December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Hello from the Brotherhood
by Darkened-Node 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello to everyone from the Brotherhood of Darkness Fellow Cypherpunks: Please visit our site at: http://www.ilf.net/brotherhood/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Darkened-Node Executive Member -THE- -BROTHERHOOD- -OF DARKNESS- Comments or Questions? Darkened-Node(a)Geocities.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: a retort + a comment + a question = [RANT]
by SUCRUM22_at_INDY-ADP＠smtp-gw.cv62.navy.mil 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------------------------------------------------------------------- dave kinchlea wrote: >As said in "Hair" (the movie), "Don't do it for me man, 'cause >if the shoe was on the other foot, I wouldn't do it for you!" >It's a lie anyway, you do it for yourself. That's an _easy_ judgment to make (and i definitely have to stop adding anecdotes from my life in these things!), but you missed the point - the freedoms the Cpunks diligently try to preserve (or seem to want to create...) are protected _by_ the military. who was it that said: "law, without force, is impotent" -? keep in mind that even "bad" laws have to be enforced. you can scream all you want about "good, strong" cryptostuffs, but if the phone lines are slashed, the satellite links are down, the elcerticity is off and you've got a foreign soldier waving a .45 around - just how are you going to boot up that pretty little computer and make it encode information for you, much less get it anywhere? anarchy implies ruthlessness - you going to practice cryptostuffs from a prison cell? was i assuming that you've read the book and/or seen the broadway play, "Hair"? OHHHHH - i'm sorry - you saw the _movie!_ shame on me. ---------------------- SUCRUM22(a)cv62.navy.mil ----------------------- a calculated risk based on the possible consequence of an action is better than a haphazard one based on poor judgment or ignorance --------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't confuse my views with those of the DoD or the United States Navy

3 2

Small question about the list
by MatriX Spider 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, I've been around the Cypherpunk list for a couple of month now and it don't correspond exactly to what I've expect. I would be realy happy if someone could tell me the adress to remove my name from the distribution list. Could anyone send me the procedure on how to remove my name of the list ? Thanks for your time and for your help, MatriX.

2 1

Re: Timmy
by .echo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) >Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. >Comments: Dole/Kemp '96! You can remove Dole/Kemp from your email headers, since the election is past. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= .echo echo68916(a)delphi.com

1 0

Re: Black Unicorn exposed?
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:30 PM 11/9/1996, Robert Hettinga wrote: >At 12:45 pm -0500 11/9/96, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >> We are hardly operating in a hostile environment. Yet, somebody >> who has apparently gone to some effort to have an anonymous >> identity has been exposed. The implications of this are worth >> considering. > Nope. Sorry, Pete. Hope you didn't throw out your sholder, swinging for the > fences like that. ;-). Phew! While this news leaves me looking foolish, I am relieved. Now for my real question: Does the One True Cypherpunk really have a black unicorn on his coat of arms? Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

1 0

Re: Legal Deffinition of Encryption?
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:17 PM 11/9/1996, Mark M. wrote: >On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Benjamin Grosman wrote: >> I have absolutely no idea: this is a very interesting problem. Not for just >> compression and encryption differention legally, but also, well, ANY other >> data form. If one defines a new format for saving data (i.e a new image >> format), and then exports this technology from the USA, is this exportation >> of munitions due to it's unknown qualities? Or what? >> I know that in Australia there have been problems defining electronic data, >> especially pictures (usually porn), for the purposes of prosecution. >> Because, really, a pornographic picture is no more than 1's and 0's arranged >> in a different way by a different algorithm. >> Thus I think it most likely that the law would try and approach it from the >> direction of the algorithm that saved the data and the intent with which the >> algorithm was written. >> Otherwise, I don't know. > I can't define encryption, but I know it when I see it. They way it will be forbidden is by outlawing the execution of the algorithms. The algorithms (the secure ones anyway) are well defined as is executing them. The legal system has dealt with greater ambiguities than this. An analogy to the drug laws might be useful. We don't outlaw all drugs that cause you to have weird visions and to act strangely. That would be hard to define and would cover a number of legal drugs. Instead, the specific chemicals are forbidden as they are discovered. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

