December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

can Sun Tzu be a cypherpunks?
by nobody＠nowhere.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Quotations from the Art Of War by Sun Tzu A Military operation involves deception. Even though you are competent, appear to be incompetent. Though effective, appear to be ineffective. Draw them in with the prospect of gain, take them by confusion. Use humility to make them haughty. Tire them by flight. Cause division among them. Attack when they are unprepared, make your move when they do not expect it. The formation and procedure used by the military should not be divulged beforehand. Comment: He seems to be advocating security through obscurity here. The one who figures on victory at headquarters before even doing battle is the one who has the most strategic factors on his side. The one who figures on inability to prevail at headquarters before doing battle is the one who has the least strategic factors on his side. The one with many strategic factors in his favor wins, the one with few strategic factors in his favor loses--how much more so for the one with no strategic factors in his favor. Observing the matter this way, I can see who will win and who will lose. The superior militarist strikes while schemes are being laid. The next best is to attack alliances. The next best is to attack the army. Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent. Therefore skilled warriors are able to be invincible, but they cannot cause opponents to be vulnerable. That is why it is said that victory can be discerned but not manufactured. Invincibility is a matter of defense, vulnerability is a matter of attack. Therefore the victories of good warriors are not noted for cleverness or bravery. Therefore their victories in battle are not flukes. Their victories are not flukes because they position themselves where they will surely win, prevailing over those who have already lost. So it is that good warriors take their stand on ground where they cannot lose, and do not overlook conditions that make an opponent prone to defeat. Therefore a victorious army first wins and then seeks battle; a defeated army first battles and then seeks victory. Those who use arms well cultivate the Way and keep the rules. Thus they can govern in such a way as to prevail over the corrupt. Comment: Would it not be wonderful if we could prevail over the corrupt? Making the armies able to take on opponents without being defeated is a matter of unorthodox and orthodox methods. Therefore those skilled at the unorthodox are infinite as heaven and earth, inexhaustible as the great rivers. When they come to an end, they begin again, like the days and months; they die and are reborn, like the four seasons. The unorthodox and the orthodox give rise to each other, like a beginningless circle--who could exhaust them? Disorder arises from order, cowardice arises from courage, weakness arises from strength. Therefore those who skillfully move opponents make formations that the opponents are sure to follow, give what opponents are sure to take. They move opponents with the prospect of gain, waiting for them in ambush. To unfailingly take what you attack, attack where there is no defense. For unfailingly secure defense, defend where there is no attack. So in the case of those who are skilled in attack, their opponents do not know where to defend. In the case of those skilled in defense, their opponents do not know where to attack. Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate. Comment: Are cypherpunks capable of this? To advance irresistibly, push through their gaps, to retreat elusively, outspeed them. Induce them to adopt specific formations, in order to know the ground of death and life. Comment: Sounds like known plaintext attack to me. Therefore the consummation of forming an army is to arrive at formlessness. When you have no form, undercover espionage cannot find out anything, intelligence cannot form a strategy. Comment: Sun Tzu seems to being saying that if your cipher is properly designed, you need not rely on security through obscurity. Victory over multitudes by means of formation is unknowable to the multitudes. Everyone knows the form by which I am victorious, but no one knows the form by which I ensure victory. Military formation is like water--the form of water is to avoid the high and go to the low, the form of a military force is to avoid the full and attack the empty; the flow of water is determined by the earth, the victory of a military force is determined by the opponent. So a military force has not constant formation, water has no constant shape;the ability to gain victory by changing and adapting according to the opponent is called genius. Foreknowledge cannot be gotten from ghosts and spirits, cannot be had by analogy, cannot be found out by calculation. It must be obtained from people, people know the conditions of the enemy. There are five kinds of spy: The local spy, the inside spy, the reverse spy, the dead spy, and the living spy. When the five kinds of spies are all active, no one knows their routes--this is called organizational genius, and is valuable to the leadership. Local spies are hired from among the people of a locality; Inside spies are hired from among enemy officials. Reverse spies are hired from enemy spies. Dead spies transmit false intelligence to enemy spies. Living spies come back to report. Question: Can cypherpunks use these methods to defeat those who would take our freedom?

