December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by raptrtrust＠sigmais.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello. I would like to know more about cryptography. Please snd me any information that you have. Thank you, RaptrTrust

1 0

Re: /\/\/\/\/HELP\/\/\/\/\ !!!!!!!!!
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Or About: 7 Sep 96 at 16:46, kickboxer wrote: > I really need help unsubscribing from the Cypherpunks list! it is imperative! > HA HA HA HA HA HA!! That's soooo funny!!!

1 0

Re: What the NSA is patenting
by jfricker＠vertexgroup.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:56 PM 9/7/96 -0500, you wrote: >John F. Fricker wrote: >> >> This excerpt from a Wired article/interview >> http://www.hotwired.com/wired/3.10/departments/electrosphere/data.html >> >> "No data is totally safe," says Sharp ... > >That entire article struck me as a load of hogwash the first time I >read it. This Sharp dude rehashed several old fairy tales about >data recovery. > Actually Sharp appears only in that one quote. The article is poorly editted. The rest of the article quotes some other data recovery experts and "Sharp" is never mentioned again. It's fun to debunk journalists but it takes more than saying "it's bunk". --j

1 0

Re: Deleted Message
by jfricker＠vertexgroup.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I wonder what I said? At 08:41 PM 9/7/96 -24000, you wrote: >To: <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> >From: MQG-SMTP3@USMC_MASTERINET@Servers[<jfricker(a)vertexgroup.com>] >Subject: Re: Mail OnNet > Message in Transport deleted by: > ADMINISTRATOR@USMC_MASTERINET@Servers > >

1 0

talker
by doom13＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Whoever, I am doom13. If there is anyone out there who is a hacker or would like to be one you can talk to me and find out stuff like cracking. Just drop a message at doom13(a)juno.com. Doom13

4 5

Re: TWA 800 - Friendly Fire?
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<pstira(a)escape.com> wrote: > The one thing I have been thinking about, since the very beginning, is > am I the only person who feels this might have been somewhat less than > unintentional? It sure would be easy to take those rights away if > everyone is afraid for their "lives"... > Look at what has been happening in the news lately, and look at how > much is "unexplained" or flimsy evidencially speaking, in the very > least. > If, for instance, the government wanted to cut down on civil > liberties/civil rights, it would seem MIGHTY CONVENIENT that so much > is "accidentally" happening so close together. > Ditto with the Olympics thing. > I vote something is QUITE fishy, and I guess I hope I'm not the only > one paranoid enough to feel the same. Sure something's fishy. Look at the technological capabilities they have, and we're not keeping up with them. One example: L.A. riots, 1992. 6,500 or so fires, unknown arsonist(s). But very convenient for clearing certain properties if you're putting in a new freeway or subway tunnel, and you don't want to have to fight with all the riffraff who might be resistant to getting up and moving. So how do you light all those fires? Do it the hard way - plant the stuff (6,000-plus times!) and hope nobody catches your guys, or light 'em up from satellites, using "new experimental" focused energy. Gosh, Mr. Bill, would they do that? Guess it depends on what you're willing to believe. Remember what Tom Wolfe wrote about? "The reason the folks on the East Coast (circa 1700's) were such easy victims for the pirates was the fact that they couldn't comprehend just how vicious and ruthless the pirates really were." (quote approximate).

6 6

No Subject
by doom13＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone been on a bbs lately. I just subscribed to cypherpunks mailing list.

