December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

Re: microcurrency: Netscape vs. Microsoft
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:46 AM 1/20/97 -0800, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >[microcurrency] >>It will also not catch on until there are better standards involving >>microcurrency transactions amongst the vendors. It would also help if >>there was a single interface (or "helper app") for whatever vendor you >>decided to go with. I am not sure that is feasible. Single interface, perhaps. Sun's Java Wallet is step in this direction. Single helper app, not a chance. The systems are too different, and do not share a sufficient number of properties, to use the same helper app. >as I see it, I think there are a few key standards that need >to be devised: > >1. an html tag that indicates how much a link costs, probably in >the <a href="" cost=xx> type syntax This could be done, but is, IMHO, too inflexible. >2. modification of http to support a payment mechanism, by sending >a token. Take a look at PEP and UPP. This may not be what you are looking for, but it is a start. Available at any IETF draft repository. [...] >>Currently every vendor of payment schemes has made it proprietary in some >>way. (At least the ones I have seen.) This means that if the user visits >>three different web pages, each using a payment scheme from a different >>vendor, that user has to be signed up with all of those vendors. (Or at >>least have their helper apps.) The systems are *not* interchangeable due to fundamental differences in the design. This is not a software/UI issue. I do not expect the signup requirements to last much longer. To give just one example, take a look at the current discussions on dev-lucre, a list for the Unofficial Cypherpunks Implementation of Ecash. [Sorry, I don't have the archive URL.] http://www.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu/ntlucre/ has the latest version. The list is currently discussing an ActiveX Ecash control. With -lucre, you no longer need to sign up with an issuer. Assuming an ActiveX control, the client software installs itself. As to the merchant software, Stronghold already ships with Ecash support built in. Netscape has announce that Navigator will ship with CyberCash. There is definitely movement at the browser/server end. -- 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://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm

1 0

Hard Drive Encryption
by FrozenHell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I found a program on the internet called POTASSIUM HYDROXIDE that says it will encrypt your hard drive... then when ever you turn on your computer it will request a password before it even accesses your DOS. If you put in the right password it will load as a TSR that will let your access your encrypted hard drive. But I have a Western Digital Caviar Hard Drive and have the use the W.D. Disk Manager v6.03d that comes with it... this is another program that loads before your DOS... does anyone know if this program Potassium Hydroxide will work with W.D. Disk Manager and work under Win 3.11/95. I don't want to risk gibbling all the info on my hard drive. If not does anyone know of a program that will let me encrypt my hard disk and decrypt it will a password before my DOS is loaded and work with the above programs of mine. If it helps I am using DOS 6.21 with Windows 3.11 ( I'm upgrading to `95 soon ;> ) -FrozenHell (fhell(a)nether.net)

1 0

Re: Dr Vulis's crypto experiment (Re: IMDMP: SOURCE CODE RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENT)
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > my predictions: > 1) Dale Thorn will become another Kagalenko and will mailbomb mods Unless someone can give me good enough reason to get involved with communications programming, even at a macro level, I doubt I'll be much of a technical threat to c-punks et al. I suspect that the main reason for much of Sandy's fear and loathing of late is not the incessant Spamming of the c-punks list, but rather the presence of a superior, dominant intellect which threatens his space here. Which would you fear most: The government looking over your shoulder, checking for possible ITAR violations, or a relentless critic who's apparently made it his current life's mission to ceaselessly point out your limitations to the whole world? > 2) 90% of cypherpunks-moderated will be about moderation > and censorship This topic should be one of the easiest to cut.... > 3) there will be massive openings of alternative cypherpunks > mailing lists, all doomed to fail Failure or success depends on many factors. Unfortunately, most successes in real life are money-sponsored, and therefore necessarily contain a driving, but hidden agenda. > 4) several alt.* newsgroups like alt.cypherpunks will be created Most people watch TV rather than get involved in anything. Whatever is interesting about that (other than as an academic study) I don't know. > 5) main business of freedom-knights will be shitting and spitting > at cypherpunks in alt.cypherpunks I've been posting some intense material to freedom-knights, but the response has been quite restrained. One could conjecture that the interest level there is not high (as far as c-punks goes), or that the maturity level is higher than other places... > 6) moderators will spend increasing amounts of time on their work In mathematics, when something doesn't compute intuitively, although on paper the proposition looks OK, you'd say "there's something wrong or missing here, it doesn't add up", etc. Moderators spending lots of time moderating postings from the hoi polloi doesn't add up either. > 7) crossposting between alt.cypherpunks and mail.cypherpunks > will be prohibited by alt.cypherpunks FAQ, posted monthly > by Dr. John Martin Grubor This thing about crossposting is way overblown. I was told forcefully once not to crosspost to c-punks and coderpunks, as though one list were a true subset of the other. Posters should be advised of the specific reasons for not "crossposting" to certain list combinations, unless you are referring only to commercial Spam or other 'bot-generated mail.