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:12:36 -0500 > From: "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> > Subject: Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd) > > Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote in article <5cg99p$7a(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > > The network is largely an intellectual creation. The hardware is > relatively unimportant, it can always be replaced. Try doing it without the hardware and software. There is a distinction, you apparently don't make, between the content and the methodology of distribution. Without the methodology there is no content. Ideas are cheap, distributing and trying them out (ie great social experiments) is expensive. This is why it is absolutely critical in a democratic society that those who own the means of distribution be left to their own means with minimal regulation based on the ideal 'if their actions do not harm another or their property without their prior consent' it isn't anyones business what they are doing with their distribution mechanisms. Whether you like it or not, each and every one of us have a responsibility to every other person on the planet. That responsibility is to ensure that our goals and desires don't infringe their goals and desires without their prior consent, this is a fundamenal responsibility of government. As hard as it is for many social scientist to accept privacy is a fundamental requirement for a equitable government. I express this simply by, "Democracy works not because of compromise but rather the refusal to compromise." > If you start from such a state and property centered ideology perhaps. > I'm a philosophical anarchist and I don't consider the state to have > "rights" over its "subjects", nor do I believe in the pure ideology of > property you do. The 'state' is its subjects and the rules that are enacted to regulate their behaviour. In case it hasn't occured to you, even the regulators are subjects, and in the case of clearly oppressive societies victims as much as those they subjugate. It isn't some etherial entity. Only you, and those that proscribe to your views, are claiming that states are some homogenous (or should be) set of rules and actions. The way you speak of 'state' and 'citizen' implies some clearly observable demarcation, it don't exist. This is the problem with EVERY form of government except a democracy, it assumes that people are cogs in a machine. If it satisfies one it will satisfy all. A democracy recognizes this difference in what people value and the goals they desire as a fundamental distinction (ie. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) worth protecting. I would suggest you read the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution of the US and consider long and hard the ramifications of the (currently unenforced) limitations of government authority. Even European governments might learn something. > Its worth noting that the origin of property is theft. In the case of the > controllers of China literally so since they stole most of their "property" > from the previous rulers. Malarky. The origin of property is at least 300,000 years old, potentialy over a Million, and much older than China could ever hope to claim and most definitely NOT based on any concept of government. Property comes from small family clans of people who chose to move from a hunter-gather society to one of agriculture. To do that means that you have to lay out fields or other areas for cultivation. Initialy these groups moved around because the fields would go fallow. At some point some bright folks, either by accident or intentional experimentation (probably both), found that rotating crops would allow them to stay in one place. This allowed families to grow. In very fertile areas this caused population explosions as individual clans grew and began to interact with other local clans. At some critical size, undetermined as best as I can determine, this allows specialization of effort. This specialization of effort is what leads to governments as we recognize them. When property was 'invented' there were no rulers because there was no larger human organization than a familial tribe. I personaly believe that the concept of 'property' is a fundamental aspect of human psychology and not any structures they might impliment to express that need. I am as certain as it is possible to be that a Cro-magnon cave man felt that his throwing stick was 'his'. If not why did they bury their dead with flowers and other objects that apparently belonged to the person in life? It sounds like, by extrapolation, that your assertion is that they had government in the modern sense because of this. An assertion I find laughable at best. > I believe that the relationship between a state and individual is > a much more complex one than the slavish subjection model > you propose. In this I am in agreement with practically every > philosopher since Locke. But I don't propose a slavish subject model, you keep trying to make it seem like that is what I am proposing. Let me make it clear, I utterly reject ANY model that makes distinctions between those who rule and those who are ruled. > It is true that there is the convenience of the state as agency but > the question is on whose behalf that agency is exercised. Nobodies. The state is a means to regulate resources and commerce, anything else is a misunderstanding of what a state is. > I see no reason why I should not meddle in the affairs of states > I'm not a 'subject" of. Then don't bitch when they meddle in your affairs. I am shure Saddam Hussein (who I personaly believe is a piece of shit) will find it reassuring that you won't raise a complaint next time he decides some place in Europe would be a nice place to hang out with his armies. > They are allowed Allowed, hell. They pay for the privilege just like everyone else. Despite what you might believe the Internet is not a right or something anyone has a right to. > to connect their machinery to the Internet so long > as they are prepared to accept the Internet's ethic. There is no Internet ethic just as there is no community standard. It is a convenient concept for intellectuals to pass off utterly senseless theories and explanations, and in many cases justify subjugation and regulation for no other reason than their own emotional and economic comfort. > As a citizen of Europe I disagree. I believe that the narrow and > parochial attitude of the French province breaches undertakings in the > Treaty of Rome and under the European declaration of human rights. Absolutely. The difference in our approaches is that you feel that you have found a solution that satisfies you and therefore it should satisfy everyone. With this I disagree completely. People are simply too diverse to lump into the categories that you would like. If the French have a model that won't work, let them figure it out on their own. > France is not a sovereign state and does not have the right to > pass laws that infringe on the rights granted to European citizens > as a whole. I suspect most French people would have something contrary to say about that. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

[ANNOUNCEMENT] FBI at it again
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Drunken Virus wears satin lingerie embroidered with pink swastikas, prancing around for his homosexual, AIDS infected lovers. ___ {~._.~} ( Y ) Dr.Drunken Virus ()~*~() (_)-(_)

1 0

Mondex
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Degenerate L[ibel] Vandal K[ocksucker] Of The Minute will fuck anything that moves, but he'd rather be fucking his own son's prepubescent body. o_o ( ) Degenerate L[ibel] Vandal K[ocksucker] Of The Minute ( | | ) ' " " `

1 0

He's back
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dumbbell Virus K]retin[ Of The Moment enjoys sucking the puss from his syphilitic queer friends. ,_, *-._W_,-* Dr.Dumbbell Virus K]retin[ Of The Moment `-;-;-' " "

