December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: [Math Noise] (fwd)
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate allegedly said: > > > > Infinity does not have a predecessor, so it makes no sense to > > count back from it a finite number of steps. > > If infinity does not have predecessors (ie is immune to normal arithmetic > operations) then it is not possible for a sequence to approach it by adding > a finite amount to succesive terms in order to approach it. This means that > a sequence can not meaningfuly be asymptotic with infinity (meaning I have to > be able to draw a asymptote, at least in theory, in order to demonstrate the > limit). Jim, the problem here, as elsewhere in your posts, is that you confuse the prosaic meaning of terms with the mathematical meaning. "Approaching" infinity is sort of inane, mathematically speaking, but if it did have a meaning, it wouldn't mean "getting closer to". > > If one constructs the Ordinals, which are isomorphism classes of > > well-ordered sets, and the Cardinals, which are equivalence > > classes of equipotent sets, one will automatically end up with > > all sorts of transfinite numbers. > > If infinity is not a number, how is it possible to have a definite number > (ie transfinite) which is larger than it? > > My contention is that number theory as you present it is playing fast and > loose with the concept of infinity not being a number or visa versa. Your contention is precisely what you are doing. The term "infinity" means several things mathematically speaking, but the various meanings are precise. Your comments demonstrate that you don't really know what those precise meanings are, and thus it is difficult for people who are used to them to communicate with you. So perhaps you could define *exactly* what you mean by "infinity"? -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F

1 0

Re: Airport security [no such thing]
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Recall that all security is economics. The airlines want the appearance of security without having to pay for it. The '3 questions' ("Pack your luggage? let it out of your sight? Taking any gifts?") originated with El Al, where they are the introduction to a very expensive (and privacy invading) set of screening questions. The El Al people are trained to watch you as they ask the questions, and respond to signs of lying or rehersal. The Americans read the questions off the screen, and pay no attention to your answers. The market, however, is irrational*, and airlines prefer to have government imposed regulations over having to actually figure out what works, and do it. *The market is irrational because statistics on what airlines are safer than others is closely held knowledge of the FAA. Adam Alan Bostick wrote: | She presented the gate agent with *four* tickets and *four* IDs. "Where | are these other people?" the agent asked. "They're parking the car," | said the traveler. The agent gave her all four boarding passes; and my | companion and I were bumped to the third boarding group. | | The woman in front of us was white and middle-class-looking, traveling | with what appeared to be her family. One wonders what would have | happened were she a swarthy man wearing robes and a burnoose. Or if she | were just wearing shabby clothes. -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

3 2

A Moment of your Time.
by blizz＠capella.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If I could just have a moment of your time, this is an opportunity message being sent out first to those I would think might be interested. I have a network marketing opportunity to make GOOD money with MINIMAL effort. I will not take up your time with the details. If you are serious about making REAL money in the MLM game, just reply with OK in the message subject and I will send you a Webpage that will explain better than I could ever do via Email. This program uses a database to place people in your downline AUTOMATICALLY as they sign up. you can spend little or even NO time recruiting, the choice is yours. I have never claimed to be articulate when sending Email, so I will end it here, but trust me, this is worth AT LEAST taking a look at. After all, if we don't have the time to check out NEW opportunity's, are we really being honest to ourselves in expecting to ever make money at this? If you wish to be removed from my mailing list, just reply to this with REMOVE in the subject line, and you will automatically be taken from my future mailing lists. I hope you choose to reply with OK, you really should at least take a look... Thanks, and GOOD LUCK Either way!