1 0

Thoughts re moderation, filtering, and name changes
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(I wrote a pretty long message and decided that the last few paragraphs said what I was really getting at. So I put the long message on the web at <http://www.io.com/~gbroiles/cpunks.html> and have sent along only the last bit.) This discussion of public perception now finally reaches what finally spurred me to write in the first place, which is the relationship of all of this to the name of the list, and whether the unfiltered list should be called "cypherpunks" or "cypherpunks-unedited" or whatever. I think that the dispute over the name (or, more accurately, grumbling and dissent about John Gilmore's decision about naming) is reducible to a dispute over whether it's more important that the list be perceived as a "free expression zone" where any message is accepted, or if it is perceived as a mailing list with a high signal/noise ratio. At a purely technical level, these are both non-issues; the name "cypherpunks(a)toad.com" is merely a string of text, and we could all just as easily subscribe to "mxfgfds(a)toad.com"; and motivated subscribers can use automated tools to tweak the signal/noise ratio to their individual liking. But most people will follow a path of least resistance; they will (remain) subscribe[d] to "cypherpunks(a)toad.com", and they will not use filters, and what they get is what the world at large will think "cypherpunks" is. While I don't care (and suspect many others don't care) what the perception of "cypherpunks" is, per se, I do care about whether or not interesting people choose to send their thoughts and information to the list. So to the extent that public perception changes that, I'm interested. And we've been doing the "free expression zone" for several years, and what we're ending up with is a mixture that's mostly crap - of the messages I see (and I filter a lot out), a small fraction (10%?) is pure garbage (e.g., the "cocksucker" messages), a large fraction (60%?) is on-topic but uninteresting or not useful, and the rest is useful in that it's got information or a perspective I hadn't been exposed to before I read the message. Other lists which are moderated (either by message or by author) attract people whose messages are frequently useful; many of those people have been on the Cypherpunks list at one time or another and have found it unsuitable. So I'm ready to experiment with a new configuration because I'd like to get more useful information. One approach to the name question would be to eliminate "cypherpunks(a)toad.com" and force old/new subscribers to choose between "cypherpunks-edited" and "cypherpunks-unedited". The advantage I see is that it provides more accurate feedback about what people want; the present method provides information about the perceived value of unmoderation weighed against the bother of dealing with subscribing & unsubscribing. The disadvantage is that it's likely to eliminate many subscribers, and that it tends to abandon the "cypherpunks(a)toad.com" history which is, by now, ~5 years old. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

5 9

Re: Airport security [no such thing]
by Eric Murray 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Shostack writes: > 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. Some airlines here in the US have set up "check in" terminals near the gate so you can check in there instead of having to deal with human beings at the desk. The terminal asks the magic three questions. No chance for seeing someone's reaction to the questions there (unless of course there's a hidden camera pointed at the terminal, or some sort of biometric device attached). One time I asked a ticket guy if he's ever had anyone say "yes" to the magic questions, his answer was that the one time it happened the person turned out to be an FAA three-questions enforcement squad conducting a check. -- Eric Murray ericm(a)lne.com ericm(a)motorcycle.com http://www.lne.com/ericm PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03 92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF

1 0