December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

ClipperFUD: tracking smart cards
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Sender: oldbear(a)tiac.net Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 00:20:34 -0500 To: Digital Commerce Society of Boston <dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu> From: The Old Bear <oldbear(a)arctos.com> Subject: tracking smart cards Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: bounce-dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: The Old Bear <oldbear(a)arctos.com> TRACKING SMART CASH A senior Justice Department official has urged makers of smart carts to include a mechanism for tracking transactions over a certain dollar amount. Assistant Attorney General Robert Litt also called for "sensible limits" on how much value can be stored or transferred on a single card or PC. The government hopes it can work with industry without stifling smart card development, and without compromising individual rights. "We don't want to dictate how these features are designed, but there are certain reasonable parameters that industry should build into their systems," says Litt. source: BNA Daily Report for Executives 29 Oct 96 page A24 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this list, send a letter to: Majordomo(a)ai.mit.edu In the body of the message, write: unsubscribe dcsb Or, to subscribe, write: subscribe dcsb If you have questions, write to me at Owner-DCSB(a)ai.mit.edu --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "The cost of anything is the foregone alternative" -- Walter Johnson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

1 0

Unix Review - letter to editor
by peter.allan＠aeat.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[ I refer to the article starting on p55 of the Nov 1996 Unix Review. ] -----letter to Ed start here------ Andrew, Congratulations on a welcome crypto article in UR. This is an important topic for security, networks, web-based commerce etc and is only going to increase in importance as people realise data is money. The article did raise my eyebrows a few times though with some wild statements - about the speed of brute-force attacks on DES, and about USG 'key escrow' proposals, patents and key certification. Also there are absolutely crucial issues not touched on, probably for lack of space. Details matter, and if you're contemplating another article on the subject I'd be happy to write it [subject to my boss' approval] or review it before publication. The field moves fast at times, and it would be good to keep an eye on the subject in a fairly regular column. Strangely, your author didn't mention ftp.ox.ac.uk, an ftp site for many good crypto tools, which (as a UK site) is not subject to US export restrictions. -- Peter Allan peter.allan(a)aeat.co.uk

1 0

Re: Censorship on cypherpunks
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Geez, the traffic has quadrupled, with most of it about Vulis. Get over it already! And so, just to add to the garbage, here's my two cents. :-) Declan McCullagh wrote: > > Libertarianism is not incompatible with strict regulations, as long as > the rules violate nobody's rights. Now, there's an Orwellian statement if ever there was one. OF COURSE Vulis's "rights" were violated. The question is, so what? The decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious. I find the rational balancing of rights and responsibilities to be less wrong than defining away your opponent's rights. Since AFAIK there was no precedent for kicking Vulis off, and in fact cpunks has long prided itself on absolute anarchy (especially after the victory of the Tim May [neutral term for rant] factions over the Perrygram faction), there is a "rights" issue. I think cpunks broke an implied contract guaranteeing Vulis absolute rant rights. But I also think that that's OK. It's ironic that you're making this argument while a piece from you making the opposite argument is still on the news stands. My response to your half of the Internet Underground article can be found on Usenet, but I think the best summary of my position came in my response to the contrary point of view -- concurring in your judgement, but disagreeing with your reasoning. - From <53i4d5$skm(a)Networking.Stanford.EDU>: |>FLAMETHROWER |>By Solveig Bernstein (sberns(a)cato.org) |> |>The decision to remain silent is an act of conscience, just like the |>decision to speak. So the view that acts of "private censorship" |>violate rights of free speech is incoherent. If an online service |>provider ousts a Web site that posts explicit messages about sex, in |>violation of the terms of their service contract, or a non-profit |>organization persuades some Internet Service Providers to refuse to |>host "Holocaust Revisionist" web sites, these decisions do not violate |>rights of free speech. | |I agree, up to a point. The only "right" of free speech is the right to |be free from force and threats of force based on the content of speech. |As publishers, librarians, archivists, and access providers, though, we |have a *duty* to society to tolerate ideas we despise. But this duty |comes from the public's right to know and from the kind of people we |are, not from the "rights" of the speakers. | |Anyone who claims to be a content-neutral ISP, a librarian, or an |unbiased source of news who suppresses things she doesn't like is a |*LIAR AND A FRAUD* because she is giving her audience a dishonest, |distorted view of the world. Protests against such capricious exercises |of editorial power are appropriate and are necessary, but they should |be viewed as attacks on the character of the editor, not defenses of |the human rights of the suppressed. In this case, I think any fair investigation of the facts of the matter would clearly demonstrate that Gilmore was right to kick Vulis off, and that he was neither acting capriciously nor removing any substantive content. I do believe, though, that that's an investigation we must be prepared to accept (not that I think anyone's seriously going to ask for one, given the relative reputations of the parties involved). Granting the cpunks owner absolute property rights over the content of messages on the list, though, as you do, while strictly correct, is extremely dangerous because it gives license to all kinds of distoritions, lies, and fraud. The right of "the public" to inquire and respond must be respected. And it has been, as all these useless threads show. - -rich owner-fight-censorship-discuss(a)c2.net - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMn5xRioZzwIn1bdtAQH7JwGAhI91c5/AkamPaUUlfkC95sRzmHn6uUx9 j/AGAZQ4QTw6SHdgl5rBu9SkpncTh43b =Q7O4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

