December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Members of Parliament Problem
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I read awhile ago that certain members of Parliament do not speak their mind regarding the situation in Northern Ireland. The reason they give is that they have children and they fear the IRA. There are times when one wishes to speak anonymously, yet speak as a member of a group. Is there a way to take published public keys and combine them with your own in such a way that your identity is not compromised, but it is clear beyond a doubt that you control one of a set of public keys? Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

6 6

Re: A Disservice to Mr. Bell
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:01 PM 11/14/96 -0500, hallam(a)vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote: >>> Thats >>>what the supremacy clause is all about. All previously existing courts >>>were extinguished. > >>Ah! So you admit that these courts were "previously existing," huh? Well, >>if that's the case, merely read the 9th and 10th amendments and tell me how >>you're so sure that "all previously existing courts were extinguished." > >I admit no such thing if you could understand logic you would >realize that. There were pre-existing courts, those of King George. Misleading. And wrong. Wrong, because existing state courts were not eliminated. And misleading, because both "commonlaw" and "equity" courts were "those of King George." At least, the judges were appointed by the King. But the revolution merely meant that George no longer had the authority to appoint the judges; it does not mean that the courts were, themselves, eliminated as institutions. >They were extingished. "Extinguished"? Like a fire, or something like that? You really need to start using more exact terminology. I think you're trying to read a lot more into the US Constitution than was written into it. In order to be able to claim that it had an effect, you need to document that effect. Find the particular section which "extinguished" a court. Moreover, you need to explain why you're ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments, both of which make it clear that there was much continuity not affected by the Federal constitution. >Had common law courts existed (they did not >but for the sake of arguement I am indulging you in your fantasy) When did they not exist? Be very specific; are you referring to just America, or Britain as well? >they would exist no longer. You haven't documented this claim. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

4 6

Mounting Crypted directories on Multiuser Machines.
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was wondering about something: Say you have a unix (or other multi-user OS) box, how hard would it be for someone who was good at programming to modify Blaze's CFS to allow the following: Every user has a directory: /home/usr1/ /usr2/ /usr3/ and inside each directory they have: /home/usr1/html/ /files/ /.login /.usr1crypt such that /.usr1crypt gets mounted at _login_ time as a crypted file system under /files. The way I envision this is that one would log in (either from the console, or via ssh ideally) and be presented with the option of mounting said directory and asked for a passphrase, then the directory gets mounted. I took a look at Blaze's CFS, but he mentions that it is really only for a single user system, and well <looks sheepish I can't get it to compile on my machine, so I can't really play with it on my end. I would think that this would be fairly difficult, otherwise it would have already been done right? Or am I missing something more basic? It would seem that running something like this would do 2 things. 1) It would be much more difficult to prove that a service provider knew what files a user was keeping lying around because unless the user was logged in, not even the Sysadmin could "peek" at the files. 2) Provide the user with greater privacy. Users could keep PGP keys on the system without much risk, and as long as access was either thru the console, or thru something like ssh, you should be rather safe. Is anyone working toward something like this? I kinda got the idea that CFS was more designed and intended for single-user-at-a-time systems, but the application I had in mind was more of a (old) C2-type organization. Petro, Christopher C. petro(a)suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff snow(a)smoke.suba.com

