might look like your grandmother?) ... The PR concepts are all there, deliberately or accidentally. > I have posted here before that many companies find the concept > of "key recovery" highly acceptable and even desirable. Let them buy it. There are companies already making products with key recovery. But remember that key recovery are mostly useful to corporations, so it will be billed as the "professional" version (in off-the-shelf PC-class software) and also be pushed through the IS consulting channels. None of that really addresses E-Mail, I-phone, etc for the rest of us. > 2. those who feel that there is such a thing as a legal warrant > or subpoena for information protected by cryptography keys, and > would agree that this logically means that governments will be > getting access to "key recovery" infrastructures. I agree that there is a legitimate interest by legitimate law enforcement and national security interests. But ... 1. If it's so darn easy to get non-GAK encryption, why dumb it down for the rest of us? (Really, I just don't buy the "no plans for domestic regulations" bit. Plenty of current and ex-executive branchies have admitted as much in private.) 2. The Orwellian possibilities are definitely there. I simply will not let the government have drift-net-fishing rights on the NII. Sorry. I'll let them tap one-sie two-sie's, and I want the process to guarantee by functional design (not legal constraints) that it's expensive to tap more than a few at a time. > personally I am leaning toward 2, because I feel that we already > live in such a society, and that it is not orwellian. That was true because it was too darn expensive. Hey, at $50K per tap, I would be really selective about spending my hard-lobbied wire tap budget. If I can just push a button, I will be far less selective. (oh ... and make sure I ask real nicely later in front of the judge ... maybe ... if I have time ... too busy catching terrorists and child molesters, y'know) I'm not as worried about the indiscriminant tapping ordered by "good" FBI directors; I'm worried about the tapping by the bad ones. There is ZERO detectability if the FBI gets everything they want. There is not a chance of being accidentally discovered by a phone company employee or a wandering by-stander. That lack of check-and-balance is what I am completely against. I don't mind letting them have the technology if I can be sure it will 1) work and 2) minimize abuse. > the recipe for 200+ years has always been > and remains "eternal vigilance". in other words, I am in favor > of some kind of mechanism by which the government can obtain > keys via subpoenas/warrants. Ok. So every corporation (big and small) now must have a Chief Law Enforcement Relations Officer (CLERO) if they build encryption into their products? Every software engineering consultant has to jump through hoops to export their product? Sorry. If the software engineering industry were just big mammoth corporations, I wouldn't care. But it could just be me and my home office. I cannot afford to fly to D.C. to amuse some panel at the D.o.C. with my stupid key-recovery tricks. No. This plan completely discriminates against small players, and there are a lot of them. Finally, writing software is an art. It is not purely art, but it certainly is an art, which I believe falls fully under free expression and the First Amendment. The work of art is not functional until someone compiles it and run it on a machine. So regulating anything before the actual execution is definitely a violation of the First Amendment. I don't have time to deal with privacy but as soon as it starts executing, it becomes an instrument of privacy so regulating that is also against my basic beliefs, not to mention my engineering sense of practicality. > those who continue to pursue (1) are going to be perceived as > more and more radical and extremist, because arguably it is not > even a system we have today or one that was ever devised. Good point. If we are not careful, we could get bad PR. But then, I've been trying to argue that use of words like "anarchy" is against good PR principles anyway. I don't think cypherpunks have such pristine reputations that we must tread carefully for fear of damaging our "reputation". In fact, I don't think we even have one. That is, in some ways, worse than having one at all. > regarding (2): the government may actually help bring crypto > to the masses via the post office and other routes. are > cpunks going to continue to hold the simplistic, reactionary, > knee-jerk, black-and-white opinion that "anything with the > word 'government' in it is evil"? "if the government is doing > something, then we must sabotage it"? I think you are making the obvious mistake that many people make about similar groups, such as Libertarians. When someone says you should be able to freely choose, that is all that they are saying. They are not saying that someone else may not make a system that is not ideal, but does provide many other value-added benefits. Ern

