December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: One-time pads
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy C. Mayo studied yoga back-streching exercises for five years so he could blow himself (nobody else will). /o)\ Timmy C. Mayo \(o/

1 0

RE: Legality of requiring credit cards? (fwd)
by James A. Tunnicliffe 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mike Gurski asks: > But that still doesn't answer whether or not a credit card can be > requested when paying by check. I believe it can be. Until a few years ago, it was common to request a credit card AND TO RECORD THE NUMBER ON THE CHECK. Legislation was enacted (this might have been just in California, I'm not sure) to prevent them from recording the number, but I believe it specifically allowed them to continue to ask to see that you have a card (they shouldn't need to see the number, so I believe you are within your rights to, say, obscure it with your thumb). Of course, they are (and should not be) under any obligation to accept your check in the first place, so I would think the ID they request would be up to them. Tunny ====================================================================== James A. Tunnicliffe | WWWeb: http://www.inference.com/~tunny Inference Corporation | PGP Fingerprint: CA 23 E2 F3 AC 2D 0C 77 tunny(a)Inference.com | 36 07 D9 33 3D 32 53 9C ====================================================================== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.0 Business Edition Comment: which I won in the PGP raffle at Cypherpunks 12/96... iQEVAgUBMr7n+/AmQsmyRPddAQFFGAf9EHlEKf4k3wuGfIQKV7ZKxHtgMwZi3MWf yzADHsHlLDo7c3fN4qPoMMsXh0odO5JDGjXKg+zJ+LhcuKaPjfe4mzHwYOxDD8fJ JxG6Gex1l9iNSOfqDIgrk+29DR5noMnpdBUwTkznBlm35y32ucxC1Spc/G8zqwdJ cyl/6oCuGAY+xvgHi30dnNHX1b+KcqihESm6huSQJkDMVb1ctp84aEzP894iHrnl aq4Kt8H174lj4ke0fwEaPT2SmGpnXLn+I9xw4sYlhCzMfMz3VEMIZCfmVDWI5OgM R1ktJJs9KM5jXSBA/fSZoRdD9FogwNSiaMEkQ1IRYA4EAQqJd8hOpw== =9xWW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Papers Galore
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The NSA-hosted National Information Systems Security Conference, held in October, 1996, has made a wide range of papers available (in PDF format), and listed in: http://csrc.nist.gov/nissc/1996/papers/NISSC/toc.pdf (110kb) One panel's papers eye all-optical networks and security, including optical encryption, which NSA appears to be leading: http://csrc.nist.gov/nissc/1996/papers/NISSC/paper236/ Many others -- long and short, informative and fatuous -- address sizzling and old-grease sec issues -- techie, lawless, bad-hair-brained. Several archists cry cyber crime and plead for vigilance for on-line anarcho-ebonics: "Industrial Espionage Today and Information Wars Tomorrow." "Rise of the Mobile State: Organized Crime in the 21st Century." "Ethical and Responsible Behavior for Children to Senior Citizens in the Information Age." "Monitoring Your Employees: How Much Can You Do and What Should You Do When You Uncover Wrongdoing?" Despite such blow, there's much other solid reading. Take a nap while the PDFs glaciate in.

1 0

RE: Certified primes
by pclow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

So? Are you jealous? >Timmy `C' May is a certified sexual pervert who wears women's >underwear.

1 0

Re: Privtool 0.87
by sbase 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > That's the kind of software we need. How about a PGP aware client for > Windows 95 and NT that would talk to POP3 and SMTP servers? Sort of > like a drop-in replacement for the mail programs that come with Netscape > and MS IE. Try here: http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/pi.html

1 0

Re: Ebonics
by Matthew J. Miszewski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 08:55 AM 12/23/96 -0500, Jeff Barber wrote: >I've never seen Tim "advocate the unemployment" of anyone or any group. Funny, did he stutter when he said he regularly *practiced* such discrimination at Intel? (Such discrimination being based upon Title VII's dispirate impact scenario, a law that Tim and others disregard as is their civic, as in civil disobedience, duty.) I guess he was unclear when he stated "Fuck 'em" in a follow up post. Tim is an anarchist (and I do not mean that in any derogatory way). He not only advocates, but he practices what he preaches. >He has merely argued that an employer should be free *not* to hire an >individual for any reason whatsoever. Such a reason might include his/her >language/dialect, appearance, race, gender, religion or any other >(arbitrary-to-an-outsider) criterion. This is a standard libertarian >position and shouldn't be too difficult to grasp. I think Tim's position was that if people couldnt communicate with him or his supervisors he would not recommend their hire. He had not stated as you did above, although I do not doubt it is his belief. > >-- Jeff > P.S. I have posted to rebut several political points made on the list only to show that some of us on the list do not agree with certain viewpoints. As Tim has pointed out, it has caused an innordinant amount of flame bait and our signal is getting lost. I do accept responsibility for setting some of the fires but will now attempt to reply only to highly-crypto-relevant material on the list. Apparently folks get too excited when others disagree with them. Matt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMr73pbpijqL8wiT1AQHLQwP/U5jakb7Ed3Sm2GpxsbNYol549jitBpOX SI9D+cROf1jX2zz0iA6mXgwv/w9ywK5oranR7PMW7q5KB4yfy+rJQXhOLe/7Sbgp wEMu39iZ0pFgg1yjJlFS+X1kCOjC2AkniNrb5fyW/Ifk+R7iT/8a+hNN8R8rObdA RIDVj9xp5Jw= =iUqA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 3