just what we #$%^&* needed from big brother....
by attila＠primenet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Welcome to 1984+ what else with useless and illegally constituted bureaucrats add to their total infringement of every facet of our life. .NEW SYSTEM LINKS LENDERS, IRS .The Internal Revenue Service is developing an electronic program to link .mortgage lenders with the IRS, allowing them to exchange e-mail comparing .stated earnings on the mortgage application with actual tax return .information for the previous couple of years. If the cross-check turns up a .more than $10,000 discrepancy between the earnings claimed on the application .and those declared for tax purposes, the IRS has the option of pursuing the .loan applicant via an audit. IRS has targeted the system at self-employed .borrowers, who often declare high earnings in order to qualify for a larger .loan, but lower earnings when it comes to paying taxes. "Who knows what .their real incomes are?" asks one mortgage broker. (St. Petersburg Times 2 Nov 96 D5 courtesy of Edupage) -- one of the few things we all share: the utter, corrosive contempt for our elected officials. Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly, and for the same reason.

1 0

Q.E.D. - MONTGOLFIERING, SPOOFS +
by cypher＠cyberstation.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I recognize that the vast majority of list readers are sensible human beings trying to better the profession they love and serve the interests they represent. As such, readers of this thread do not need me, or a claque of snivelers, to determine the probity of the impartations being made. You are capable of determining that for yourselves. This posting is not meant to in any way denigrate your important work or to challenge the efforts being made by the vast majority of you to be objective, civil, fair and to examine the facts and determine the truth to the best of your abilities. Accordingly, most of the commentary included in this posting is directed toward the hallucinating thralldom of a dozen or so self proclaimed cryptographic jackadandies who beneath their public veneer are simply a flock of flaccid jackanapes. As proof of that thesis, look at the transpirations of the past few weeks. Preamble: In law school, potential attorneys are drilled in the three prong postulate: 1. If you can argue the facts, argue the facts, the evidence. 2. If you cannot argue the facts, then argue the law, Shannon and Sneider. 3. If you cannot argue the facts, or the law, then attack the opposition, the people presenting the facts. Another statement parable is "if you do not like the message attack the messenger." This stratagem can be applied not only to the courtroom but to any affray. Evidence: 1. The cabal of pedants has looked at the IPG web site in detail, as evinced by their frequent citing of materials that were not theretofore set out in any of the postings made to this list. Where did they get it? Obviously from the web site. 2. They quickly discerned that they could not possibly argue the facts as proved by the fact that not a single one of them have deigned to do so. They quickly realized that algorithm was unassailable from their extremely limited low level of competence. Actually, it cannot be attacked from any level of competence as close analysis of same will reveal. I bet none of that eau de vie crowd has ever cracked real ciphertext in their life. They live in a self hypnotic fantasy mirage world. Obviously, they are incapable of breaking real encryption systems. Oh, they have posited all kinds of crackbrain scheme for breaking systems under some silly hypothetical scenario - most of which have been forseen and solved decades ago by people who are real professional cryptographers. I could pose a theory of broad jumping from New York to London too. All I would have to do is to jump two feet high and be traveling at a velocity of roughly 63,360,000 feet per second, only about .067 c, and I COULD make it. Some of the self presumed cryptographic jackadandies' hairbrain schemes are even more obtuse than that. 3. Unable to attack the algorithm because of their gross impotence, they started citing their law. They attacked my position that the stream cipher was an OTP, citing Shannon as proof that was not the case. In essence invoking the oracular doctrine of Shannon infallibility. They skim over Shannon, read Schneier and then get on their pulpit and preach their version of the Gospel and to all of us mere mortals because they are totally incapable of solving real life applications of cryptography. They spout meaningless turkey gobbleddegook instead of actually doing it. As noted before, their information = P log_base_infinity P, and as is equally evident, their disinformation = P log_base_0 P I acknowledged the truly unique contribution that Shannon has made to cryptography, communications and related fields and the coessential redound on Schneier for the codification of cryptography. However, my position is that Shannon mathematically proved in absolutism only the limitations that we must work within, not what