2 1

[CRYPTO] web-of-trust, signatures, and anonymity
by Ted Garrett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Ok, People... Let's say that I receive a message via a mailing list from an entity. This message is signed with a PGP public key. Being that I am interested in some of the ideas proposed by this entity, I respond to the message, but I fat-finger my mailer and it sends out the message unsigned. However, my .signature is reasonably automated and my public key id is included there. I obtain the the public key associated with the original entity from the keyservers and the signature verifies, but the key on the servers is not signed. Concurrently, I receive a message in response to a message I sent to this entity, which comes to me encrypted with my public key and signed with the private key paired off to the public key I obtained for this entity from a keyserver. Being a believer in anonymity, I feel that whatever person, machine, or thing which placed the key on the keyserver and kindly responded to my message is reasonably expected to be the owner of the private key associated with the public key I obtained. Is this a fallacy? Am I wrong to sign the public key I got from the keyserver and return said key to the address purported to be the entity of ownership? What the entity does with the signature is, in my opinion up to it. Is it unrealistic to assign the probability of two entities being able to generate signatures for the same public key as close to zero? (consider that this is a 2047 bit key) Am I opening myself to attacks? By this, I mean to ask whether or not MY key is in any way possibly compromised in the exchange described. I keep a separate and 'unpublished' keypair to be used for physically met individuals. The public key of this keypair is NEVER sent by any means other than physically. This key signs only the keys of the people I meet in person or have extensive telephone conversations with. While people who recieve the signature of this key also get a copy of it, I only distribute this key to those I trust not to disseminate it further. - --- "Obviously, the US Constitution isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than what we have now." - Unknown PGP key id - 0xDEACDFD1 - Full key available from pgp-public-keys(a)pgp.mit.edu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: cp850 iQEVAwUBMowSJc1+l8EKBK5FAQEg2Af/agcalrlyDK+Ku+Qq7cnODOJjFIcsDAjh LLuA6KG2DeDQUiAH72uL5WgdiHQaZroAhqRsFGDic3zmc0YGDQkI4W2KTTsVFi08 ubcX9JCnOGuDWxLIwvBdCX/FxDsPyrhTeEUNjjkXp+5k+BdxzLTfbUgbnLgM/BGJ wD3Bq+evmTr86ul0SLUs3KL5h0488LhalPYTKtm9hdO9f3K01kz5W+FLUK3lXKJb YH2e2Ob2Nr/uSH6ElluSMVGtU09i+s40uloqokzAyB7NuTStSCupqUw0nHQKFIY7 Or8uwmZF6c7ivtacstViZ7/6xM0km7wmoyWsee3gxe63LH/Mqr25/A== =0HFl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

It is getting easier
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[From an infowar article on the list] >(ENN) A free service called "Flight Trax" is now available on the >World-Wide-Web. >This new information resource allows one to track the progress of any >domestic airflight within the contigious 48 states. > >Call up: http://www.amerwxcncpt.com/ with your favorite internet >browser. The program will ask you for the flight number, the airline, and the destination airport (using the FAA designated three-letter code). >The program will >then show you the kind of aricraft used, its flight's path, its location >on that path (accurate to within two or three minutes), and its expected >time of arrival at its destination. It will not tell you why it may have >been delayed. >The information is provided by Flyte-Comm of Ft. Lauderdale, FL, which >uses data from the FAA to produce the flight estimates. Might be prove If I remember correctly, some of the newer transponders used on commercial aircraft actually transmit GPS data back to the controller in real time. I wonder how long it will be before the FAA will include such information in their database. "To obtain the position of any passenger flight in the US within 10 meters, click here." -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred

1 0

Re: PGP3.0 & ElGamal
by Bert-Jaap Koops 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > I know 3.0 uses discrete log cryptography but whether it will be > El Gamal or DH or other I don`t know. I would imagine in the end it > would come down to a question of what is unpatented first and I have > no idea on the patent date for El Gamal (is it even patented?) but DH > hasn`t long to go.... According to Schneier, ElGamal isn't patented, but claimed to be covered by the Diffie-Hellman patent, which expires 29 April 1997. Bert-Jaap

2 1

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:22 ìì 14/11/1996 -0600, snow wrote: > Intelligence + money + time * will = Result > Some + 0 + a bit * some = A server with 4 or 5 mailing lists. Indeed! But I tend to use them for A.I. Research, and there is little left of 'em for them mailing listes ya knaw! :-) :-) > For every "tentacle" of the Vast Media Conglomerates, there is >some loose nut with a photocopier (or access to Kinko's). Thank Goddess! :-) >> Even your American President is in reality a puppet of the Trilateral >> Commission, who effectively also control CNN, the Washington Post, >> and many many many other things all over the world. > > WHO is nuts? The American and European public, i.e. _we_ who trust those people! :-) >> P.S. Even if you offered me a million dollars I'd stay away from >> your country. My sanity is much more valuable. :-) >> (The Immigration Authorities in the U.S. have missed the point: >> We DON'T want to come to you guys. It's the last thing we'd want!) > > One of these days reality is going to hit you like a runaway >freight train. You mean my check for $ 1.000.000 is... coming? :-) Cheers George P.S. The reasons I'd decline the check are simply the difficulties in having to (1) hide from your authorities as an 'illegal immigrant', (2) having to work for someone else as opposed to myself (as I do over here) andf (3) having to hire a psychiatrist sooner or later! All this maan, is more costly than $ 1.000.000. And... yes, I _am_ nutts! (Aren't we all? ;-) )