1 0

Re: Los Angeles Times article on Helsingius and anon.penet.fi
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>The principle fear of the authorities appears to be terrorist rather >than normal criminal activities. Either that, or the fear that authorities are no longer necessary unless they can point to something dangerous that they're protecting the rest of us from - with the plausibility of the Godless Communist Threat waning, it becomes necessary for drug sellers and people with fringe politics to appear more threatening. Support (political and financial) for the exercise of power is a function of the anxiety level of the populace. People whose income and sense of self-worth is derived from that exercise of power have a clear interest in maintaining or increasing the level of anxiety. Do you imagine a future in which law enforcement holds a press conference to announce "We're mostly eating donuts and reading magazines. There's not much for us to do. Perhaps half of us should be laid off or something."? Can you imagine the military spontaneously downsizing, or failing to oppose reductions in force? >Terrorism is no longer limited to far >off irredentist struggles that ex-patriates can harbour romantic >thoughts about. The reality the the IRA is an organisation that murders >children by placing a bomb in a rubbish bin outside a MacDonalds has >been brought home to the suporters of Noraid through the bombings of the >World Trade Center, Oaklahoma and Atlanta. While domestic terrorist events may bring a sharper focus to discussions of the merits and costs of politically motivated violence, your fantasy that it will somehow bring about a change in someone's substantive politics is amusing. It seems at least as likely that domestic repression purportedly adopted in "response" to recent events will create a feeling of solidarity with people living under Orwellian governments. ("Of course those guys over there are blowing things up. Their government sucks. Hey, our government is starting to suck. Let's blow some stuff up.") Further, your notion that "terrorism" has somehow been limited to "far-off irredentist struggles" of concern only to expatriates is ridiculous. Have you not noticed the arson, bombings, and shootings at abortion clinics in the US? Or the history of violence on the (neo-) left, e.g., the Weather Underground, etc.? Or the history of the KKK and race-motivated lynchings/beatings? Or the Unabomber? >If one lives in a country >where there is little terrorism it is easy to imagine that people driven >to extreeme actions are driven by a extreeme situation. If one is faced >with the reality of terrorism one soon reaches the conclusion that its >perpetrators are simply ordinary psychopaths. Isn't it wonderful that "one" unavoidably "reaches conclusions" which eliminate moral and political arguments you find uninteresting? We might as well announce that "One soon learns that repression will never eliminate violent opposition" or some other arguable proposition. Deciding that every person who supports or engages in politically motivated violence is an "ordinary psychopath" suggests that many, many people are psychopaths; and that makes the diagnosis of "psychopath" unremarkable. Was that really your point? >Having stated that terrorism is an important concern for the state it is >necessary to ask whether it is necessary to restrict freedom to combat >terrorism. In answering one must bear in mind that a central part of >most terrorist strategies is to force the state to respond with >disproportionate measures (here recent events in Chetchnya indicate that >Trotsky was not widely read in the USSR). Or perhaps "it is necessary to ask" whether restricting pre-existing freedom has ever reduced or eliminated "terrorism"; it's certainly worked well in Lebanon and the Palestine, in Germany, Japan, and Peru .. or has it? (But as counterexamples, we've got the Soviet Union under Stalin, Germany under Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, Chile under Pinochet, Cuba under Castro, Nicaragua in the mid-80's, and China. Perhaps you're right.) >Absolutely anonymous cash may create problems, but what if it were >possible to generate small quantities of "marked bills" within an >otherwise anonymous system. If the circumstances under which the marked >bills could be distributed were limited to a small set of tightly >controlled circumstances the legitimate need of the government to oppose >terrorism and organised crime could be met without imposing a Singapore >style system with total monitoring. Boy, if we could just figure out the right combination of procedural rules, we could simply abandon all of this problematic "rights" stuff. Wouldn't that be a lot simpler? These pesky "rights" keep getting in the way of legitimate government needs. Shit. >In effect what is taking place is a negotiation between two groups, the >government and civil rights activists. If one side refuses to consider >the needs of the other they will be marginalised. Absolutism in politics >is usually a bad thing. Politics usually works through compromises. The >art being to ensure that one compromises the inessential terms in order >to defend the key items. Don't forget that it's necessary to adopt an exaggerated version of your own position, such that you can "compromise" your way to "agreeing" on exactly what you wanted in the first place. It's also useful to categorize your opponent's position as "extreme", "radical", "unworkable", "unrealistic", or "militant" - such that they cannot continue to maintain it and remain "reasonable". (e.g., "extreeme [sic] examples of Chaumian cash") In effect what is taking place is a negotiation between two groups, the government and civil rights activists. The government is asking us if we'd rather be shot in the right kneecap or the left kneecap to ensure that we don't try to run from the legitimate needs of the government. If the civil rights groups don't get on the bandwagon and pick a kneecap, they'll lose any chance they had to have an influence over this crucial process of self-government. Would you like one lump, or two? >If privacy is raised as a policy concern in this >election it will reoccur in the next and both parties will have to >justify their policies in terms of personal privacy as well as >everything else. Not if "privacy" is considered something suspicious which only extremist militant pro-pedophile terrorists would be interested in. After all, every reasonable person is open to compromising in order to accommodate the state's legitimate interest in preventing bad things from happening, right? And if a little repression and loss of privacy doesn't seem to improve things, we'd better just have some more, hmm? Never can get too much of that compromise stuff. -- 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.

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

>>>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 >>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). >I'm sure there's going to be a REALLY marketable device out of this to get >royalties off of. No, the market for the more mainstream MFM's is small (a few K devices), for MFSTM's it's even smaller (a few dozen?). MFSTM's are usually built by universities for research purposes, which means the patent won't affect them. As I said before, it's purely a "we paid for the research, we want some paper to wave around to justify the cost" thing. >Question: if we pay taxes, then we pay for the research. if we pay for the >research, we should be able to see the results, just like shareholders in a >company. You can see the results, just read the Journal of Applied Physics or IEEE Transactions on Magnetics. I know people like to come up with conspiracy theories about the NSA, but this patent won't work as the basis for one. Peter.

2 1

Re: TWA 800 - Friendly Fire?
by Mark Neely 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Look at what has been happening in the news lately -- and look at how >much is "unexplained" or flimsy evidencially speaking, in the very least. >If, for instance, the government wanted to cut down on civil >liberties/civil rights, it would seem MIGHTY CONVENIENT that so much is >"accidentally" happening so close together. >-Millie >sfuze(a)tiac.net Yes, I wonder if the WhiteHouse will rush through a bill overturning the anti-terrorist measures which they justified on the basis of the TWA bombing. Regards, Mark ___ Mark Neely - accessnt(a)ozemail.com.au Lawyer, Internet Consultant, Professional Cynic Author: Australian Beginner's Guide to the Internet (2nd Ed.) Australian Business Guide to the Internet Internet Guide for Teachers, Students & Parents Check out my Anti-SPAM FAQ: http://www.accessnt.com.au/faqs/spam.htm

1 0