December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Output of your job "cypherpunks"
by L-Soft list server at CNET, THE COMPUTER NETWORK (1.8b) 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> signoff dispatch You are not subscribed to the DISPATCH list under the address your message came from (cypherpunks(a)TOAD.COM) You are being mailed some additional information with a few hints on getting your subscription cancelled. Please read these instructions before trying anything else. Summary of resource utilization ------------------------------- CPU time: 0.020 sec Overhead CPU: 0.020 sec CPU model: 2xPentium (192M)

1 0

List membership
by Robert Barnes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is cypherpunks subscribed to some CNET new service list by design or accident? I looks like SPAM to me. </enter confession mode> I must admit that in my frenzy to unsubscribe I attempted to unsubscribe cypherpunks. </exit confession mode> RAB -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Barnes Phone: +61 7 32529722 Engineering Manager Fax: +61 7 32571403 Tritronics (Australia) Pty Ltd Email: robertb(a)tritro.com.au PGP Key fingerprint = 02 A6 22 5E 26 D3 7C 4D E2 91 9E 15 AC EA B1 58 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key

1 0

Re: PO-2 Brain wave meters.
by Matthew J. Miszewski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Subject: PO-2 Brain wave meters. Have not heard of them. Doubt they exist in any end-user, commercial product. Take it from someone who has gone through fun Electro-encephelagrams (EEG) before. You don't want to. > Has NE1 heard of these things? Supposedly you plug it into your printer > port and it shows you your brain waves so you can try to reach "alpha" > waves or something. I think they cost around $500. > If it`s for real you could do some neat things with it; how bout your > computer waking up when you wake up... > that terminator 2 plot comes closer every day.... > NEway if anybody knows anything about it let`s have it. > L8R -Napalm SFNF9UY(a)SCFN.THPL.LIB.FL.US Matt _________________________________________________________________________ Matthew J. Miszewski | <mjmiski(a)execpc.com> Practice Crypto Civil Disobedience | Export your favorite Cryptosystem ------------------------------------------------------------------------- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

1 0

God described
by Sven 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF GOD AND JESUS > >Sexual Sin and Christians > > 19940404 > > Charles Magee (Not available via Internet), > See also: > * Classification of Religions > * Life After Death > >This article's surreality index is 'U' (unreal). > >To solve the question of if sex is a sin in Christianity, the following >model has been constructed. In this model God is a point mass, centered >at the origin of our XYZ space. Christ, we assume, is at the right hand >of God, about 100 centimeters away. His mass is probably around 75 >kilograms. > >Since God has a very large mass (a bit less than infinity), Christ, who >we assume is in a circular orbit around God, has a very large momentum, >and hence has a very small wavelength. This means that Christ's >uncertainty is quite small, so we can therefore conclude that he is >fairly certain in all that he does. > >Now let us consider a sinner. We shall place him at a large distance from >God, say one inch and 45 million light-years. He, being at a constant >distance from God and thus in a circular orbit, and having approximately >the same mass as Christ, will be travelling significantly slower than >Christ, and will therefore be more uncertain. One should also consider, >however, that since Christ's orbit could fit in a kiddie pool, while the >sinner's would encompass not only our galaxy, but a few of the nearby ones >as well, that the sinner gets around more, sees more, and is generally a >more knowledgeable guy than the Savior. This fits in with traditional >wisdom. > >Mary, the Mother of Jesus, being a fairly pure person, is close to God. >This means that she must be a fast woman. From this situation we can draw >the conclusion that sinners have a lot more potential than saints, since >less of their energy is stored as kinetic energy. Further insights can be >gained when we look at the situation of the heathen. > >A heathen is someone who, in general, is not affected by God. This means >that they are at least an infinite distance from him. Now, assuming that >one of these folk starts, by random causes, to travel towards God, he will >convert his potential energy to kinetic energy during the approach, or >descent. Since he started out an infinite distance away, but with some >kinetic energy of his own, he will approach God on a hyperbolic trajectory >and then disappear into space again, never to be seen again. If his >approach is such that it brings him inside the orbit of The Son of God, >then right after his closest approach, the heathen's velocity will be >greater than Jesus', which means that he will be more sure of himself in >his escape than Christ who is in orbit. This is an interesting notion, >but some of the side ramifications are even more intriguing. > >Without any orbiters, therefore, God would not be able to attract anyone; >all approaching bodies would have either parabolic or hyperbolic >trajectories. However, once God has an orbiter, the two of them could >collaborate to capture other bodies. This means that heathens that get >too close to believers in their approaches might get trapped, and by the >same token, believers who are buzzed by heathens could be ejected. > >And what, the reader asks at this point, does any of this have to do with >sex? Well, the answer is this: Sex, as we all know, is the union of two >or more people. This, in our analogy, would be represented as a collision. >Now, in Christianity, almost all of the holy figures are male. For God, a >collision between any of these close in folk would be disastrous, because, >even if we assume they are indestructible, such a high energy collision >would either: > > A) Eject one of the men out of orbit (becoming a heathen) > B) Cause one of them to fall into God (to die) > C) Give them highly irregular elliptical orbits (becoming a > doubter) > >All of these would be bad for God, because in the first two he would lose >orbiters, making His chance at capturing new ones less, and in the third >case He would have a much greater chance of more collisions, as the >elliptical orbiters would cross many of the unaffected circular orbits. >Therefore, God probably disapproves of these collisions. |__ |--> SVEN: a.k.a. Chris Blanc Internet consulting/Web design [ http://www.loop.com/~sven/ ] Some only sample the dark wine of life's blood...

