December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Telling quote from Bernstein hearing
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In the recent hearing of the Bernstein case, Anthony Coppolino for the Justice Department said: "We don't care about the theory; we don't care about the idea Mr. Bernstein has, which was to take a particular type of algorithm and use it to allow for an encrypted interactive conversation. That's his idea. We don't care about his idea; we care about the result of what it can do." http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/Legal/ 960920.transcript Encrypted interactive conversations seem to be something to be concerned about...They are afraid of us. -- 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 3

Re: Discrete logs 1 [non-cryptography related annecdote]
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:16:26 -0800, Hal Finney wrote: >properties than regular logarithms, but I thought this bit of history >would spark some memories in old-timers and give a new perspective for >younger people. It's kind of funny how quickly they dropped out of usage. I'm probably one of the estimated 7 people under the age of 30 who actually know how to use one. (Long story - it involves a couple months in a math class w/o a decent calculator) I was in an Algebra class taught by 'Father Time' - interesting facial expression when he first noticed my 'calculator' (similar to the one he got when I blurted out the [correct] answer to a problem he'd been explaining while I was reading a book and ignoring him - in retrospect, RAH was more educational). We had to take some sort of state math test and I had just gotten my new programable graphing calculator a week or two before (more lost sleep - with a little creativity and a boring class you can get some interesting code on those thingies) but for some reason I decided to bring both calculator (the allowability of which was highly suspect) and sliderule. The proctor saw me and had a major fit -- over the sliderule! Yeap, in the state of California they don't let algebra students use a sliderule to 'cheat' on the assessment test. They do, however, allow you to use a modern graphing calculator with programs and an equation solver (Did I mention the optional IR link?). The same thing goes on with SATs and especially SAT-IIs. Some higher-end calculators, esp. HPs, have plugin cartridges which automate much of the basic work in chemistry, physics, etc. I never saw anyone who used such things even get asked about it. Do we even need social engineering with people this stupid? # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # <cadams(a)acucobol.com> | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY" "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them." --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)