1 0

More Circumventing the ITAR
by Mark Rosen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm curious as to exactly what the ITAR/EAR/Whatever says specifically about "unrestricted FTP sites." My program, Kremlin, is available for download at the web page below. On my web page, I have some stuff in bold print that informs about the ITAR and tells people to go away if they're not from the US or Canada. Does this count as an unrestricted FTP site? It's not all that much different from what MIT has up for PGP. Also, back to the question of registration numbers. A registration number is just a string of letters and numbers, and is essentially the same as a friendly letter; it contains no cryptographic code. For all anyone knows, I could just be charging for pseudo-random numbers, again, nothing of cryptographic significance. Is it illegal for me to mail someone outside of the US or Canada a registration code? Thanks for any help. Mark Rosen FireSoft - http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/2690 Mark Eats AOL - http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/6660

2 1

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by drose＠azstarnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Phill" wrote: >I am a cyber-revolutionary and the world has bought into >the chaos of our revolution. I never intended the Web to be a tool >for confirming the present social order which is manifestly >corrupt. I am woman, hear me roar in numbers too big to ignore As R. J. Wagner once said, "Koo koo, baby." Hey, I hope that the above is construed as neither a flame nor as "off topic". May I additionally congratulate Nurdane on her birthday? Yo "Phill"! When's your cyber-revolutionary birthday? Maybe we can all chip in to buy you a biscuit. (See, in England, they say, "That certainly takes the biscuit". Eh, "Phill"?) BTW, "Phill", did you want to make good on your bet to Sandy at this time? Ain't C-punks fun nowadays?

1 0

Re: libsln.htm -- Is Libel a Crime?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:33 AM 1/28/97 -0500, aga wrote: >On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, jim bell wrote: > >> At 01:14 AM 1/27/97 -0600, ichudov(a)algebra.com wrote: >> >These postings do not prove that libel is a crime. It is because libel >> >is not a crime. Libel is a tort, and unlike with crime, the government >> >cannot initiate a legal action against someone for libel. Only injured >> >(libeled) individuals and not the government can sue in a libel case. >> >> On the contrary, in some jurisdictions libel is indeed a crime. However, >> that doesn't mean that prosecutions happen anymore, but the laws are (in >> some places) still on the books. > >Jim, either you are full of shit or that Law is VERY >unconstitutional. The first amendment prohibits any Criminal Laws >from being made against libel. You'd think that, wouldn't you? Yes, I agree that those laws are unconstitutional, but so is about 90+% of what the Federal government does today. Sigh. Criminal libel statutes are apparently (in the US, at least) a holdover from an earlier era in which government took the place of King George, and wanted the power to punish people who were too outspoken. The fact that they are "never" (?) used anymore is presumably a reflection of their unconstitutionality. Criminal libel statues should also be considered unconstitutional because they give way too much leeway to the prosecutor to decide whom to prosecute. His friends will never be charged, but his enemies will. One obvious problem with the LACK of a criminal libel statute, from the standpoint of the "government-controlling-class," or "the bigshots," is that it's impossible to sue (and collect from) a (comparatively) poor person for defaming him...but it's still possible to put him in jail. Civil libel is, therefore, essentially useless to a government agent as a means of keeping the masses in line. Myself, I believe that libel should be eliminated as a cause of action in civil cases as well as it has, de facto, in the criminal area. If anything, the ability to sue for libel makes things worse: There is an illusion that this is easy and straightforward, if not economical. It is neither. The result is that people are actually MORE likely to believe a printed falsehood because they incorrectly assume that if it wasn't true, it couldn't be printed. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Schear wrote: > > >jim bell wrote: > >> > >> At 10:21 PM 1/26/97 -0800, blanc wrote: > >> >From: jim bell (in response to Dimitri Vulis') > >> >Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to > >> >prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see > >> >any recognition of this fact. > >> >........................................................ > >> > > >> >1) Jim, why do you insist on discussing this on an forum for encryption? > >> > >> Because it's on-topic, that's why. Because it's not merely a list > >> concerning METHODS of encryption, it's also about the _reasons_ for using > >> encryption, as well as the _effects_ (both small-scale and large-scale) of > >> using encryption. > > > >Actually AP is one of the more interesting topics here. I think that there > >is a clear need for an AP bot. > > > >Do you feel like writing it? > > > > - Igor. > > Jim's all talk, I on the other hand am serious. Did you receive my Monday > e-mail? > yes, and found it interesting. - Igor.

1 0

More Circumventing the ITAR
by Mark Rosen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm curious as to exactly what the ITAR/EAR/Whatever says specifically about "unrestricted FTP sites." My program, Kremlin, is available for download at the web page below. On my web page, I have some stuff in bold print that informs about the ITAR and tells people to go away if they're not from the US or Canada. Does this count as an unrestricted FTP site? It's not all that much different from what MIT has up for PGP. Also, back to the question of registration numbers. A registration number is just a string of letters and numbers, and is essentially the same as a friendly letter; it contains no cryptographic code. For all anyone knows, I could just be charging for pseudo-random numbers, again, nothing of cryptographic significance. Is it illegal for me to mail someone outside of the US or Canada a registration code? Thanks for any help. Mark Rosen FireSoft - http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/2690 Mark Eats AOL - http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/6660

2 1