1 0

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:19 ðì 15/11/1996 -0600, snow wrote: (in the end)... > That is what freedom is, the ability to _do it yourself_ not the >requirement that others do it for you, or allow you to use what they >have already built. Hey man, do they sell "FREEDOM KITS" in American Supermarkets? :-) ROTFL! (and started saying): [...] >> Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you >> don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice >> how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain >> American patriotic organizations?) > > It still isn't censorship. Censorship, at least in my dictionary, >refers to censor, which uses the word "Official" several times. You mean that if... Dr. Dimitri Vulis hires a Mafia-man to kill ya, (to silence you) this wouldn't be censorship, since it would not be "Official" ? :-) >Mr. >Gilmore is not an "Official" in a government sense, he maybe in the EFF >sense, but this is not an "Official" EFF organ, so that doesn't count. OK, any bombs thrown in the offices of the Ecological Party are not official censorship either. It was _unofficial_ censorship by... "Motor Oil Corporation" trying to stop the Flow of Information (about their oil leakages polluting the Mediterranean Sea)... See what I mean? > He is the OWNER of this list, and the machine it runs on. If he chooses >(which he didn't) to keep someone from using the list, it is his right. If I own a building and invite you to an open meeting inside this building do I own what you _say_ or your rights to _say_ it? > "Editorial Control" means that someone decides who get's published and >who doesn't. From your opposition to it, I guess you think that a magazine >dedicated to poetry should print all poems submitted, or as many, selected >in some sort of non-judgemental order, as they can fit. Or that a magazine >should print any writings submitted to it. See my other posting about why the "Editorial" analogy has serious flaws. I don't see 'em mailing listes hangin' over the kiosk in the centre of town, ya know. Nor does the list-ownere make his bread out of 'em. And finally, we readers aren't as stupid as to forget that we are also the WRITERS of them mailing listes! :-) :-) >> Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider >> what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications >> media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership >> and communciation they espouse? > > How would this happen? Setting up a press is fairly easy, at least >a small hand operated press. Start your own magazine, start your own >mailing list. Bulshit! If this happened, nobody would exist to allow us to express ourselvers. Even if we build own "Resistance Movement" (or an alternative kind of Internet) the damage would be serious and irreversible! Are you telling us that setting up an entire _PRESS_ is fairly easy? Listen man, it's not. My printer (who printed the boxes for my software) will tell you this! He'll also explain why my major competitor in Greece owns an entire Printing/Publishing house just for Computer Manuals (Singular S.A.). Setting up a mailing list is not _that_ easy, but it's still much more intricate and difficult than accepting the Basic Principles of Free Expression: DON'T KICK OUT GUESTS YOU INVITE TO "OPEN MEETINGS". (In the Internet or anywhere else in fact). If you don't like 'em guests don't invite them in the first place, or don't call your meetings "OPEN". e.g. Just as aga tolerates me and vice versa, so should Gilmore tolerate Dimitri Vulis. Cheers George

2 1

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by aga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, 14 Nov 1996, Sean Roach wrote: > Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 19:46:08 -0500 > From: Sean Roach <roach_s(a)alph.swosu.edu> > To: aga <aga(a)dhp.com>, cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News > > >On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Mark M. wrote: > > >> Mark > >> - -- > >> finger -l for PGP key > >> PGP encrypted mail prefered. > > To which, at 08:42 AM 11/14/96 -0500, aga wrote: > > >Why? Are you a criminal? > >What are you hiding behind your PGP? > > Okay, I'll bite. Where is it said that a person who wants h[is,er] privacy > is a criminal? Charlie McCarthy might have said that. > It just "looks" that way on the net. I do live-fucking, newsgroup flooding, mailbombing, vote-tampering and defamation all legally, and OPENLY on the InterNet. The more you PGP, the worse you look. Nobody reads your e-mail, so stop being so paranoid. -aga

3 7

Re: One Big Telecoms Company
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:02 PM 11/14/96 -0800, Dave Del Torto wrote: >Um, a _better_ one, now that government monopolies are largely out of the >way, leaving significant infrastructure for them to use? There's this one >little company called MCI, see, and there's this _other_ little company >called BT, and... There are now 150 Long Distance telephone companies in the US vs 1 when I was a kid. There are now 5 or 6 broadcast and 150 cable TV networks in the US vs 3 when I was a kid. There will soon be 5 cellular and PCS companies in NYC vs 0 when I was a kid. There are now 6000 ISPs vs 0 when I was a kid. DCF

3 2