December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/2608
by Zer0.Faith.Inc.＠website.chek.it.out 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/2608
by Zer0.Faith.Inc.＠website.chek.it.out 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Re: [No joke] The Feds may legally gas us
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:09 PM 12/14/96 +0000, The Deviant wrote: >True, but the point still stands -- They can't, legally. I am not certain that the chemical weapons prohibitions apply to a country's own civilians. IANAL. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred Make your mark in the history of mathematics. Use the spare cycles of your PC/PPC/UNIX box to help find a new prime. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/justforfun/prime.htm

3 2

Re: Secure Erase for PCs?
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Schear wrote: > >Steve Schear wrote:[snip] > >I've been watching for a lot of years, and I'm sick of those bastards > >at Apple. Those scumbags not only make a flimsy and unreliable computer, > >they won't repair the machine either. Too bad Ted Kazynski(sp?) didn't > >have a grudge against Apple, the scumbag creeps. > I'm sorry your ownership experience hasn't been pleasant. I've owned six > and installed a hundred or so as a consultant (along with many Wintel > systems) with great reliability. Only one of the machines I know of has > needed service, and this because it was operated in a dirty shop-floor > environment w/o an enclosure or even periodic internal cleaning. Since > I've not had to have one repaired under warranty I can't vouch for their > committment to good service. I'm puzzeled at your reaction. I hope you don't mind my adding this to the list, but since I posted something very pertinent several days ago and got *no* reaction, and since it was something very significant, I wanna try it one more time: This experience on your part, of installing 100-plus Macs with only one needing service, is beyond amazing. Most computer people will readily admit that HP (for example) is the best, reliability-wise, yet I have purchased quite a few of their computers and major peripherals over the past 20 years, and I have experienced an approximate 40% (!) defective rate during the one-year warranty period, more than 30% falling within the first three months. As to why I still use their stuff - it's because the others are worse, a fact which is almost universally agreed on. How can this possibly be, you ask? Could it be really bad luck? No. Could it be mishandling? No. For a reality check, another famed electronics vendor, Sony, has the same problem, but even worse than HP. Unfortunately, in the Sony case, their products don't wear well after fixing, excepting a couple of their rather expensive "professional" series products. I suspect that the 100-plus Apple owners don't really use the machines, otherwise, if they were so reliable, why does Apple desperately avoid repairing their own products, when HP has provided top-level professional technicians (not boys in dusty back rooms of cheap-ass computer stores) to fix their products, and done so consistently ever since the beginning of the PC business in 1966?

1 0

read if have time (not important)
by VAN HOUTEN 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi thanx for taking time out to read this note. I am doing a school paper on "Sex and Violence on the Internet". If you might be able to write me on your thoughts on the subject that would be very helpfull. Sorry if I took up your time. So you do not have to E-mail to the whole list my address is: josh(a)mci.net thank you so much.......

1 0

Gov't Clarifes Position-Surprise!
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded from "Fred B. Ringel" <fredr(a)rivertown.net> on pgp-users list: Hi all- A list member forwarded this to me and I thought it was important enough to pass on. Its a "clarification" of the Government's "Key-Escrow/Key Recovery" position which is apparently "worldwide" in its intended reach. Besides the orwellian (sp?) nature of the proposal, I personally cannot imagine how this would be enforceable. Anyway, its something to ponder...how the government intends not only to restrict privacy rights at home, but extend those restrictions beyond our borders. Fred /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Fred B. Ringel Rivertown.Net Systems Administrator P.O. Box 532 and General Fixer-upper Hastings, New York 10706 Voice/Fax/Support: 914.478.2885 Data: 914-478-4988 Westchester's Rivertown's Full Service Flat-Rate Internet Access Provider E-mail "SEND-PGPKEY" in the Subject for my Public Key \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ ----Begin Forwarded Message---- >From EPIC http://www.epic.org/crypto/export_controls/draft_regs_12_96.html **Commerce Department Prepares Draft Encryption Export Regulations** December 11, 1996 The Commerce Department is circulating draft regulations that differ sharply from earlier assurances made by the White House to relax export controls on strong encryption. The draft regulations state that it is the aim of the Commerce Department to promote "a worldwide key management infrastructure with the use of key recovery and key escrow encryption items." The proposal contrasts with earlier assurances that encryption standards would be voluntary and market-driven. The regulations would amend the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by imposing national security and foreign policy controls ("EI" for Encryption Items) on certain information security systems and equipment, cryptographic devices (including recoverable encryption software) and related technology. For the first time, the Administration makes clear what it means by "Key Recovery Encryption." The regulations state that: For purposes of this rule, "recovery encryption products" refer to encryption products (including software) which allow law enforcement officials to obtain under proper legal authority and without the cooperation or knowledge of the user, the plaintext of encrypted data and communications. This is an exact description of the original Clipper encryption proposal that was widely opposed by Internet users and industry when it was announced in 1993.

