December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Commerce Sec. Hearings and Encryption
by Bill Campbell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca wrote: > Bill Campbell wrote: > > > > I have been watching the confirmation hearings for William Daley, > > and I was amazed at the number of references in the questioning > > to encryption. I have been watching confirmation hearings for a long > > time and have never noticed this much attention being placed on such > > a (formerly?) obscure topic. > > It certainly looks like someone is gearing up for a battle in regard > to cryto. > I find it very interesting that there would be a grand battle over > 'exporting' what is already freely available overseas (and always > will be, despite the export laws). This "freely available overseas" concept is a bit overstated. France and other countries are beginning to come down hard on encryption. (Also note the post from the guy in New Zealand on the hassles exporting from his country.) The US now has a "Crypto Ambassador" roaming the world, and I *don't* think he is encouraging an open common encryption standard. > I suppose that a cynic might > be led to believe that perhaps the anti-export champions' agenda > might be to make more convenient for the average joe to just > give in and accept weak, government approved crypto. Cynic or realist, you make the call. <G> The average Joe doesn't even know *why* he needs encryption...at least not yet. =Bill=

2 1

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 18:59:34 +0100 (MET) > From: Asgaard <asgaard(a)Cor.sos.sll.se> > Subject: Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd) > > >The Web does not equal the Internet, straw man argument. > > A semantic comment: > > We here all know that this is right but it's obvious that > the language is sliding towards Internet = Web. Most people Typical modern American attitude, getting it right is too much work so let's lower the benchmark so anyone can be 'right'. You'll be supporting Ebonics next. Blah. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

Re: THE NEW YORKER on the V-Chip
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"abostick(a)netcom.com" "Alan Bostick" 23-JAN-1997 23:09:54.72 >In the Jan. 20, 1997, issue of THE NEW YORKER, the "Comment", written by >Malcolm Gladwell, makes a powerful arguement about the unintended >consequences of the V-Chip, the programmable device to be included in >next-generation television sets sold in the US that supposedly will >allow parents to control their children's access to sex and violence on >TV. >Gladwell makes an analogy between V-Chipped TV content and >air-conditioned cars in the New York City subway system in summertime: >" . . . we need air-conditioners on subway cars because air-conditioners >on subway cars have made stations so hot that subway cars need to be >air-conditioned." Similarly, he argues, "the V-chip is likely to >increase the amount of sex and violence on television, not decrease it" >because when viewers can block offensive programming, there is far less >pressure on broadcasters and cable operators to avoid offending. Personally, I'd view this as a positive development. The puritanical types will be busily still protesting it, but without so many parents who (falsely) believe their children will be harmed by exposure to sex, thus dividing their efforts. Normally one would think that advertisers et al might give in to a small number... but advertisers particularly suceptible to this won't be sponsoring anything but G-rated shows anyway. (Of course, I view the V-chip itself as a bad thing, but if it has an outcome opposite in at least _some_ ways to the one intended by the neo-puritans, I can see the silver lining.) >And, for the benefit of those people who don't think the V-Chip isn't in >itself on-topic for cypherpunks, I might point out that Gladwell's >argument applies equally well to mail filtering with procmail recipes -- >or Sandy's and John's list moderation experiment. If the noise level on >the unmoderated list jumps to even higher than we were seeing before >the moderation began, that would provide observational support to >Gladwell's argument. An interesting question... although I'd point out that the degree of social pressure against spamming et al appears to be ineffective. The herd-like public (referring to the parents with their foolish fears and anyone else brainwashed into believing the puritans/fundamentalists) can put pressure on with their buying patterns... as yet such a market system is lacking in mailing lists (except for putting people on filter lists, which probably exacerbates the problem). In other words, there is no particular reason for the spammers et al to desist even if people _are_ receiving their email. -Allen

2 1

No Dimitri??
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I have noticed that there has not been any post from Dimitri in a couple of days. I am assuming that this means that the list moderation has now started? - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii(a)amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info - ----------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: OS/2: Logic, not magic. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMuexAI9Co1n+aLhhAQGcIAQAkEhaPi0bljU274ZXgkjU3rXFmIrUS4dm OEm0CqTH0eGDYHyftEyGdwI8ibKukC9SVpgG8bzgKHP+O4tjXJN+afcVAHbTxaMy uVqxgsvOexUR0tFKVCQ7MySMwCyDudCSbsDgf8Ox2swISwmIOqaxwLrBF5DqDy9w G6JNq5gUruo= =hIV+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