2 1

Re: FDA_dis
by Murray Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 17:51:56 -0500, Hallam-Baker wrote: >Declan McCullagh wrote: >> >> I'll have to reread John's piece tomorrow (I'm on vacation right now), but >> it doesn't surprise me. He and I have been arguing about this topic via >> email for the last week or so. He takes the traditional liberal view of >> government regulation of drugs is necessary; I take the more libertarian one. >> >> The Cato Institute, BTW, will be putting together a roundtable on this soon. >> >> -Declan > >Characterising this as the "traditional liberal view" is somewhat >misleading, >its not as if Bob Dole or Newt Gingrich would disagree much. The >argument is >more over which special interest group is to be advantaged by changes in >regulation. If I was a citizen of a country where the government was >elected >by a billion dollars of corporate contributions I might be a >libertarian. Are you saying that you are anti-corporation? That would make no sense. Many corporations are very benificial to society. Take Shell for example. It did all that it could to save the life of that guy in Nigeria, but the "libertarians" who instantly boycotted Shell would have you belive that they encouraged the sentence. >Its important to remember that its the World Wide Web and not simply >limited >to the US. As long as US companies set up subsidiaries in Europe they >will be constrained by European law. In the net.age law is becomming a >major >export for many countries. What is becoming a major export? Weak laws? Why would a country encourage criminals to come to it's boarders? >Regulation is not necessarily anti-commerce. UK beef farmers would be >better >off today if there had been more regulation, a weak "free-market" >attitude >to public health has destroyed the entire industry. I don't think you have analysed the situation. It was the regulating that deystroyed the UK cattel industry and put the entire world at risk. The British government protected the beef industry despite a ban on British beef accross Europe. If Eroupe is considered to be the "Free Market" as you suggest, then it would be exactly opposite to what you have suggested. The "Free Market" labled the animals coming from Britian to be of questionable quality. The regualtors in Britian disaggreed because it would cost them a few penny's to slauter the infected heards. Then Britians started getting sick. The rest of the world throws up bans of British beef; Yet the British regulators still do not cleanse the heards. The only way to ensure the desease is gone is to kill every last cow in Britian and bring in fresh stock. THAT MEANS NO GIVING THEM TO INDIA YOU STUPID FUCKS. It is often in a >companies >commercial interest to voluntarily agree to be regulated. Microsoft >recently >signed an agreement to be bound by the European computer privacy >regulations >because by doing so they gained a business advantage - people would >trust >them with their data. This is another interesting point. Why is it better for a company to agree to any regulation? Do you REALLY trust Microsoft? I do not. They write poor code. They probably signed the aggreement because they knew that there product was so bad that it couldn't violate any restrictions or they contracted the work out to the NSA who wrote the code for them and so they know that it can be cracked if they need to track down every last copy of the OS for their marketing group to do a statistical analysis on. > >Much of the advertising regulation being discussed is private, agreement >on >standard formats for image placements for example. There is existing >government >regulation of advertising in many countries however. In particular much >stricter control over advertising of drugs, making misleading statements >in >advertising and so on.In the UK there is regulation of advertising >through >the advertising standards council which is a voluntary body in the sense >that it has no statutory enforcement powers but has practical authority >because the publishers will not publishe ads that fall foul of its >decisions. I belive that this is the GOVERNMENT body called the BBC. We have a similary group up here called the Communist Broadcast Corporation. Actually, I must be fair to them, I do like Air Farce. I don't think your argument holds any water. Different cultures have different social norms. I was quite shocked to see John Clease stark f**king naked on a tea commercial (isn't tea a carrier of caffine? yes. Does caffine change the way in which you body works? yes. Is caffine food? no; therefore caffine is a drug and tea carries that drug.) > >A more serious problem however is likely to be dramatically different >cultural norms. In the US people expect to be lied to in adverts. In >countries >where there is regulation of advertising there is a general expectation >for comparisons to be fair and for ads to be truthful. I'm just waiting >for a major corporation to create an Intel scale PR disaster by applying >sleasly US style marketing techniques in markets where the downside is >very large. One recent example is Hoover which had a $30 odd million >debacle over a "free flights" giveaway that was based on sleasly US >style >marketing techniques. The company ended up having to live up to the >spirit of its offer rather than the letter as it intended simply to >preserve the value of the brand. So? All this proves is that the US is more oreiented toward the free market than other places. In the free market, on's "brand value" is incredibly important. I think you are also missing the distinction between a company and it's marketing. I'm sure Hoover, as in your example, has many marketing camnpaines going on at any time and that every so often an overeager director of the comapany that Hoover hired to do the campain makes a mistake. I'm sure this happens all the time, just take a look at another marketing company: Microsoft. > >If you don't believe in anti trust laws there is no basis on which you >can object to the sort of regulation by cabal that the advertising >standards council represents. Of course such cabals cannot exist in the >libertarian belief system since their existence is denied a-priori >by invoking the spirit of Milton Freedman. Milton Freedmen is of course >a rightwing ecconomist whose theories are widely admired by free >market ecconomists who admire Mitlon Freedman. Does that mean a libertarian is more Free Market oriented or more Command Market oriented? I'm not sure there is any correlation at all. I belive in anti trust laws, does that mean I can object to regualtions? mhayes(a)infomatch.com It's better for us if you don't understand It's better for me if you don't understand -Tragically Hip

3 2

Montgolfiering, the Hot Air Balloon of Cryptography -Reply
by Sean Vince-Jillings 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