2 1

Re: Magic Numbers in MD5
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

digits of transcendental functions are conjectured to be randomly distributed. however, some specifics of how the sin() function was utilized in MD5 were the basis for a successful attack on the compression function. I don't recall the references. not too hard to find tho. ..snip.. >> Does abs(sin()) have some properties that are especially conducive to >> strengthening MD5 or is it just a function to generate mildly random >> numbers? If the latter, wouldn't the algorithm be stronger if it was >> used with completely random numbers? > >I am not sure of the properties of abs(sin()). I know that the S-boxes in >Blowfish are initialized with pi. I would guess that the purpose of using >such values is to use easily generated pseudo-random numbers. > >Mark >- -- >finger -l for PGP key >PGP encrypted mail prefered. >0xf9b22ba5 now revoked > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: 2.6.3 >Charset: noconv > >iQEVAwUBMrMD/SzIPc7jvyFpAQEA7gf9HAtV1Vy+3LO5OPOHyU9ZHoath32LhAwU >PzODS/YJsY9fVxaMHOm15oL9D4CX2D5s/Y9cgrALG6pGzw4dBWJZJyqNAcbmsjp/ >B/jNL9jXKCXg1byIzplKSjJqDypLzIPf07xTIQVCC5IDmwZ7pR5owngH9MDaE8is >aFiGZvuWNm7eHQg1kJSb40xQjkwszx+SP1Gv9+fvpys5GZLCTHwPx8SCpy7PXwNp >lm8fgV9mjc7wZIpw73oqPZEb7Q3VHZUOUXS2i6XNF3UVXa4aykBg5VvALPt0tuvv >ah5JjA6JP4STwSCj+HrnMpQJ8SCG4U3kKb54+WOl8H6eo7ekuEU8mw== >=uNLG >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > >

1 0

Certified primes
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The only `culture' Timmy C[retin] Maytag possesses is that cultivated from his foreskin scrapings. /\ o-/\ Timmy C[retin] Maytag ///\|/\\\ / /|\ \

1 0

Medical anonymity
by Clay Olbon II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It probably should no longer surprise me when the popular press is ignorant of anonymity, but of course it still does. There were several otherwise excellent articles in the Detroit News today (http://www.detnews.com/) about DNA research and inherited diseases (specifically breast cancer). The gist of one of the stories is that there are several reasons that deter people from being tested for genetic predispositions to disease, but that one of the primary ones is the fear of losing one's health insurance. Nowhere in the article was the possibility of anonymous testing mentioned. This is a severe oversight in my opinion. Clearly, being tested for a genetic disorder would not require disclosure of one's true name, and the testing could be paid for in cash (of course providing genetic material could eventually be indexed into a database to discover that true name, but I doubt we are there yet, at least I hope not!) The implication of most articles regarding this subject are that "there ought to be a law" prohibiting disclosure by medical practioners. Of course, most of us would probably agree that the proper approach is allowing non-disclosure by those tested. I don't know whether this is currently "legal", is there a legal requirement that medical practioners have "true names" before testing? Medical testing provides a unique opportunity to acquaint the public with the benefits of anonymity. Most americans can clearly see the payoff - not having your health insurance cancelled. Other anonymous transactions have somewhat less tangible benefits for the majority of americans (sorry to be so america-centric, maybe I should change the phrasing to citizen-units ;-) That's my minor rant for a Sunday AM. Now back to my x-mas shopping! Clay ******************************************************* Clay Olbon olbon(a)ix.netcom.com sys-admin, engineer, programmer, statistitian, etc. **********************************************tanstaafl

1 0

Re: Social Security Fraud
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:42 AM 12/12/96 -0800, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > >It seems to me that in the case of an employee giving the wrong number >to his employer, the only person that suffers is the employee through >loss of future payments from the Social Security Administration. The >employer certainly doesn't suffer. Assume that the income tax is >paid. > >What laws would an employee violate? What are the chances of >conviction? What are the likely penalties if convicted? > >Red Rackham Anyone interested should Altavista "social security number FAQ" and read same. DCF > > >

1 0