1 0

TWP: Tighten ITAR
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Washington Post, October 4, 1996, p. A22. Crypto Politics [Editorial] The Clinton administration once had a coherent, if unpopular, position on encryption software, the stuff that allows you to encode your email messages or other data so that no one can read it en route without a key. Now, in the wake of word that the president will sign an executive order, the position is no longer coherent, nor discernibly more popular with the high-tech audience it attempts to mollify. People and companies doing international financial business are highly interested in this kind of software, the more powerfully "uncrackable" the better. The U.S. software industry thinks there's a lot of money in it, especially if encryption becomes routine. The administration position till recently was that, much as U.S. software companies might profit from being able to market "uncrackable" encryption software freely, national security and law enforcement considerations dictated that such exports be controlled by license. Powerful encryption, like arms, could be dangerous in the hands of terrorists, rogue governments or international criminals. The software was classed as a munition; software above a certain uncrackability level could not be exported unless law enforcement authorities could get access somehow to the "key" after obtaining the proper warrants. Unbreakable codes on the loose strike us as a real danger, a legitimate reason for tight export controls. But if the administration really believes this, you'd think it would stick with steps that can plausibly meet the goal of control. Instead, trying to please, it has been splitting and splitting the difference between itself and the largely unmoved industry, which argues that no one will buy an encryption product that a government can decrypt at will. As with arms sales, the companies also argue that if they don't sell it, somebody else will, and that anyway it's far too late to fence off rogues. The national security people respond that there is still a "window," perhaps two years, in which they can prevent, if not all leaks of unauthorized crypto technology, at least its off-the-shelf use and wide adoption as the international standard. The administration initially proposed, then repeatedly refined, the concept of key "escrow" -- depositing a copy of the code with trusted third parties -- but never came up with a version the industry would accept. It commissioned a National Research Council report, which recommended a significant easing of restrictions. Now the president appears to have embraced a yet looser form of licensure upon declaration by a company that it will develop a plan within two years for key recovery. Also, the technology no longer will be considered munitions. What kind of plan? Nobody can quite say. What if the plans aren't acceptable? Licensing will revert to the old rule in two years. Will the security issue be moot by then? Probably. Barring some burst of clarity, one is left wondering whether the administration has compromised or caved, and what it now believes about the dangers of exporting uncrackable software. [End] Ditto, see the National Research Council report: http://pwp.usa.pipeline.com/~jya/nrcindex.htm