can be done within those delimiters. Accordingly, I argued that the disputation was a matter of semantics. I agreed that the algorithm did not have infinite entropy but it was still an OTP because it fulfilled the other basic tenants of an OTP in all respects saving entropy. I further asserted that the entropy question was immaterial because the entropy of the algorithm was far greater than any possible practical need, by tens of thousands of orders of magnitude. Such rationale fell on parti pris deaf erudite ears. 4. As a result, I realized that from my vantage point such an argument was counter productive at the very best. As a result, I took the OTP issue off the table by agreeing, as I had stated on numerous occasions, that the algorithm produced noncommunicative stream ciphers, PRNG streams that manifested remarkable random like properties, though they certainly are not random. 5. Deprived of their dogmatic dictums with respect to IT, those detractors, like all disconcerted confuters since the dawn of human controversy, turned to the use of sophomoric fustigation. They imagine themselves as a clique of cryptographic superdupers; but in this case they were overwhelmed by the strength of the algorithm, which pricked their hyper-inflate egos. That in turn, led to their futile efforts to try to strike back and cudgel the source of their foil as they vented their acute frustrations. In this case, since many of them are obviously very bright and articulate, their resultant falderal is very adroit and humorous. Even though being the butt of their lampoonery, I nonetheless was highly amused, got some good laughs, found it entertaining and was flattered by the expended efforts of the author(s). Although I recognize that it was not intended to be so, I found it to be exemplary raillery. Levity can help all of us to keep serious matters in perspective and I applaud the authors for their jocose entertainment. Keep it up, not only is it fun, it also helps everyone to see through the smoke screens in order to discern the real underlying truths. 6. Note that during the whole discourse and postings made to this thread, not a single individual has critiqued the algorithm itself. Not many of them will even own up to having looked at the algorithm, much less having attempted to analyze it and assess its strengths or weaknesses. Get real. How many readers really believe that all of those fast cryptographic guns would ignore the real, very simple, algorithm in unison if they stood a ghost of a chance of cracking it? Any talk of a mediocre pecunary reward for breaking the algorithm is giddy poppycock and everyone knows it. They would much rather have the satisfaction and pride that they were the one that gigged me, the only rub being that that is patently impossible . Each individual in that elitist cabal obviously salivates at the opportunity to crack the algorithm and throw it back in my face since my postings have raised seemingly heretic controversy. It should be clear to all readers of this thread, that with a possible exception or two, those detractors have looked at the algorithm and realize it far exceeds their meager cryptanalytic abilities. Accordingly, it is transpicuous that they have resorted to trying to use their turkey flapdoodle to cloud the issue since they have nothing of substance to reason upon. They could not crack their way out of a wet Kleenex with an unlimited number of gigaton thermo nuclear weapons. Perry Metzger and others have even used inculcative factoids to try to claim that the algorithm had been broken. What they were referring to of course was the algorithm that was posted a few months ago. As several then cypherpunks know, that first algorithm was posted to try to get some of the list sharpshooters committed. I believed that those intellectual cowards would leap at the opportunity to display their prowess if confronted by weakness; while on the other hand, that same small flock of turkeys would inevitably run for cover, flapping their wings, and spluttering out puny excuses and their turkey gobbledygook if confronted by strength, just as they are now doing. I wanted to show up gross hypocrisy for what it is, pure spineless cowardice by that gashouse, in more ways than one, gang. As a result, I posted that first algorithm with the intention to answer back with the real algorithm fairly quickly. However, a few cypherpunk confidants recommended that IPG provide the capability for the users to generate all their own keys in order to erase that stigma against the algorithm. In addition, some of them also urged me to prove some of the statistical contentions that I was making instead of just stating them. Accordingly, I decided to do those two things and to reconstruct the web site accordingly. Further, one very helpful cypherpunk gave me a number of references which required me to go to the University of Texas in Austin in order to research them. In doing that, and as result of that research and testing, I changed the algorithm slightly; most importantly, from using a linear congruential generator as the method of providing the