THE NEW YORKER on the V-Chip
by abostick＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In the Jan. 20, 1997, issue of THE NEW YORKER, the "Comment", written by Malcolm Gladwell, makes a powerful arguement about the unintended consequences of the V-Chip, the programmable device to be included in next-generation television sets sold in the US that supposedly will allow parents to control their children's access to sex and violence on TV. Gladwell makes an analogy between V-Chipped TV content and air-conditioned cars in the New York City subway system in summertime: " . . . we need air-conditioners on subway cars because air-conditioners on subway cars have made stations so hot that subway cars need to be air-conditioned." Similarly, he argues, "the V-chip is likely to increase the amount of sex and violence on television, not decrease it" because when viewers can block offensive programming, there is far less pressure on broadcasters and cable operators to avoid offending. This is just the sort of thing that John Young is given to scanning and putting up on his Web site or sending out to people who send him email with FUN_nie subject lines. If I were him, I'd put it up. And, for the benefit of those people who don't think the V-Chip isn't in itself on-topic for cypherpunks, I might point out that Gladwell's argument applies equally well to mail filtering with procmail recipes -- or Sandy's and John's list moderation experiment. If the noise level on the unmoderated list jumps to even higher than we were seeing before the moderation began, that would provide observational support to Gladwell's argument. -- Alan Bostick | To achieve harmony in bad taste is the height mailto:abostick@netcom.com | of elegance. news:alt.grelb | Jean Genet http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick

2 1

Re: THE NEW YORKER on the V-Chip
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:57 PM 1/23/97 -0800, Alan Bostick wrote: >In the Jan. 20, 1997, issue of THE NEW YORKER, the "Comment", written by >Malcolm Gladwell, makes a powerful arguement about the unintended >consequences of the V-Chip, the programmable device to be included in >next-generation television sets sold in the US that supposedly will >allow parents to control their children's access to sex and violence on >TV. While I think it's always useful to consider unintended (or otherwise unexpected) consequences, Gladwell's argument sent a shiver down my spine with its shameless paternalism. This bit (from roughly the middle of his piece) is what I found creepiest: "According to one recent study, somewhere between twenty and twenty-seven per cent of the parents of four-to six-year-olds never restrict their children's viewing hours, never decide what programs they can watch, never change the channel when something objectionable comes on, and never forbid the watching of certain programs. It has apparently never occurred to these parents that television can be a bad influence, and it strains credulity to think that the advent of the V-chip is going to wake them up. Yet their families - mainly lower-income, ill-educated - are the very ones most in need of protection from television violence. Here is a rearranging effect with a vengeance: not only does the V-chip make television worse, it makes television worse precisely for those already most vulnerable to its excesses." I understood Gladwell's point to be, in essence, that the V-chip will allow TV producers to generate higher levels of morally impure content which he fears will pollute the minds of poor children because their parents are too stupid to protect them from the harmful content and too poor to buy new televisions which will include V-chips. While I think 95% of broadcast TV is crap which isn't worth the time expended watching it, even reading arguments like "poor people should be protected from harmful ideas they're too stupid (or too poorly educated) to avoid and too poor to purchase protection from" makes me feel dirty. I don't think Gladwell is, in any meaningful way, an opponent of government control of speech/expression - he's just an opponent of inefficient or optional forms of government control of speech/expression. He's a reasonable writer, but he's chosen to use his powers for evil instead of for good. (Some of his work is available on the web; apparently he once worked as a reporter for the Washington Post and is now on the staff of the New Yorker.) -- 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