nobody quoth >Fie on the small minds that cackle at my brilliance! As a Mensa member >and >founder of the Society for Superintelligent Former NSA Employees, I >chortle >at the baseness of callow criticisms by those doubters and dilletantous >denigrators of virtual one-time pads and PRNGs (perfect random >number >generators). So Mr Smarty Pants, how does it feel to be the second most intelligent life form on the planet? Your polysyllabic phrasing does not fish you from the unfortunate and precarious position of only being in the second most august and lofty eyrie of intellect in the upward spiral of extropian realisation. Ha! As the Shadow president of the Alien Consortium that controls MENSA through the Boy Scout Freemason Recruitment Program, I refute your dubious and somewhat ill-considered claims to being the very paragon of intelligence. >Montgolfiering. What is it, you ask? It is demonstrably a new paradigm in >the evolution of homo sapiens (Parry Messger excepted) toward >Shannon's >dream of a one-time pad needing only a single, easily memorizable >number as >a seed. I have heard only silence when I challenged the so-called >superbrains of this latargial list to try to determine which number I am >using as the seed of my system. If you are such great smarty pants, far >smarter than my colleagues at the NSA and at Mauchly-Wood, why can >you not >then determine this number? I can. >Could it be because I have outsmarted >you? >Could it be because I understand the Sufi secrets of picking random >numbers >truly randomly? I submit this to you: 8 31 26 3 19. Now, oh great >ones, >tell me, what is the next number in this sequence? 11. Prove me wrong. > >Ha, you cannot predict this next number, can you, oh gibbering >greatnesses? Bullshit. I just did >Ths proves that my perfect random number genarator (PRNG, for those >of you >too stupid to remember) PRNG.Its hard to forget such a stupid name. >cannot be broken. Q.E.D. > >I question the issue of Parry Messger's objectivity in assessing the >brilliance of my importations and acidulous assertations. I question >whether Parry may have a peculiarly pecuniary interest in these >affairs? >Does Parry have an insider, or other position, or interest in one or more >of the RSA interest? If, this explains his fantastical faith in the core of >this so-called "RSA" system, which I proved to my colleagues at NSA >could >not possibly be valid. Why, you ask? Because it contains no virtual >seed, >and that which has no seed cannot grow. Q.E.D.--it has been >debunked. No, it only looks debunked because your mind has been unhinged. > >Entropy, you quibble? Ha! What is entropy but thermodynamics? And >what is >the topic of thermodynamics, you small-minded ensemble (Gibbs) >people who >never worked for the NSA may ask? Thermodynamics is about hot air. >Hot air >is in balloons. Balloons were pioneered by the Montgolfiers. Thus we >come >full circle (can you understand this, you mental midgets?). Q.E.D.--it >has >been demystified. No. It has been filled with hot air in the hope that the argument will float. > >Montgolfiering = a new virtual one time pad based on hot air. Eureka! I >have found it. > >P Information = P * log_base_infinity P Log_base_infinity? You can't quantify this? The name for this kind of tricky sum is in fact, rhetoric. >I laugh at your sanctimonious snivelings, your bombastic bombardings, >and >your fatuous flatulations. I laugh about your need to be so prissy about a simple fart. >(Montgolfiering. Q.E.D.--"it has been deflated") heh. yeah right. GAIAWired