algorithm seed, to a nonlinear congruential generator method.. That is, I added two lines to the seed generator engine, to wit: DO (ADDED) JV = JV+1 IF JV = 53 THEN JV = 0 A[JV]=( A[JV] + B[JV] ) MOD C[JV] WHILE ( A[JV] AND 16384 ) = 1 (ADDED) or in effect (WHILE A[JV] > 16383 ) Copyright 1996 by Donald R. Wood. All rights reserved. NOTE: The 53 is a variable. All this took time, and before we could completely regroup, 5 months had passed into history. That does not negate what I was trying to establish though. That is, that the alleged highly puissant sharp shooters are in reality just a bunch of impuissant intellectual cowards feeding everyobne cryptographic pablum. They leap like wilding pit bulldogs at perceived weakness and like all fraudlent impostors completely, and very conveniently, languish from rational reality when they face strength. They fancy themselves as a school of great white sharks plying the waters of cryptography but in reality, they are merely little batty harmless blowfish pumping themselves, and each other, up with "write bites" of pompous flattery, self and group veneration, and other fawning, obsequious giddiness. Having set out my view of the derogators, the remainder of this posting, excepting the one obvious paragraph, is intended for all readers. I trust that most readers will not be diverted, or dissuaded, by the myopic view of traducers. Computer software, is becoming infecte with obsessive compulsive technical interests that are attempting to lead us down the primrose path to intricacy and complexity that will eventually result in much lower productivity and fewer users. Microsoft Office is a perfect paradigm of such sophistry being used to deceive - it does not increase productivity at all, au contraire, in the words of Scott McNealy it serves as a serious impediment to real productivity - what does 23 fonts, 45 colors and all kinds of other unnecessary paraphernalia add to content, understanding and ultimately productivity. Misplaced appeal to aesthetics has all but supplanted the much more important goal of making us, and the interests we serve, more efficient and more productive. Such a course, if not corrected, will eventually lead to, among other things, our World Wide Web becoming a Gordian tangle in terms of usage by the vast majority of technically impaired users. I am not alone in raising this issue of everything becoming too complex and too complicated for potential users. My very weak voice is merely being added to the far more weighty enunciations of McNealy, Ellison, Andreessen, Jobs, and other industry illuminaries. Nowhere, is that usage gap between the technophiles and the technophobes more pronounced than it is in the use of encryption. If we do not keep it simple and easy to use, we will impose defacto standards that only the technically exceptional, such as readers of this, will be able to use. That is an important part of what the IPG EUREKA algorithm and system is about: Making it simple and easy for neophytes to use, and work with. Certainly EUREKA is not a panacea for all encryption needs. For example, it is obviously NOT the best solution for the problems relating to conducting commerce over the Internet. Further, without question, RSA, PGP, ENTRUST, and other encryption systems fill very important exigencies. Where EUREKA shines is in three important strategic user applications: 1. To set up a permanent line of Internet/intranet communication privacy between two, or a group of, individuals. As a result, pass phrases, session encryption keys, and other work impediments of that genre can be eliminated. While applicable to everyone, this is especially true of newbies, computer novices, technophobes, and other non-techies. It is easy to make it transparent to clerks, secretaries, attorneys, accountants, brokers, insurance agents, administrators, law enforcement personnel, and others to whom the computer is merely a necessary implement used to perform their job. EUREKA is much faster, more secure, easier to use, and more flexible than other systems for this application. As such, it is ideal for business intranets, or mixed Internet - intranet systems. It is also ideal for private use by two individuals or a small group of friends and family. 2. To protect your private hard disk files, programs or data, from compromise by hackers and interlopers. In this application it is unsurpassed because differential analysis, and other attacks that can be made to evolving files is rendered impossible and it is extremely fast. It is simply the best product available for this application, though it has some limitations in terms of partial file access and reencryption that will be relieved in the months ahead. 