3 3

Re: Pseudo-law on the list and libel (fwd)
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:21 AM 11/9/1996, Jim Choate wrote: > The real issue here is that folks on the net want the protection of the 1st > Amendment but they don't want the responsibility that goes along with it. > This list qualifies as a press. As a result it has a responsibility relating > to what it distributes. I don't find the word "responsibility" in the First Amendment. You and the courts may decide John has a responsibility to let other people use his computer, but the source of this idea is not the First Amendment. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

1 0

Pyramid schemes and cryptoanarchy
by Clay Olbon II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It seems that pyramid scheme spamming has increased of late (if that is possible!). In my lifetime, I can only remember a single snail-mail instance of a pyramid scheme - over the net it is an entirely different story (although the number of instances is probably proportional to the number of lists I subsribe to). With fully anonymous digital cash will come the ability to develop untraceable pyramid schemes. As a staunch believer in the free market, I find laws against these schemes distasteful, quite hypocrytical (i.e. Social Security), and soon to be unenforceable. Pyramid schemes could be a growth market in a crypto-anarchic world. It is yet another market such as gambling, or the lottery, that could be conducted with anonymity. And it appears to be much more widespread on the internet currently, even without anonymity. And unlike gambling or the lottery, the payoffs could increase greatly should anonymity be available. Now, what is the point of this discussion of pyramid schemes? It is to bring to light yet another area that will be untouchable by governments. And I think that it will help continue the development and proliferation of some of our pet projects, specifically fully anonymous digital cash and remailers. Remailer operators could even fund their operations through pyramid schemes (directly, or indirectly through digital postage stamps). I am not, however, advocating spam. I simply see it as a natural extension of current practice, that may actually provide tangible benefits in the near future. Clay ******************************************************* Clay Olbon clay.olbon(a)dynetics.com engineer, programmer, statistitian, etc. Dynetics, Inc. **********************************************tanstaafl

4 3

Real Time Pads (chat modes)?
by kb4vwa＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone know if there is a software that encrypts DES, or triple DES in real time for ie, Chat modes? I think this be a very interesting idea if not already being used. I'm sure the government uses some form of real time pad. Comments? Ed

1 0

Re: Information [for new PGP user]
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adamsc wrote: > On Thu, 07 Nov 1996 07:08:52 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: > >> >> > I'm a new Cyberpunk! > >> Probably wearing a set of Ono-Sendai eyeballs.... > >> >> > Last, I would like to know once and for all, is PGP compromised, is > >> >> > there a back door, and have we been fooled by NSA to believe it's secure? > >> You can read and compile the source code yourself. > >Really? All 60,000 or so lines, including all 'includes' or attachments? > >I'll bet you can't find 10 out of 1,000 users who have read the total source, > >let alone comprehended and validated it. > That's not necessary - it's the fact that it's possible that matters; most > of us are content to trust the various people who actually have. However, > I'd probably be inclined to look into it seriously if I was going to use it > on anything incriminating or potentially linked to my checkbook... My main point, which is really difficult to make, since software issues are so complex today, is that I've been involved with projects on a similar scale as PGP, where several programmers contributed code to a particular executable program, and when this is the case (especially where the source is not obvious as would be data entry code and the like), it's just not practical for one person working alone, unpaid, to break the source down into manageable chunks and study it and make enough notes so that every portion of it is clearly understood and validated. People in the past have discussed 50 million line Fortran programs to set up jet training simulators and so forth, and by comparison a 60,000 line source in 'C' might look doable, as far as complete annotation is concerned. To illustrate the point, then, I recently had a chance to estimate the cost of converting a non-'C' program to 'C', which would result in a 'C' program of about 6,000 lines, or about 1/10 the size of PGP. My best guess was about 500 to 1,000 hours, and to analogize that to PGP, where I wouldn't be writing or converting code ostensibly, just annotating it, I would still guess 2,500 to 5,000 hours, if the job were done correctly and thoroughly. If the job is not practical/feasible, then IMO I can say it's not doable. OTOH, if some one or a handful of people wanted to make the source code of PGP really accessible to the masses (of programmers at least), they should start with a plan to make sure it's broken down into a heirarchy of functions so that: 1. No one function is too large (say, no more than 50 lines or so). 2. All functions use reasonably short variable names (ex: 'iTrapon'). 3. Variable names are consistent in capitalization. 4. Function names follow the heirarchy and are logically intuitive. 5. Constant and #define names follow a heirarchy as well. 6. Where a choice is possible between setting out a construct that (visually speaking) looks very complex and is difficult to follow, and making it simpler, take the simpler path.

1 0