1 0

Re: UNS_top
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You'll get the full article soon enough, I expect. The Reuters story isn't quite right, though. Burma has no Net-connection. I stood outside the building that will house it last month (they wouldn't let me in) after hiking five miles through fields to get around police barricades. It should go live this year. For China and Singapore Net-censorship, check out my web site at http://www.eff.org/~declan/global/ -Declan On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Toto wrote: > John Young wrote: > > Governments in China, Burma and > > Singapore have already tried to discipline this on-line activity with > > minimal success. > > Do you have any pointers to information in regard to this, or are you > just being a goddamn tease? > > Toto > > > >

1 0

Re: Menwith Hill / NSA
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've just heard from Duncan Campbell (who made the documentary), he'll send me a copy of the script which can be put on the web. I'll let people know when it's available. Copies of the tape can be ordered from his company: IPTV Ltd 1 Meadowbank Edinburgh EH8 8JE Scotland, UK E-mail : duncan(a)gn.apc.org Tel : +44 131 659 6566 Cost is \pounds 14.50 stg + any postage costs for outside UK - \pounds 5 will cover it. They have no NTSC versions in stock but can make them from the master. Provided they get orders for at least 10, the cost will be the same. They accept payment in US$ cheques as well as \pounds stg cheques; no credit cards, sorry. He is, in theory, on holiday for another month or so and only has intermittent net connectivity, so please don't flood him with email just yet. Peter.

1 0

Interesting item from Nwlibertarians@teleport.com
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 17:44:32 -0800 (PST) >From: James Ogle <joogle(a)netcom.com> >Subject: NWLibs> LP: Browne's Vote Annulled, Chudov Still PM >To: Jack Dean <JackDean(a)webworldinc.com> >cc: usa-par(a)netcom.com, ichudov(a)algebra.com, rjschundler(a)aol.com, > nwlibertarians(a)teleport.com, brockman(a)netcom.com >Sender: owner-nwlibertarians(a)teleport.com >Reply-To: nwlibertarians(a)teleport.com > > >To: Jack Dean >Cc: Usa-par(a)netcom.com Listserver Members and Other Libertarians > >It turns out that according to Jack Dean, a campaign worker with the Harry >Browne in '96 campaign, the eballot vote for Igor Chudov (Libertarian - >OK) cast from HarryBrowne@HarryBrowne'96.com address, which was forwarded >to Mr. Jack Dean by me, was a fake - so the two votes are shaved off the >Chudov total. Can anyone speak with better authority on Browne then >Mr. Jack Dean, and say the Browne did cast the vote? On a positive >note however, Tim Ladd (Pot - CA) has agreed to list Mr. Chudov as his >first choice, so Mr. Chudov stays as PM for the time being with five votes. > >The new vote totals are shown below. > >BTW, a special welcome to the usa-par(a)netcom.com list to Evan Colletti >(Pot - NV), who joins the list from Reno NV, as a founder of the NV-PAR >and the Nevada Pot Party. > > --James Ogle > >On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Jack Dean wrote: > >> >> You wrote: >> >> >Jack, i just received this email from Mr. Harry Browne. Will you >> >please confirm with him that he did indeed cast the vote? >> >> No, he didn't. It appears to be a faked e-mail message. I'll be >> investigating how it was done. >> >> Sorry. >> >> Jack >> >> >> ************************************************************************** >> J. Harris Dean | voice & fax> 714/870-5585 >> 2217 Vista del Sol | pager with voice mail> 714/935-3638 >> Fullerton, CA 92831 | e-mail> JackDean(a)webworldinc.com >> ************************************************************************** >> "LIBERTY is something you cannot have, unless you are >> willing to give it to others." - William Allen White > >---------------------------------------------------Votes for PM of USA PAR > > > ====**** ************************** ****==== > ====*** * THE 3RD USA PARLIAMENT * ***==== > ====== ************************** ====== > > Igor Chudov Taoiseach > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >For Immediate Release January 20, 1997 > > RESULTS OF VOTING FOR TAOISEACH > > Vote For # Of Vote For >MP Vote For PM Secretary Seats Rules >------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Monty Truitt 1 Monty Truitt 1 James Ogle > 2 James Ogle 2 Monty Truitt > 3 Donald Duck 3 Micky Mouse 1 no >Daniel Brockman 1 Valerie Madriaga 1 James Ogle > 2 Igor Chudov > 3 Mike Bogatirev > 4 Zachary Quest 2 yes >Mike Robinson 1 Daniel Brockman 1 James Ogle > 2 Steve Michael 2 Mike Robinson > 3 Mike Robinson 1 yes >Nathan Brown 1 John Mayer 1 James Ogle > 2 Michael Banon 1 yes >Patrick Seats 1 Patrick Seats 1 James Ogle > 2 Daniel Brockman 2 Gary Swing 1 yes >Kerby Hensley 1 Locke Heemstra 1 James Ogle 1 >Jack Clayton 1 Steve Michael 1 James Ogle > 2 Jack Clayton 1 yes >Igor Chudov 1 Daniel Brockman 1 James Ogle > 2 Igor Chudov 1 yes* >James Ogle 1 Daniel Brockman 1 James Ogle > 2 Igor Chudov > 3 Nathan Brown > 4 Zachary Quest 2 yes >Bruce Daniels 1 Daniel Brockman 1 Gary Swing 8 yes >Gorden Hartman 1 Daniel Brockman 2 James Ogle 3 yes >John Mayer 1 Steve Michael 1 James Ogle 1 yes >Mike Bogatirev 1 Daniel Brockman 1 James Ogle 2 abstain >Gene Marsee' 1 Valerie Madriaga 1 James Ogle 1 abstain >Locke Heemstra 1 Lock Heemstra 1 James Ogle > 2 Daniel Brockman 1 yes >Shirley Bradshaw 1 Bruce Daniels 1 James Ogle > 2 Valerie Madriaga 1 >Lloyd Llewellyn 1 Igor Chudov 1 >Eli Rozicki 1 Nathon Brown 1 >Laura Booth 1 Nathan Brown 1 James Ogle 1 yes >Ann Atkerson 1 Newt Gingrich 1 James Ogle 1 >Steve Duby 1 Steve Duby 1 James Ogle > 2 Nathan Brown > 3 John Mayer > 4 Laura Booth 1 >Greg Farley 1 Nathan Brown 1 James Ogle 1 >Tim Ladd 1 Igor Chudov 1 James Ogle > 2 Nathan Brown >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Total 35 > > >*Voted yes on rules and other rules, and wrote in "Create USA PAR Web Page". > >Results As Of 1/20/97 > >Daniel Brockman (17 votes) Declines To Stand >Igor Chudov Elected Prime Minister - 5 votes >James Ogle Elected Secretary - 25 votes >Rules Approved - 23 votes > >--James Ogle, secretary > USA Parliament > > > Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