3. For the mass distribution of proprietary content over the Internet. Using authentication codes, similar to military codes of the day, a manufacturer can easily encrypt and transmit software products of all types to an unlimited number of users. Where do we go from here? As you read this, many companies and individuals have purchased, are purchasing, copies for test and evaluation under the newly announced limited moneyback guarantee offer set out in our web site at: netprivacy.com As set out, we are temporarily offering PC compatible systems: 1. For encrypting and protecting your hard disk files from hackers and interlopers for $19.50 2. The same as 1 plus encryption of e-mail and other files for transmission on Internet for $29.50 3. A six pack, six of the number 2 package above for trial use by corporate intranet users for $99.50 All prices include S&H but NOT state taxes where applicable. Our unconditional money back guarantee also includes guaranteed free updates, currently being developed by independent software developers, through December 31, 1997. I realize that there are many Sancho Panza minds out there, who mistakenly think they speak for all list members, and will then go and say that no one will bother with the product. They have already been proved wrong. They are not by any means Rozinantes, they are mere inferior Rozins, Playtyrs at best, Kyrie Eleison kryson. In addition, Coderpunks, Cypherpunks, and other Internet users have committed themselves to helping IPG to improve the EUREKA system, to make it even easier to use, to significantly increase the performance ( by at least an order of decimal magnitude), to develop it on other platforms, and the other things that must be done if it is to achieve its potential. Some of these product revisions and enhancements should be available late this year and others next year. Stay tuned for the results of these efforts. Such efforts are in response to our offer set out at: netprivacy.com/mlmplan.html Therein, as you may know, we explain how we intend to develop and market the IPG products using Internet. As described, instead of establishing an inhouse organization to do those things, as well as system testing & evaluation and system engineering, we plan to use independent developers and agents over Internet. That way, effort will be rewarded on a competitive merit basis. We believe this will be the wave of the future.. Exceptional talent, working out of their own homes, located in the place of their choice. These people will be creating product that will be marketed by other creative people working from their place of choice. Find out how you can participate at. netprivacy.com/mlmplan.html IPG will NOT COMPETE with its software developers or its marketing agents. If you can build a better mousetrap, or invigorate the marketing effort, you will be rewarded commensurably. Even if it is not a better mousetrap, you will still receive pecuniary participation for your efforts. There is a huge upside potential with very little downside risk, except for your time. Others have got in on the ground floor of opportunities like this, here is your chance. This offer is of course currently limited to U.S. and Canadian citizens. The software development kit has been reduced down from $395.00 to $39.50 on a limited offer basis. We anticipate that we will withdraw these limited offers on December 31, 1996. See for yourself. Prove it to yourself. Also, remember, the algorithm is available at: http://netprivacy.com/algo.html We would be very proud to work with you in a synergistic effort to improve ourselves and to produce products for the cryptographicand other markets. Contact us oprivately if you are interested, With kindest regards, Don Wood, > =================================================================== > > Donald R. Wood > ipgsales(a)cyberstation.net > > =================================================================== > > Some people are more certain of their own opinions than they are of > facts presented by those they disagree with - Aristotle > > --------------------- Quod Erat Demonstrandum --------------------- linear congruential generator as the method of providing the algorithm seed, to a nonlinear congruential generator method. That is, I added two lines to the seed generator engine, to wit: DO (ADDED) JV = JV+1 IF JV = 53 THEN JV = 0 A[JV]=( A[JV] + B[JV] ) MOD C[JV] WHILE ( A[JV] AND 16384 ) = 1 (ADDED) or in effect (WHILE A[JV] > 16383 ) Copyright 1996 by Donald R. Wood. All rights reserved. NOTE: The 53 is a variable. Running statistical tests on the encryptor stream with the two lines included versus excluding the two lines, revealed that using them was much stronger from every vantage point. There is sound mathematical reasons why that is true, which succinctly as possible is because it generates a more even distribution of the seed values, ( 0,..,16383 ), with the addition of the two lines. I had experimented with the modified form before I posted the first algorithm but had tentatively rejected it because it decreased overall performance and did not seem to be necessary - I simply did not recognize its importance at that time. However, subsequent testing caused me to change my mind because the standard deviations, Chi Squares, 1st differences and each and every one of the other statistical tests proved that the addition of the two lines produced more random like resultants. In addition the revised algorithm, with the two added lines, makes it impossible to block