1 0

[NOISE]Re: Dr. Vulis; John was right!
by Derek Bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I'm not happy with the barring of Vulis from the list: sure he was a kook and he posted many ad-hominem messages*, but I feel a mini-FAQ would deal with the matter better. Explain the background to his tantrums** and explain how to filter out messages with various mail packages. * I think Vulis was really unfair to Tim May, even though I find myself disagreeing strongly with what Tim has to say on some matters. At least Tim has posted interesting, thought-provoking, crypto-related material. ** Ok, so `tantrums' is an understatement... Derek Bell PGP key available at: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/key.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAgUBMnywVFXdSMogwMcZAQEi2QQAhMWJWTz1RtBvyiYHAyzfkSSxZ+8U8rq7 xF3JD4s78rMcDcfzY0Q/5XRnPTCH/M6YI54cA/EpAEYys0Ws0VWgJoMxdBcbhitI 1zbFdUQJqzrKLlvP/n6KN2jImQeHqYUeSgsnoNgfn4Uo9KpBtxbUjKwEmco9VV8y fxoVHAYPTsg= =yk8t -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Response to PFF's O'Donnell on the CDA and moralists
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 07:58:58 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Response to PFF's O'Donnell on the CDA and moralists Richard O'Donnell from the Progress and Freedom Foundation writes in an essay attached below: > The strategic error of civil libertarians in the fight over the >censorship act was to lump together the statist moralists and the >anti-statist moralists. The latter are natural allies of the free >speechers (for the same reason the Christian Coalition and >Libertarians call the Republican party home). The ACLU crowd was >unable to create a free speech alliance with Christians because they >failed to acknowledge that attempts to limit the availability of >pornography is very American. O'Donnell makes some good points elsewhere, but the above fails to convince me. Trying to impose your moral code on others through the power of law has a long history in America: Prohibition and sodomy laws. We also have a long history of discrimination against gays, blacks, and jews. But that doesn't make it right, or justified. Gutting the First Amendment though state action, which the religious right did in passing the CDA, is indeed "unAmerican." It goes against the very principles of free expression and tolerance for political dissent upon which this country was founded. There is a difference between arguing that people should decline to purchase erotica or read "indecent" materials -- and calling for criminal laws to ban it. I agree with O'Donnell that advocates of freedom need to work with advocates of a reduced central government. One protection against future threats like the CDA is to make the Federal government less subsceptible to special interest lobbying. And certainly, House Republicans have emerged this year as the staunchest defenders of civil liberties. But I disagree with his assertion that "a small group of statist moralists" supported the CDA. My question is: what major theocratic right group publicly opposed it? Even PFF senior fellow Arianna Huffington debated Esther Dyson and John Perry Barlow and defended the CDA. The Christian Coalition certainly supported the act. Enough is Enough! supported the CDA, with its leader Dee Jepsen testifing in favor of Net-censorship. (Jepsen is on the board of regents of Pat Robertson's Regents University and has impeccable religious right credentials.) Bruce Taylor's group did -- and though Taylor isn't exactly a religious moralist, he rarely crosses swords with them. The ACLJ -- the religious right's response to the ACLU -- supported the CDA and even cited Rimm's study this year as support for its constitutionality. The organizations in the umbrella group National Coalition Against Pornography supported the CDA. The Family Research Council and Focus on the Family continue to argue in favor of the CDA. Longtime Christian Coalition ally Sen. Charles Grassley introduced a bill worse than the CDA. We all know what Rep. Henry Hyde did with the final legislation. Now, this is from memory. Perhaps some groups have changed their position after the June ruling. But I'd be interested in hearing the answer to my question above. -Declan ---------- Freedom to Pray and Sin The Internet is driving the ACLU and Christian Coalition Together Richard F. O'Donnell Prohibition became law because bootleggers, who stood to gain economically from outlawing alcohol, quietly supported the "religious" crusade against evil liquor. Today, the forces of state control who want the government to regulate Cyberspace quietly support the moral crusade against pornography on the Internet. This modern day "Bootleggers and Baptists" coalition has driven a stake through the traditional civil libertarian constituency and left the ACLU crowd completely bewildered. The Communications Decency Act, passed by Congress earlier this year and now being challenged in court, criminalizes the transmission and posting of indecent material on line. In the year of the Republican Congressional Revolution a Democrat (James Exon of Nebraska) was the prime sponsor of the censorship act. Opponents were never able to label it purely a move by "Newt Gingrich's radical freshmen" because so many Democrats supported it (and Gingrich did not). For instance, a recent WIRED magazine article entitled "The Rogues Gallery" that profiled "the legislators who helped make government censorship a reality on the Internet" didn't profile even one Republican. Liberal legislators and President Clinton, who normally have few problems with the ACLU and abhor the "radical Christian right," went right along with them in attempt to increase state control. How is it legislators who voted against efforts to ban flag burning on the grounds of free speech suddenly voted to ban dirty pictures? Simply put, the Democrats saw in the censorship act a way to assert government regulation of the Internet, the first step in letting Washington bureaucrats regulate Cyberspace in the "public interest." These liberal paternalists intuitively favor state control in the mode of Senator Bob Kerry, who thinks that, because the FCC regulates telephone and television transmission, it is a natural extension of its powers to regulate the Internet. These are members of an elite who believe that government is in a better position than parents to determine the programming content of television networks or in a better position than the market and to determine the standards for emerging technology. Defenders of free speech lost their battle over the censorship act because, when their traditional Democratic allies abandoned them, they were unable to get over their distaste for moralism and recognize their new natural allies. The key to victory for civil libertarians is understanding that moralists (e.g. "the Christian right") are not a unified, monolithic front. There is a small group of statist moralists who are seeking government power in order to impose their views on the rest of America. They may pose a threat to free speech. Yet most "Christian activists" are not interested in imposing anything on others. Instead, they are actively opposing a government that is abridging their rights to freedom of faith. Statist moralists advocate not just a silent moment in school but a school led prayer. Anti-statist moralists just want schools to stop distributing condoms because it undermines the lessons they are trying to teach their children about abstinence until marriage. The strategic error of civil libertarians in the fight over the censorship act was to lump together the statist moralists and the anti-statist moralists. The latter are natural allies of the free speechers (for the same reason the Christian Coalition and Libertarians call the Republican party home). The ACLU crowd was unable to create a free speech alliance with Christians because they failed to acknowledge that attempts to limit the availability of pornography is very American. The legacy of the Puritans remains strong in our nation. Throughout our history Americans have been ready to demand conformity and to impose through law moral standards (recall abolition - for which America went to war). Foes of the Internet censorship lost their battle by labeling their opponents "unAmerican." Steve Guest, a network consultant who is party to a class action suit against attempts to shut down on-line adult sites, summed up the civil libertarian attitude when he said such actions were "violating the basic principles on which this country was founded." Calling attempts to regulate pornography "unAmerican" does not sway many people - especially Congressmen. Moral crusades against sinful material are as quintessentially American as individual liberty. Civil libertarians need to acknowledge the natural place of moralism in American life. Otherwise, they blind themselves from recognizing their true enemy. Freedom isn't threatened by moralism - we are free precisely because we are moral beings. Freedom is threatened by the advocates of state control. Civil libertarians need to reach out to anti-statist moralists and show them that it is no better to let the government in our computers than our churches. The way to fight pornography is on individual computer screens, with technology that empowers parents to determine what their children see - not what some invisible bureaucrat or court decides is appropriate. ----------- Richard F. O'Donnell Richard F. O'Donnell is Director of Communications at The Progress & Freedom Foundation. He serves as editor of all Foundation policy reports, books and articles. In addition, he is responsible for media relations and public outreach. His editorials have appeared in Investor's Business Daily, The Washington Times and Commonsense. Mr. O'Donnell is currently assisting former Congressman Vin Weber on his book about the new political majority emerging in American politics. He has also worked with columnist Arianna Huffington, author Marvin Olasky, and numerous policy and Congressional leaders in the telecommunications, health care, energy, environment and welfare reform fields. Mr. O'Donnell is a recognized authority on the nature and political ramifications of the transition from the Industrial Age to the Digital Age. Writing and speaking on the survivability of the American Idea in the 21st Century, he is a columnist for the cyberspace magazine Upside Online. He was managing producer of a weekly television show, The Progress Report , co-hosted by Heather Higgins and House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and editor of the American Civilization. Mr. O'Donnell has also worked at the National Policy Forum: A republican Center of the Exchange of Ideas and at the Archer Daniels Midland Company. A native of Colorado, Mr. O'Donnell is a graduate of the Colorado College, and has studied at Boston College and The London School of Economics and Political Science. ###