1 0

[SPAM] "Childish fool" Timmy May abuses mor(m)ons, spawns flame threads
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy May has no life. >Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 07:19:22 -0700 (PDT) >From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> >To: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> >Subject: Re: [SPAM] More "fuckhead" e-mail from Timmy May and his young friends >In-Reply-To: <uk5aVD10w165w(a)bwalk.dm.com> >Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.961005071820.9224A-100000(a)crl5.crl.com> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > >Please stop spamming the list. It is rude and disrespectful to >all list members. It makes you look like a childish fool. > >On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > >> Timmy May has no life. >> >> >From: Troy Varange <varange(a)crl.com> >> >Message-Id: <199610050215.AA00807(a)crl5.crl.com> >> >Subject: Re: [VULIS] >> >To: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) >> >Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 19:15:36 -0700 (PDT) >> >In-Reply-To: <FV67uD8w165w(a)bwalk.dm.com> from "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" at Oct 2, 96 08:29:14 pm >> >X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] >> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> >Content-Length: 7527 >> > >> >> >> >> I have no dog, nor any other pets. Timmy May (fart) reportedly has two cats. >> >> If you suspect that Timmy May (fart) sexually abuses his cats, or any other >> >> animals, you should promptly contact the ASPCA and also alert rec.pets.cats. >> >> >> >> (Frankly, I doubt that the old fart can get his dick up to sexually abuse >> >> anything, including his cats. Senility puts an end to sexual molestation.) >> >> >> >> >From: Troy Varange <varange(a)crl.com> >> >> >Message-Id: <199610021931.AA24883(a)crl11.crl.com> >> >> >Subject: Important >> >> >To: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) >> >> >Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 12:31:21 -0700 (PDT) >> >> >In-Reply-To: <gqH3uD93w165w(a)bwalk.dm.com> from "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" at Sep 30, 96 07:57:27 am >> >> >X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] >> >> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >> >> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >> >> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> >> >Content-Length: 6226 >> >> > >> >> >Dr. Vulis sucks his dog's butt. >> >> > >> >> >> Timmy May has no life. >> >> >> >> >> >> >From: Troy Varange <varange(a)crl.com> >> >> >> >Message-Id: <199609300441.AA10704(a)crl12.crl.com> >> >> >> >Subject: Re: Vulis FUCKHEAD sucks Timmy's Cock >> >> >> >To: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) >> >> >> >Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 21:41:42 -0700 (PDT) >> >> >> >In-Reply-To: <LJV2uD91w165w(a)bwalk.dm.com> from "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" at Sep 29, 96 11:58:09 pm >> >> >> >X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] >> >> >> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >> >> >> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >> >> >> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> >> >> >Content-Length: 5298 >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Vulis sucks Timmy's boyfriend's cock. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Timmy May has no life. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >From: Troy Varange <varange(a)crl.com> >> >> >> >> >Message-Id: <199609300332.AA09870(a)crl12.crl.com> >> >> >> >> >Subject: Re: [SPAM] More "fuckhead" fan mail from Timmy "peteur" May >> >> >> >> >To: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) >> >> >> >> >Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 20:32:58 -0700 (PDT) >> >> >> >> >In-Reply-To: <ueP2uD86w165w(a)bwalk.dm.com> from "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" at Sep 29, 96 09:45:41 pm >> >> >> >> >X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] >> >> >> >> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >> >> >> >> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >> >> >> >> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> >> >> >> >Content-Length: 4378 >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> berserk >> >> >> >> >> Timmy May has gone . Has he been eating speed? >> >> >> >> >> bananas >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >From: Troy Varange <varange(a)crl.com> >> >> >> >> >> >Message-Id: <199609300138.AA08482(a)crl12.crl.com> >> >> >> >> >> >Subject: Re: [SPAM] More fan mail from Timmy "peteur" May >> >> >> >> >> >To: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) >> >> >> >> >> >Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 18:38:05 -0700 (PDT) >> >> >> >> >> >In-Reply-To: <FFi2uD82w165w(a)bwalk.dm.com> from "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" at Sep 29, 96 07:14:50 pm >> >> >> >> >> >X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] >> >> >> >> >> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >> >> >> >> >> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >> >> >> >> >> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> >> >> >> >> >Content-Length: 3442 >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What has Timmy been smoking? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ]From paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Sun Sep 29 19:03:40 1996 >> >> >> >> >> >> ]Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) >> >> >> >> >> >> ] via UUCP; Sun, 29 Sep 96 19:14:06 EDT >> >> >> >> >> >> ] for dlv >> >> >> >> >> >> ]Received: from disperse.demon.co.uk by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via SMTP; >> >> >> >> >> >> ] id AA25790 for dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com; Sun, 29 Sep 96 19:03:40 -0400 >> >> >> >> >> >> ]Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([(null)]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ac16129; >> >> >> >> >> >> ] 29 Sep 96 15:59 BST >> >> >> >> >> >> ]Received: from fatmans.demon.co.uk ([158.152.120.223]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net >> >> >> >> >> >> ] id aa09441; 29 Sep 96 15:54 BST >> >> >> >> >> >> ]Received: from fatmans.demon.co.uk by fatmans.demon.co.uk with SMTP >> >> >> >> >> >> ] id AA843903697 ; Sat, 28 Sep 96 09:41:37 +0000 >> >> >> >> >> >> ]Comments: Authenticated sender is <paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk> >> >> >> >> >> >> ]From: paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk >> >> >> >> >> >> ]To: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> >> >> >> >> >> >> ]Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 09:21:37 +0000 >> >> >> >> >> >> ]Mime-Version: 1.0 >> >> >> >> >> >> ]Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >> >> >> >> >> >> ]Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT >> >> >> >> >> >> ]Subject: Re: Possible subs attack???? >> >> >> >> >> >> ]Priority: normal >> >> >> >> >> >> ]X-Pm-Encryptor: JN-PGP-P, 4 >> >> >> >> >> >> ]X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) >> >> >> >> >> >> ]Message-Id: <844008901.9441.0(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk> >> >> >> >> >> >> ] >> >> >> >> >> >> ]-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> >> >> >> >> >> ] >> >> >> >> >> >> ] >> >> >> >> >> >> ]> The lying sack of shit Timmy May <paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk> writes: >> >> >> >> >> >> ] >> >> >> >> >> >> ]> The lying sack of shit Timmy May lies again, as usual. >> >> >> >> >> >> ] >> >> >> >> >> >> ]Fuck you, >> >> >> >> >> >> ] >> >> >> >> >> >> ]I am not Tim May, Check out the return path if you don`t believe me, >> >> >> >> >> >> ]if you still don`t here`s my PGP public key signed by the EFF, they >> >> >> >> >> >> ]don`t sign keys here and there without checking ID`s... >> >> >> >> >> >> ] >> >> >> >> >> >> ]Type Bits/KeyID Date User ID >> >> >> >> >> >> ]pub 1024/5BBFAEB1 1996/07/30 Paul Bradley <paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk> >> >> >> >> >> >> ] >> >> >> >> >> >> ]- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- >> >> >> >> >> >> ]Version: 2.6.3ia >> >> >> >> >> >> ] >> >> >> >> >> >> ]mQCNAjH9j+cAAAEEAMBvREiQR0ot9dFCO0TiSCSunAYLv2g1Bc6I3bz8FzKXNH53 >> >> >> >> >> >> ]6mieJf/W4rD+CxJpT0q9RQaaoRtkHJLwbjfK2il3D7mEahMAyqvF/xRJNqkXfhM3 >> >> >> >> >> >> ]sRJM0Jh43l+W0M5vwokbEbk25/bxWWGspTsLD3YHbzKnG6pOcL5OPIRbv66xAAUR >> >> >> >> >> >> ]tCdQYXVsIEJyYWRsZXkgPHBhdWxAZmF0bWFucy5kZW1vbi5jby51az6JAJUDBRAy >> >> >> >> >> >> ]NwfvNkCBjDT0xHEBATQPA/9TORmN/UjNecj03q4anpvdyCLiez5sKuNbnYK50RiP >> >> >> >> >> >> ]Jj4QpWWvST3smyQ0A86DrZY/re056MXwQmARESx0rFZxdnD0oORICl5r8dJLIy3b >> >> >> >> >> >> ]j8rbA5olXwZwKz73/X5s13v/pvHYX4cIsbVK8NHXqh5llSKt6TBAuGgkIGF29z5k >> >> >> >> >> >> ]C4kAlQMFEDI3B9mdtf/umVkv7QEBcRYD/1FBteLqsUmr81euxqqnnrpLlyHb58B/ >> >> >> >> >> >> ]9sdATuua4uSjX46hXDZ264YozspNrzSB4NEdrmXOWVX3fiE0ga6XkSSkIeF23V90 >> >> >> >> >> >> ]En37Z0BdbFzgF00FRYTFyTq8eezQrdg/+rBPUsZUmG5wpq3e12FKHQsX01i+1mB2 >> >> >> >> >> >> ]YmqqwCV5e95eiQCVAgUQMh8uSb5OPIRbv66xAQEqJwP/fxQyiCasjFcbDpsFfsYp >> >> >> >> >> >> ]put5cCC/9pOx6X3DlbKShPMpUOS+A9HsTEmJQN8Iawv1nSwPdtc2cR/GhW6ilVjW >> >> >> >> >> >> ]LSloGdMVLabm9pGpZZMkRaZlXFUkOv7VhfgsUiL+vIDryBCAwUZCzQiWycjt/cPi >> >> >> >> >> >> ]mUqFH41Z7NkyO8ZFdi5GGX0= >> >> >> >> >> >> ]=CMZA >> >> >> >> >> >> ]- -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- >> >> >> >> >> >> ] >> >> >> >> >> >> ] >> >> >> >> >> >> ] >> >> >> >> >> >> ]-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> >> >> >> >> ]Version: 2.6.3ia >> >> >> >> >> >> ]Charset: cp850 >> >> >> >> >> >> ] >> >> >> >> >> >> ]iQCVAwUBMkzuH75OPIRbv66xAQHSmQQAqw0F/lIsCcQwOpiSQDx4hMqOVVUVXbyR >> >> >> >> >> >> ]3RMWY20ECE0TpAtJ6hkAiqphsWUSBqiFj2kGHMh+jHSHXIMPF+m1qtwVbgutJC7B >> >> >> >> >> >> ]8VYWj0VP+bGu5dEUisLrVHDNj5ucEIDyK2GnqObiCiKARFUbOuZnMQOp9TDJqibh >> >> >> >> >> >> ]2Wqa5+h8R7g= >> >> >> >> >> >> ]=/M2U >> >> >> >> >> >> ]-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> >> >> >> >> ] >> >> >> >> >> >> ] Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security >> >> >> >> >> >> ] Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk >> >> >> >> >> >> ] Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org >> >> >> >> >> >> ] Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ >> >> >> >> >> >> ] Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 >> >> >> >> >> >> ] "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Fuckhead. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Fuckhead. We know your behind Vulis, Cock-sucker >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >and he swallows >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Fuckhead. >>