1 0

Turning Peas Into Stars
by mpd＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In sci.math, David Madore <madore(a)clipper.ens.fr> writes: > Fanciful but true statement: it is possible to cut a pea in a > finite number of pieces, and rearrange them so as to make a ball > the size of the sun (leaving no holes, of course). Nothing to do with crypto, of course, but at least it has something to do with math. Does anyone remember Martin Gardner's April Fool's Day "Mathematical Games" column in Sci Am in which he proposed the Banach-Tarski Paradox as a practical method of turning a solid gold sphere into two solid gold spheres each identical to the original? A nice illustration of why all sets can't be measurable. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

1 0

Re: Your login/password for SafePassage beta
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:27 PM 11/27/96 -0500, Mark O. Aldrich wrote: >On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, SafePassage Downloader wrote: >> You can now download SafePassage. You'll need the following login/password: >> >> Login: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >> Password: [elided] >> >> Go to http://stronghold.ukweb.com/safepassage/ and select "Download" -- >> you'll be prompted for your login/password, after which you'll be able to >> download the software. Make sure you keep your login/password >> private. Revealing your login/password to anyone is a violation of the >> license agreement. > >Is this to say that you wrote your license agreement with the foolish >premise that an e-mail address belongs to just one person? Maybe you need >to really understand how the Internet works before you write a license >agreement based on incorrect assumptions and your personal preferences for >how things ought to be. The message that UKWeb sends with the SafePassage beta userid/password is incorrect - not because it makes any of the assumptions you're ascribing to UKWeb and license writers, but because the license itself fails to require the person who agreed to it to keep the userid/pw combination confidential. But you are entirely off the mark with your assumptions about the assumptions made by the writer of the license. I am the person who wrote the license. (Actually, I modified some pre-existing license text, merged some in from another source, and generally did the sort of copying & pasting that's considered perfectly acceptable in the legal field and is considered copyright infringement if a programmer does it.) And I made no such assumption. And I know enough about how the Internet works to laugh at anyone says they "really understand how the Internet works." (Hint: before and during law school, I worked as a consultant to ISP's who needed technical assistance.) You would do well to heed your own advice and learn something about law before making grand statements about "how [things] work". UKWeb does not enter into an agreement with anyone (or everyone) who receives E-mail. It enters into an agreement with the person who fills out the form to download the software. People and organizations who haven't filled out the form don't have an agreement with UKWeb to use the software; and absent that agreement, their use isn't legal. I'm not interested in turning this molehill into a mountain. The beta test of the software is unwittingly functioning as a beta test of the license document; this morning's message revealed something I missed when I worked on the license agreement. It will be corrected shortly. (This seems to be as good a time as any to announce that I'm now one of the Cpunks who's working at C2Net.) -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

1 0

TV/Radio: Crypto Policy on NPR
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

McNeil & Lehear (sp?) (ok, I know, one of them is gone, but I forgot which) News Hour had a segment on crypto policy. Generally a balanced non-technical report, except that there is no mention of the free speech issue. If there is a repeat near you, it's worth listening to, to hear (or see) what the informed non-technical public hears (sees). Ern

3 2

New white house internet commerce report
by Marshall Clow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

the full report can be found at: <http://www5.zdnet.com/zdnn/content/inwo/1127/inwo0001.html> Whitehouse Releases Blueprint For Major Net Issues Concerning Government And Commerce By Will Rodger November 27, 1996 02:35:13 PM EST Inter@ctive Week Online The White House will release a blueprint for the governance of personal and business transactions over the Internet early next week that drafters and industry alike say marks a turning point in the Clinton administration's approach to cyberspace. The document, a product of an 18-agency working group headed by presidential Senior Adviser Ira Magaziner, covers every cyberspace major issue before governments and Internet users worldwide. Though in many ways it is a restatement of approaches already suggested elsewhere, the document urges a shift towards free market forces on the Net and a rejection of government interference in electronic commerce. The blueprint also represents the first time the administration has issued unambiguous policy statements regarding tariffs, censorship on the Internet and establishment of a body of international law for commerce. [more snipped] -- Marshall Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems <mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu> Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear.

1 0

Re: TIA Invites
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Shostack wrote: >Did they say what they were investigating? Usually, talking >to the unworthy is not a crime. :) The TIA rep asked if I knew TR45.3 is ITAR-ed. The document has such a notice, I answered. TIA said, we've told the Feds it's on your Web site. But why tell me, I asked. Thought you'd like to know we told the Feds, TIA said.