Re: Legality of requiring credit cards?
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Merchants are free to adopt most any non-descrimatory policy insofar as transactions are concerned. If you want hassle-free shopping use legal tender (except for rentals, where a CC is most welcome). -Steve >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >It's that wonderful season again, when all the assholes are out in >force, and people feel obligated to purchase merchandise to give to >each other. For various reasons, I don't believe in credit cards, and >yet, trying to pay for something by personal check at the local >Hecht's, they either *require* a credit card, or go through the Nazi >check-warranty company Equifax. However, it doesn't stop there...only >SOME departments seem to have this requirement (Electronics/Luggage >not requiring). Is it legal to require credit cards? > >|\/|ike Gurski mgursk1(a)umbc.edu http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~mgursk1/ >finger/mail subject "send pgpkey"|"send index" Hail Eris! -><- O- |Member, >1024/39B5BADD PGP Keyprint=3493 A994 B159 48B7 1757 1E4E 6256 4570 | Team >My opinions are mine alone, even if you should be sharing them. | OS/2 > Senate Finance Committee Chair, SGA 1996-1997 > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: 2.6.2 >Comment: I am not a number, I am a free man! > >iQCVAwUBMr2dZiKEMrE5tbrdAQGNEwQAjxsj387SAbEQnGr+8j0z12cWpREK/Y8U >e5xCYMMwJ6J+rLip05nZ8uMHfY/anfGW5m2mMrvsVOggMh5Sv9Ljrw3u4uFl66B5 >yU3iU3couXIZx5Dv1QhGdOSZPRpIo7wZGwCGtF4z9TM+cUzEUzA8LMDgavG8fY0D >T+yrGuzhSzg= >=aQ97 >-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

13 20

Re: [NOT NOISE] Microsoft Crypto Service Provider API
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:21 PM 12/22/96 -0800, geeman(a)best.com wrote: > >Software that is imported becomes subject to ITAR with respect to >re-exportation, of course (but of course IANALetc.) > >If you can't demonstrate to MSFT that you are >playing by the rules --such that you have the proper export papers >for your code if you plan to export it, for example-- they won't sign, >even if developed outside US. Except that it isn't clear that there are any enforceable "rules," particularly after the Patel decision. >So: you develop a CSP outside US ... you have to IMPORT it to get it signed. >It becomes subject at that point to ITAR export regs. Unless you demonstrate >that you fulfull those requirements, no signature. So there's no relief by >looking at just exporting the signature. You've stated a position, but you haven't supported it. It's the position you might expect the government to take, given its past behavior, but it isn't yet clear that this is the case. Even if, arguably, once-imported software becomes subject to ITAR, it is by no means clear that a "signature" is in any way controlled by ITAR. After all, looked at generously, the "signature" might simply be a plaque or paper certificate, saying "this is wonderful software!" Remember, no matter how long that signature it, it might just happen to be the same string as a compressed bit of data from some other source, etc. The signature might be 16 bits long, for all we know. In short, the "you can't export signatures" is simply more steps removed from the "you can't export crypto software." We have yet to see anybody attempt to enforce this. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Untraceable Payments, Extortion, and Other Bad Things
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:17 PM 12/22/96 -0800, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >Timmy writes: >>Fortunately for the bulk of us, the likely number of deaths and economic >>losses from such crimes of kidnapping, extortion, and even murder for hire, >>is still likely to be vastly lower than the number of deaths caused by >>powerful central governments enriching themselves and their cronies with >>foreign wars. Not to mention the deaths in the Drug War, the lives wasted >>in other interferences in private behavior, etc. > >imho, it's a very warped kind of mind that insinuates some evil is no >big deal because greater evils exist in the world. You obviously (deliberately?) are misrepresenting May's comment above. It isn't that some kinds of evil are "no big deal": It's that quantiatively, refusing to accept a solution that would prevent, say, 100 deaths, simply because it would cause _one_ DIFFERENT death is foolish and misguided. If you feel inclined to deny this, consider the reverse situation: Would you approve of the saving of one life if it cost 100 lives? (all things being equal.) While most people would feel uncomfortable being asked to make decisions of this kind, that does not mean that one outcome is not identifiably better than another. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

domestic laws/policies
by bobbi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hello: I have been following the controversy regarding cryptographic software for some time now, and I am hoping that someone on the list could clarify a point for me: If I wanted to develop software that employs cryptography, or a new cryptographic algorithm, strictly for domestic use and sale, does this algorithm have to be registered with any domestic agency? There is a great deal of information on Gak, and the controversy surrounding it, but as of yet I have not been able to find out this type of information. thanks jg

2 4