RE: Disseminating public-key crypto source code
by John Lehmann (SSASyd) 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >I've written a few Perl routines for public-key cryptography. I'd >like to freely disseminate the source code (starting with ElGamal) to >as many people as I can, > >It's my understanding that there are two orthogonal restrictions: > > 1) ITAResque: I can't give code to non-U.S. citizens. > 2) PKPesque: Using public-key crypto is an infringement, > although disseminating/possessing the source > code is not. > >While I'm sure these are oversimplifications, it would seem that I can >release my source code over the Internet provided I install a simple >verification mechanism (cf. MIT's PGP distribution) to ensure that >only people claiming to be U.S. citizens have access privileges. > >Am I correct? If so, why aren't more people doing this? > People do do this, but if you are using RSA or other methods patented in the US, you might want to look at them. Is the concept of PK cryptography patented? And of course you are familiar with Bernstein v DoS... [http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Bernstein_v_DoS/HTML/bernstein_961218 _pressrel.html] >The plaintiff in the case, Daniel J. Bernstein, Research Assistant Professor at >the University of Illinois at Chicago, developed an "encryption >algorithm" (a recipe or set of instructions) that he wanted to publish in printed >journals as well as on the Internet. Bernstein sued the >government, claiming that the government's requirements that he register as an >arms dealer and seek government permission before publication >was a violation of his First Amendment right of free speech. This is required by >the Arms Export Control Act and its implementing regulations, >the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. > >In the first phase of this litigation, the government argued that since Bernstein's >ideas were expressed, in part, in computer language (source >code), they were not protected by the First Amendment. On April 15, 1996, >Judge Patel rejected that argument and held for the first time that >computer source code is protected speech for purposes of the First >Amendment. ...here Perl has the advantage of being a scripting language, and so by default comes as source, though if you had written the routines in a scripting langauge like Python, you might find it easier to convince a judge that it was in fact human readable... -- John "BTW IANAL" Lehmann