1 0

Re: Hurray! A good example of rational thinking ...
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > It is truly counter-productive to insist on conspiracy theories and > > anti-government rhetoric. Sure, there have been conspiracies in the > > past. Sure, there have been more than our fair share of atrocities. > > > However, the real issues are privacy, security, freedom of speech, and > > effective policy enforcement. When we start calling names like "jack > > booted thugs" and the like, we are sinking to the same low levels that > > Freeh and (more appropriately) Gorelick use when they cry wolf and > > foretell futuristic electronic meltdowns. > > > More importantly, while the public is cynical and skeptical, it isn't > > exactly embracing the right-wing militia movements either. It would > > be a great disservice to the cause if cypherpunks were, in the minds > > of the public, tightly associated with the likes of Timothy McVey. > Not at all. We need more people shouting from the mountain tops at > what are governments are doing. I do believe we need to get more visibility on the seriousness of the issues. I don't think the average person understands why it was so hard to conspire against the people before the telecommunications age, and why it "could" (not necessarily "would") be now. There is a lot of knowledge to pass on before someone can truly appreciate the extent of the need for privacy and freedom protections. While it is bad that the extent of the body of knowledge turns off most people's willingness to learn, the sheer vastness of the task of setting up this infrastructure also makes it very difficult for the NSA or any other agency to become the secret puppet master. Not that they have not been trying. But to accuse them of necessarily harboring evil purposes is not only counter-productive, but most probably incorrect. Most public sector servants are not the New World Order loonies that the militia's have been prepared to fight. It would be safe to say that the NSA, the CIA and the FBI are filled with mostly red-blooded Americans with solid allegiance to the basic principles which you and I cherish. The questions is, why have 3 branches of government? Why have multiple conflicting agencies for any given task or goal? Why not just choose a "good guy" once and for all and let him (or her) do the "right thing"? It's not that we don't trust him when we first elect him. It's a question of what he would do with that power? And those that succeed him? That is why we don't "just trust them". It's too bad that we can't hold Reagan responsible for Iran-Contra just because he's presiding over the executive branch at the time. After all, we expect him to be responsible (whether he knew about it or not). Why not drop all these stupid laws that PREVENT the citizens from suing the government for incompetence? > We are not as free as we were 10yrs ago. We are not as free as we > were 100yrs ago. Hell we are not as free as we were under King > George over 200yrs. ago!! I seriously doubt you "long" for the King George days. If you do, well, we are just not in the same universe. > The issue of cryptology is only one area of attack on our > freedoms. Just one small piece in the Big Picture. Below are some of > the some of the trends we have to look forward to: > > National ID's: > Tracking of movement of all citizens: > Display of documentation for all Public transport: > Display of documentation for Employment: > Electronic Cash: > Automated Drift-Net Fishing of Phone conversations: > Federal Thought Crimes: Have you ever consider the possibility that maybe ... just maybe ... the government really IS as incompetent as it is reputed to be? Consider this ... If you were a know-nothing beaurocrat, how would you run a large institution? Top-down? Probably. Gather as much info as you can? Of course. Require that everyone trust your judgement (a la "executive priviledge")? Naturally. If there were guaranteed political opposition, no matter what you do, would you just push for more power/priviledge/money in everything you do? Damn right! Especially if you don't know how many of these things you push for will be won ... Oh, and there is this minor problem with some of these methods clashing with the Constitution ... Oh bother! I'm simply saying that it natural for the branch of the government primarily responsible for law enforcement and national security to care deeply about that side of any issue. If I were president, I would play the same political games Clinton is playing. A president is not just responsible for the specific free speech of programmers or specific privacy rights of individuals. He is responsible for a much bigger picture. It just so happens that, in our nation, we value "individual" liberty much more than anything else (including anybody else's "big picture"). Therefore, there are a lot of people against the more obvious methods of invasion of privacy. But let's face it, the public just isn't very informed or consistent on the topic; it is just easily swept up in hysteria. > I was born a free man, in charge of my destiny, with inalienable > right endowed by my creator. I will not be made a slave of the state > but will fight and die a free man. You were born to your mother and father, who are members of a society which has long built up imperfect infrastructures for surviving and thriving on the land which it depends. If you were alone in the vast American plains, you can claim you have infinite rights, and no one would disagree with you. You, your mother, your father, make trade-offs everyday on your purest rights versus your practical rights. Your purest rights are mostly given lip service, and then where it matters more, protected by gentlemen's agreements, sometimes backed by force. But the right itself is not enforced by any real means. It is the threat of punishment that keeps the right from being violated. Cryptography is one of those interesting areas where, for once, man can prove, for all practical purposes, that there is a hard limit somewhere that he can draw. More importantly, it is also genuine protection of a "right", specifically, a right to privacy, which society previously protected using the old methods (threat of punishment). Imagine a line in the sand ... if you cross it, someone shoots you in the leg. You can still cross it, but you'll suffer the consequences. With cryptography, you cannot cross it, no matter what you do. This brings into question whether or not it was useful (to you and to society) to shoot you MOST of the time, but not if you present a good reason to cross it first. THIS is the interesting part of all of this. I don't like to see this issue drowned out by all the conspiracy talk (which no one on this list is in any position of proving or fixing unilaterally). Ern

5 5