2 1

CNET Digital Dispatch Vol. 2 No. 40
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This was in the latest version of CNET's e-mail list. Anyone want to add a few good sound bytes? > >7. "YOUR TURN": ARE ENCRYPTION LAWS TOO STRICT? > >The White House has finally loosened up the export restrictions on >powerful encryption software: > > http://www.news.com/News/Item/0%2C4%2C4003%2C00.html > >But the software industry and the Web community generally agree >it's too little, too late. How do you feel about the export of >encryption technology? What about the government's continued >insistence that law enforcement be availed of a method to decode >any encrypted message if granted a court order? > >To contribute your opinion, phone CNET at 415/395-7805, enter >extension 5400, and leave a message. We'll listen to the responses >and broadcast some of the best on CNET Radio. > >Each week Digital Dispatch brings you the new "your turn" >question, and each Wednesday you can hear the responses to the >previous week's question on CNET Radio: > > http://www.cnet.com/Content/Radio/ --- 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

"Mormon Asshole?" re: GAK
by John C. Randolph 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Attilla Says: >but what inflames the anti-mormon passions the most is the >paid clergy of other organized religions whose employment is >the paid ministry to their flock. Mormons threaten their jobs; >the mormons have no paid ministry; it is all part of our >"callings" to do the Lord's work. Well, speaking as one who has occasionally been called anti-mormon (although, I'm *really* not that specific!) The only time I feel any anti-mormon "passion" is when I want to throttle one of your missionaries. I like sleeping in, and being awakened by a kid who wants me to join a religion is really offensive. If the LDS church would just give up this damnable proselytizing, I'd find you no more objectionable than the Tibetan Buddhists (whom I actually hold in rather high regard, although they're never going to convert me either!) -jcr PS: I do think it's a Good Thing that mormons don't pay the clergy. One positive for LDS. Did you pick up that idea from the Ba'ha'i?

3 2

Re: ADJ_ust
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ya' know, I keep seeing government references to all this terrorist technology and know-how on the Net, but when I do some pretty exhaustive searches I come up pretty-much empty handed. Are their claims just rhetoric or am I incompetent at using Web search tools? For example, where can one find on the Net: the means to anonymously purchase CBW precursors or strains, manufacuting and know-how? Where can one find practical EMP designs and components? Where can one find practical Fuel/air explosives device construction info? I'm sure you can think of other significant items I've left out. Hope you get the picture. >On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Adamsc wrote: > >> I have strong >> doubts that someone would come up with a non-nuke that could destroy stuff >> indiscriminately within a useably large area. > >Fuel/air bombs. > >--Lucky

1 0