the algorithm output stream in the absence of the specific As, Bs and Cs used. All this took time, and before we could completely regroup, 5 months had passed into history. That does not negate what I was trying to establish though. That is, that the alleged highly puissant sharp shooters are in reality just a bunch of impuissant intellectual cowards. They leap like wilding pit bulldogs at perceived weakness and like all impostors completely, and very conveniently, languish from rational reality when they face strength. They fancy themselves as a school of great white sharks plying the waters of cryptography but in reality, they are merely little batty harmless blowfish pumping themselves, and each other, up with "write bites" of pompous flattery, self and group veneration, and other fawning, obsequious giddiness. Having set out my view of the derogators, the rainder of this posting, is intended for all readers. I trust that such readers will not be diverted, or dissuaded, by the myopic view of traducers. Computer software, is becoming infected with obsessive interests that are attempting to lead us down the primrose path to intricacy and complexity that will eventually result in much lower productivity and fewer users. Microsoft Office is a perfect paradigm of such sophistry being used to deceive - it does not increase productivity at all, au contraire, in the words of Scott McNealy it serves as a serious impediment to real productivity - what does 23 fonts, 45 colors and all kinds of other unnecessary paraphernalia add to content, understanding and ultimately productivity. Misplaced appeal to aesthetics has all but supplanted the much more important goal of making us, and the interests we serve, more efficient and more productive. Such a course, if not corrected, will eventually lead to, among other things, our World Wide Web becoming a Gordian tangle in terms of usage by the vast majority of technically impaired users. I am not alone in raising this issue of everything becoming too complex and too complicated for potential users. My very weak voice is merely being added to the far more weighty enunciations of McNealy, Ellison, Andreessen, Jobs, and other illuminaries of our industry. Nowhere, is that usage gap between the technophiles and the technophobes more pronounced than it is in the use of encryption. If we do not keep it simple and easy to use, we will impose defacto standards that only the technically exceptional, such as readers of this, will be able to use. That is an important part of what the IPG EUREKA algorithm and system is about: Making it simple and easy for neophytes to use, and work with. Certainly EUREKA is not a panacea for all encryption needs. For example, it is obviously NOT the best solution for the problems relating to conducting commerce over the Internet. Further, without question, RSA, PGP, ENTRUST, and other encryption systems fill very important exigencies. Where EUREKA shines is in three important strategic user applications: 1. To set up a permanent line of Internet/intranet communication privacy between two, or a group of, individuals. As a result, pass phrases, session encryption keys, and other work impediments of that genre can be eliminated. While applicable to everyone, this is especially true of newbies, computer novices, technophobes, and other non-techies. It is easy to make it transparent to clerks, secretaries, attorneys, accountants, brokers, insurance agents, administrators, law enforcement personnel, and others to whom the computer is merely a necessary implement used to perform their job. EUREKA is much faster, more secure, easier to use, and more flexible than other systems for this application. As such, it is ideal for business intranets, or mixed Internet - intranet systems. It is also ideal for private use by two individuals or a small group of friends and family. 2. To protect your private hard disk files, programs or data, from compromise by hackers and interlopers. In this application it is unsurpassed because differential analysis, and other attacks that can be made to evolving files is rendered impossible and it is extremely fast. It is simply the best product available for this application. 3. For the mass distribution of proprietary content over the Internet. Using authentication codes, similar to military codes of the day, a manufacturer can easily encrypt and transmit software products of all types to an unlimited number of users. Where do we go from here? As you read this, many companies and individuals have purchased, are purchasing, copies for test and evaluation under the newly announced limited moneyback guarantee offer set out in our web site at: netprivacy.com As set out, we are temporarily offering PC compatible systems: 1. For encrypting and protecting your hard disk files from hackers and interlopers for $19.50 2. The same as 1 plus encryption of e-mail and other files for transmission on Internet for $29.50 3. A six pack, six of the number 2 package above for trial use by corporate intranet users for $99.50 rant way than _any_ government has ever in history behaved

