December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: [DES] DES Key Recovery Project, Progress Report #7
by Phil Karn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>If past cryptographic software is any indication, the DES Cracker >will be available from an overseas ftp site within hours of release in >the US. And lacking that, the author can always print it out on paper and physically mail it out of the country; this is specifically allowed by the new Commerce rules as I understand them. And who's to say that the overseas FTP copies weren't scanned from such a paper copy? :-) Phil

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> > Subject: Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd) > Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:36:13 -0500 > > I don't agree with your view of states. The inhabitants of a > geographical area are not mere chattels of the governing power. Exactly! By jove you got it! By demanding your liberty but demanding that 'we' go to Singapore or anywhere else and treat them as chattels we have clearly instituted a double-standard. Most parties in this discussion still haven't made that distinction. All we have done is replace their current tyrant with a new one, mainly us. > The right to rule rests on certain criteria which I believe neither > country meets. The harassment of opposition politicians in > obviously trumped up charges disqualifies any country from > calling itself a democracy. Exactly. And by applying pressure on Singapore we only help them keep that tyrany in place. The quickest way I know to make a social institution band together is self-preservation from an outside threat, real or perceived. > 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. ALL social orders are corrupt. The 3 laws of thermodynamics apply to everything including social institutions. 1. You can't get ahead 2. You can't break even 3. You can't quit the game Heinz Pagels (RIP) Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Libel/slander & crypto relevancy (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 01:28:19 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> > Subject: Re: Libel/slander & crypto relevancy > > Civil actions against people doing "graffiti" are only interesting where > the defendant has assets worth suing for. This economic dimension > substantially limits the number of suits which will be brought. Thank you for agreeing with my thesis that the legal industry is one driven by monetary gain and not justice. It is the one major problem with law today, it ignores those who are not 'worth it'. Justice is supposed to be blind and until that happens there can be no true liberty. Law should be involved in rights and wrongs and not 'how much money do I need to buy that villa in Spain'. There is also the aspect of 'reputation' of the organization which was defamed. This will become even more critical to good business over the Internet in the future than it is now. Now the only really important 'reputation' that one has to worry about is their credit report. Since it is very unlikely that such records will be made public in the future they won't be available so some other 'reputation' verification process will be required for parties interested in doing business with other parties they have no information on other than an email address or a webpage. This problem became very clear during the Austin Cypherpunks remailer project last year. The goal was to create a economicaly viable keyserver. The problem rapidly became one of trust and reputation and there was and still is no clear cut methodology for dealing with these concepts, let alone actualy trying to quantify them. Another aspect of this that keeps coming up is one of 'big' corporations with 'lots' of money, this monotonicity in legal thought is the reason I refer to the 'legal industry' and not 'legal profession'. Currently the main force driving law is how much money is available. Expansions of liberty simply can't happen in this environment because there is no mechanism to protect 'little' organizations or persons without 'lots' of cash. This problem is one that is not being addressed by anyone, most especialy lawyers who will loose income which they aren't apt to do voluntarily. > Criminal prosecutions for defamation (in the case of "graffiti") are still > unlikely - a much more straightforward charge would be unauthorized access > to a computer or some flavor of fraud, depending on the facts. This would be hard to do in the situation such as a mailing list because the parties would have 'authorized access' and it does not include the issue of inside parties nor 'web bbs's' where parties can enter comments and other statements in a 'authorized' manner. There are mechanisms to use computers for abuse of other parties besides hacking. > Confusion > aids defendants, so I predict prosecutors will avoid defamation law (and > its tar pits of actual malice and the defense of truth) when they are able > to do so and still have a reasonable chance of conviction. > > >If they don't > >understand the technology (eg forwarding private email to publicly > >accessible lists by accident) how in the world are they going to understand > >what is best, let along convince anyone else? > > There's a world of difference between understanding technology and screwing > up once in awhile. Absolutely. However, if there is not a fundamental understanding of the technology and its ramifications I certainly wouldn't want somebody making a case on my behalf because they would make assumptions which were not based in fact. In Toto's case the point I was refering to was not his sending private practice related material to a publicly accessible list (pretty reprehensible for my attorney accident or not) but rather his unsolicited admission that he didn't have any idea how it works. THAT would worry me if my liberty, possessions, or life were on the line. > I was that "party", and I guess that in trying to be civil I was actually > unclear. If you were a politically important person or organization, and if > Toto's message had caused you real damage, and if Toto were reasonably > available to prosecute, a prosecutor might get interested. But you're not > important, Toto would be difficult to extradite, and you weren't harmed. So > you picked a crappy example to make your point(s) with. Change the facts, > and you'll get a different answer. Duh. Actualy it is the PERFECT example of what is wrong with the law, it is the reason that I went to such extremes to force the situation. If the law can't protect Ma. and Pa. Kettle (their poor, being share croppers) under our 'democracy' it shure can't proctect them under a more 'liberalized' democracy which so many want and the technology will force. If the coming technocracy can't (or for monetary reasons won't) then it won't be any different that what we have now. A tyrant is a tyrant, my goal is to get rid of the cage and not to put a new layer of gilt on it. > You picked a hypothetical which did a poor job of illustrating the points > you're making in this later message. Do you want to talk about whether or > not Toto is criminally liable for making fun of you while making a point > about ownership of networks and its relationship to freedom of speech, or > do you want to talk about the more general case of liability for > misattribution? If it's the latter, yes, there are some issues there, but I > still think that defamation law is a poor way to address them. You seem to > be having an "I've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem. The point is not whether Toto did or did not make fun of me, you seem to have a prediliction for personal attacks. It ain't. The point is that if joe-six-pack isn't secure in knowing that his views and expression are not protected from abuse he won't use it. We all loose in that case. > And all of this seems a bit contrived if the real crypto-relevant point is > "use digital signatures to avoid misattribution". You missed the point, keep pondering. I am shure it will come to you. > Despite your closing, I haven't seen you write anything about "how it > should be", Because I don't know how it should be, and it isn't my place or yours to make that decision. It is our responsibility to discuss this issue and to review the various solutions and what they will mean in the long run (as near as we can make the future out that is). In this example, if party A makes a statement and then B changes it and then re-distributes it as original comments by A then there is a problem irrespective of the monetary worth of A or B. Digital signatures in and of themselves won't help this from happening unless it is required to include the full text and signature of any quote in any subsequent use of that material otherwise the quote and the digital signature are out of sync and therefore worthless. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: [URGENT] Meet-in-the-middle attack
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy C[retin] Maya grew a beard to look like his mother. \|||/ (o o) -ooO-(_)-Ooo- Timmy C[retin] Maya