Re: Airport security [no such thing]
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ichudov(a)algebra.com writes: > Dr.Dimitry Vulius K.O.T.M. wrote: > > Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> writes: > > > > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > > Dr.D. Vulius K.O.T.M. wrote: > > > > > Nurdane Oksas <oksas(a)asimov.montclair.edu> writes: > > > > > > > But think about this: suppose there is a couple, bob(a)household.com, > > > > and alice(a)household.com. Suppose that Rev. Mallory does not like bob. > > > > Mallory forges a lot of emails like "I can still taste your sperm > > > > on my lips", that appear to originate from Cindy(a)phonesex.org. > > > > Then, promptly, Mallory sends an anonymous alert to alice(a)household.com > > > > warning her about naughty email activities of bob. Alice gets mad at hi > > > > and divorces him. > > > > How would bob protect himself against such developments? > > > > > > Frame-ups are as old as time. The ones that work the best are those > > > that are the most believable. O.J., for example. Unless Alice is > > > unusually flaky or paranoid, she'll consider her options against the > > > time she has invested in Bob. > > > > Here's an interesting twist of Sandfort's moderation policy. > > > > My article was crypto-relevant and flame-free and was tossed to > > cypherpunks-flames. > > > > Igor's response to my article was also crypto-relevant and flame-free > > and was tossed to cypherpunks-flames. > > > > Dale's response did not quote me, so it made it to the censored list. > > Is it really true that my response was tossed out as flames? Yes. > It was crypto-relevant. So was my original article. They did not contain any flames or personal attacks, contrary to what Sandy claims. > BTW, this is a more than perfect illustration why rejections > based on "shitstrings" are completely inappropriate for moderating. > > I have nothing again "grey lists", when moderators are alerted when a > message containing certain suspicious word arrives (the way it's done in > STUMP), but am opposed to autorejections (unless mods are mailbombed). It's ironic that Igor's article which I'm quoting ALSO got tossed into cypherpunks-flames, even though it wasn't a flame. Apparently the only comments on moderation that Sandy passes to the censored list are the ones praising him. This way he'll be able to report unanymous support for his moderation policies. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: If you were unable to download UDCM V2.0 before...
by Krenn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > {If you were unable to download UDCM V2.0 before, we're extremely sorry.} > {UDCM's web site may have been under construction during the time you > visited.} > {UDCM's web site has finished undergoing its changes and will operate > correctly.} > {UDCM V2.0 has been extensively modified from its previous variation.} > {Digital signaturing and public key cryptosystem capabilities have been > added.} > {UDCM's DS and PKCS techniques do NOT make use of conventional PN factoring.} > {UDCM's source code is currently unavailable. PLEASE DO NOT REQUEST IT.} > {UDCM's on-line help documentation has also been extensively modified.} > {This advertisement has also been modified.} Well halellujah. > Greetings! I am Jeremy K. Yu-Ramos, president of DataET Research, Data > Engineering Technologies. I am sending you this message to let you know that > DataET Research has recently initiated the distribution of UDCM, Universal > Data Cryptography Module. UDCM implements a revolutionarily new, extremely > advanced and sophisticated, digital data encryption algorithm named IMDMP, > Integrated Mathematical Data Manipulation and Positioning. > > UDCM (the IMDMP algorithm)... OH! OF COURSE! IMDMP! COOL!! > > o Is a royalty-free Windows DLL module featuring advanced cryptography. > o Contains more than 150 procedures and functions. WOW!! 150!!! > o Is a very cost-effective size of only 60 kilobytes. > o Implements the IMDMP encryption algorithm. Of course, who doesn't?! > o Allows encryption keys as large as 2048 bits. > o Includes 18 sub-algorithms. 18?! HOLY COW!! > o Processes all forms of binary and ASCII files. What a breakthrough! Astounding!! > o Allows multiple encryption layer levels. > o Has absolutely no back-doors or magical keys. Of course not, it's IMDMP!! > o Includes time and date locking features. > o Includes file specific unique encryption features. Specific unique encryption features!! NO WAY!! COOL!!! > o Includes file authentication guard features. > o Includes digital signaturing capabilities. > o Implements the public key cryptosystem method of security. Of course, everyone knows the public key cryptosystem method is the best! Excellent! > o Includes data importance and sensitivity stamping features. > > UDCM, being a Windows DLL module, can be accessed through programs developed > with popular application and database programming languages and environments > such as: C, C++, Visual Basic, PowerBuilder, Delphi, OOP Pascal, Turbo > Pascal, dBase, Paradox, Access, Sybase, Oracle, etc. > > DataET Research has released a shareware version of UDCM named UDCM V2.0. Hey, v2.0, neat name, where'd you come up with it?! > > To download UDCM V2.0 for free, please go to: > http://members.aol.com/dataetrsch/udcm.html. AOL!! Oh YES! Cool! > > I hope you will consider applying UDCM in the software you develop. Thank-you > very much for your time. Oh most certainly! I'm gonna run out and implement EVERYTHING in UDCM!! Thanks man!! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMuhyVUnqfwPpt/QVAQFM4wQAymizJEI/F5SFcWILNfGNoIsxxYza6Bfo yadEF9BnlcXujq0ZFZiRv7SddXjTS5TgVZLutZdEIx/NYPESkH7MXh18CyI/EXo6 NSyAiE0pFFRIrAgV4FWVVS9jsTWKucfI7NbWKSLEWTK8e6fdywAlXzlvbPT+1v6C b4vWK4akrBs= =74mf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks maiing list
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I would like to start a thread to discuss the moderation and rejection policy. My perfectly crypto-relevant article regarding possible attacks on human relationships with the use of forged mail and anonymous remailers, has been tossed out (sorted) into cypherpunks-flames mailing list. You can receive a copy of my article by an email request. The explanation that Sandy Sandfort gave me mentioned that he rejected my message because it continued a thread where Sandy noticed instances of "flaming". Note that my message was free of any flames, including its quoted part. Sandy also states rather plainly that crypto-relevance is not the criterion by which he moderates this list. I question this policy. I would like to hear your opinions as to whether such policies satisfy the current readership. - Igor.

5 4

Re: No Dimitri??
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> writes: > I have noticed that there has not been any post from Dimitri in a couple of > days. > > I am assuming that this means that the list moderation has now started? Yes - anything I say is junked irrespective of content. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

2 1