2 1

[Noise] Re: Censorship on cypherpunks
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:36 PM 11/4/96 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >I would appreciate an example of "strict regulations" which do not violate >anybody's rights. Obviously you have not known any good Dominatrixes. "Whip me, beat me, make me write bad crypto!" --- | "Remember: You can't have BSDM without BSD." - alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0

Re: Thank you, John Gilmore, for protecting freedom of spee
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Ironic how the list championed flooding Germany(?) with material in response to their > suppression of certain "objectionable" material, then gets into this sticky wicket. Absolutely, As much as I might hate Vulis`s stuff (and believe me I do). It is no justification for removing him from the list. We are supposed to be a platform for the discussion of cryptography but as the list has become more and more a libertarian platform for ideas and discussion we cannot really justify censorship in this way. I very much wish I could say that I agreed with John but I cannot do so with a clear conscience. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

Re: Censorship on cypherpunks
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:45 AM 11/4/96 -0800, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Libertarianism is not incompatible with strict regulations, as long as >the rules violate nobody's rights. > >-Declan Obviously many voluntary religious organizations have quite strict rules for their members and are compatible with libertarianism. Government monopoly regulations that cannot be opted out of are not compatible with libertarianism. Instead of using the loaded term "regulations' it might be better to call things like the rules of the cypherpunk's list "club rules" or protocols. DCF

2 1

Group order for "Secret Power" ... (San Francisco Bay Area only)
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm looking for 19 other people interested in "Secret Power" (Craig Potton Publishers has indicated that there is a discount for 20 or more copies). If you are in the San Francisco Bay Area, please contact me by phone or E-Mail. As usual with these things, I would prefer to see you in person and have a cash or check committed. Also remember that the shipping is quite steep (for the faster methods) ... The US price uses US$0.71 per NZ$1.00. US PRICE 1 Copy NZ$27.50 per copy US$19.53 NZ$19.00 for shipping via air US$13.49 NZ$12.50 for shipping via economy US$ 8.88 NZ$10.00 for shipping via sea US$ 7.10 20 Copies (per copy) NZ$24.75 per copy (10% discount) US$17.57 NZ$ 9.50 for shipping via air US$ 6.75 NZ$ 7.25 for shipping via economy US$ 5.15 NZ$ 5.90 for shipping via sea US$ 4.19 ---- Ernest Hua, Software Sanitation Engineer Chromatic Research, 615 Tasman Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1707 Phone: 408 752-9375, Fax: 408 752-9301, E-Mail: hua(a)chromatic.com

4 3

Re: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Well put! I tired a long time ago of Dr. Vulis and several others on this > list. Rather than bitch about it or resort to the same big brother > gestapo-censor bullshit we profess to abhor I simply utilized the extensive > filtering capability of Eudora. > > I don't need "big brother" or big "cypherpunk" censoring my mail for me. > We have become what we fear the most. How prophetic and pathetic. Absolutely, John, if you, and those who support your actions, claim to be libertarians you need to take a good hard look at what you have done. This is a distinctly "big cypherpunkish" move and really cannot be condoned even bearing in mind the inane and wearisome behaviour of Dr. Vulis. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

5 6