1 0

Re: GSM crypto upgrade? (was Re: Newt's phone calls)
by Liz Taylor 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

frantz(a)netcom.com (Bill Frantz) wrote: > The box has a 3 or 4 digit display which displays "something" about the > 3DES key, where "something" is some of the bits, or a hash, or ... With 3 > decimal digits, a MIM attacker has a 999 out of 1000 chance of getting > caught. Not true. It will take a MIM machine less than a tenth of a second to come up with a 3DES key that will have the same three digit hash. Remember the attack found about Clipper's LEAF hash, which was only 16 bits long?

1 0

RE: Disseminating public-key crypto source code
by John Lehmann 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >I've written a few Perl routines for public-key cryptography. I'd >like to freely disseminate the source code (starting with ElGamal) to >as many people as I can, > >It's my understanding that there are two orthogonal restrictions: > > 1) ITAResque: I can't give code to non-U.S. citizens. > 2) PKPesque: Using public-key crypto is an infringement, > although disseminating/possessing the source > code is not. > >While I'm sure these are oversimplifications, it would seem that I can >release my source code over the Internet provided I install a simple >verification mechanism (cf. MIT's PGP distribution) to ensure that >only people claiming to be U.S. citizens have access privileges. > >Am I correct? If so, why aren't more people doing this? > People do do this, but if you are using RSA or other methods patented in the US, you might want to look at them. Is the concept of PK cryptography patented? And of course you are familiar with Bernstein v DoS... [http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Bernstein_v_DoS/HTML/bernstein_961218 _pressrel.html] >The plaintiff in the case, Daniel J. Bernstein, Research Assistant Professor at >the University of Illinois at Chicago, developed an "encryption >algorithm" (a recipe or set of instructions) that he wanted to publish in printed >journals as well as on the Internet. Bernstein sued the >government, claiming that the government's requirements that he register as an >arms dealer and seek government permission before publication >was a violation of his First Amendment right of free speech. This is required by >the Arms Export Control Act and its implementing regulations, >the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. > >In the first phase of this litigation, the government argued that since Bernstein's >ideas were expressed, in part, in computer language (source >code), they were not protected by the First Amendment. On April 15, 1996, >Judge Patel rejected that argument and held for the first time that >computer source code is protected speech for purposes of the First >Amendment. ...here Perl has the advantage of being a scripting language, and so by default comes as source, though if you had written the routines in a scripting langauge like Python, you might find it easier to convince a judge that it was in fact human readable... -- John "BTW IANAL" Lehmann

1 0

Arkansas Phone Scramblers, etc.
by John C. Randolph 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just had an interesting exchange with the latest person to take up residence in my bozo filter. I get this message from some clown I've never heard of, sent from AOL, saying that he wants one of these Radio Shack scrambler frobs, and hinting that he'd be willing to pay lots for it. I sent him back a note pointing out, among other things, that I don't know him, he doesn't know me, and that we're talking about buying and selling a frob that at least one set of JBT's doesn't think he should have. I concluded by telling him that I wouldn't sell him one if I had one, that I wouldn't tell him whether I had one, and that if he wants to have a private conversation with someone, he should just get a copy of PGP phone, like everyone else. He sent me a huffy note, saying I'd better learn some diplomacy. So, what do you think guys? Did I just piss off some federal prosecutor who was hoping to body-grab me to a clueless jusrisdiction like Arkansas to try me for crypto-terrorism, or did I piss off another fucking AOL'er? Amused and Torqued at the same time, -jcr

1 0