1 0

Re: Thank you, John Gilmore, for protecting freedom of speech against Dr. Dmitri Vulius [RANT]
by Gary Howland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> But there's probably a logical reason for taking this "action", although it can > apparently be easily circumvented, even though many of us don't understand what > that logic could be. Yes. If only you knew what they knew ... :-) The mail filter is dead! Long live censorship, double standards and hypocrisy! Gary

2 1

Re: Telling quote from Bernstein hearing
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:39 PM 11/3/96 -0800, Declan wrote: >Tony Coppolino was also the Justice Department's lead attorney in the CDA >case in Philadelphia. The Feds are grooming lawyers who have a clue about >the Net. Actually, Coppolino mentioned the CDA in the Bernstaein hearing. I haven't gone through the transcript, but the gist of his point was that, while the Judges in Philly had found that the CDA was prior restraint, ITAR was not (or something similar). I did not find his arguments very persuasive -- he seemed stuck on the idea that crypto is not speech, when that had already been ruled against by Judge Patel. He may have been trying to make the record clear, for possible appeal. Rich

1 0

Re: [NOISE]Re: Dr. Vulis
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 3 Nov 96 at 14:46, Derek Bell wrote: > I'm not happy with the barring of Vulis from the list Just want to add my 2 cents. I am also unhappy with the fact that he was removed. My personal correspondence with Vulis has been friendly and he has been very helpful. Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

3 2

Re: 'what cypherpunks is about' [RANT]
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:26 PM 11/2/96 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >Following similar logic was Teddy Roosevelt, then the mad fire-bombers of World War 2, >capped by the ultimate terrorist fire-bombing of all at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then >by immense fire-bombing of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, etc., followed by prodigious fire- >bombing of Iraq and a deliberate fire-bombing and massacre of retreating troops at the >end of the "Gulf War". Fighting the U.S. can be literal Hell! Terror bombing of civilians was a European not an American invention, though. >Quick, how many times have you heard this pro-interference argument? The pro- people >will even show "proof" that the "savages" (it actually says this in the United States >Declaration of Independence) were as mean to each other as the invaders were to them. >What they fail to say, however, is that the "meanness" in such things as human sacrifice >and so forth were imported to native cultures by "god-like" superiors who descended on >the locals to "help" them to the next level of technology and hero-worship. Fooey! The death rate among civilians in many pre civilized wars was as high as civilian death rates in many of our 20th Century wars. We have the piles of bones to prove it. In addition to peonage, serfdom, chattel slavery and the treatment of women as chattels, pre civilized people were considerably more xenophobic than the worst US redneck. Many had problems accepting the denizens of the next village a few miles away. They tended to be racists as well. And did I forget to mention infanticide and royalism. DCF

1 0