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> wrote in article <5ch9f2$cuu(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > 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. Thats because its a whacko solution that has no credibility or consistency. If anyone tried to set up such a market and a price went out on any of the heads of state fantasized about Mr Bell would be dead as a doornail in a week. Phill

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Asgaard <asgaard(a)cor.sos.sll.se> wrote in article <5c92bo$lo9(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Jim Choate wrote: > > >The Web does not equal the Internet, straw man argument. > Actually at CERN we considered the Web to be a superset of the Internet protocols and others such as DECNET which ran on private networks such as our HEPNET. Since most of those private networks are now obsolete I would consider Web==Internet to be a reasonable equivalence. We always considered email and news to be part of the Web (news:, mailto:). The narrow view that the Web was only HTTP and HTML was a piece of Andressen propaganda. Phill

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> wrote in article <5c5891$ah(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > > Singapore and China are blocking certain net groups. I think > > this is a bad thing, question is how can we stop it? > > 'We' shouldn't, it is their own country and it is up to their populace to > stop it. Do you really want Singapore or China having a say in how we run > our web? I certainly don't, and won't support any move to force any > particular view on them. If Billy-Bob wants to shoot himself in the foot, > let him. Might be purty funny to watch. I don't agree with your view of states. The inhabitants of a geographical area are not mere chattels of the governing power. The right to rule rests on certain criteria which I believe neither country meets. The harassment of opposition politicians in obviously trumped up charges disqualifies any country from calling itself a democracy. > > The Web was conceived as offering despots and dictators a choice > > between remaining in the dark ages and allowing freedom of > > speech. Blocking and filtering schemes threaten this ideal. > > Bull, the web was conceived so physicist and other researchers could share > data in a easily digestible format. That was not all. We had a political Web site established during the '92 election. I was in contact with Clinton's people when we had fewer than 100 Web sites. 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. Phill

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote in article <5cg99p$7a(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > The part of it that comes out of their pocketbook does. Just like the part of > 'the net' that I pay for belongs to me. The net is a bunch of computers, > running software, hooked together over cables and other links. Each and > EVERY ONE of these require installation, upkeep, repair, and utility > support. This costs money. He who pays the money owns the net, everybody > else is along for the ride. The network is largely an intellectual creation. The hardware is relatively unimportant, it can always be replaced. > If we take your argument to its logical conclusion then once a box goes on > the net it belongs to nobody/everybody. Clearly utter nonsense. 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. 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. 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. It is true that there is the convenience of the state as agency but the question is on whose behalf that agency is exercised. I see no reason why I should not meddle in the affairs of states I'm not a 'subject" of. > If you really and truly believe that the net belongs to everyone and nobody > has a right to limit or otherwise control the hardware and software along > with the associated comm links they own and pay for then you obviously don't > understand what is going on. They are allowed to connect their machinery to the Internet so long as they are prepared to accept the Internet's ethic. They are not allowed to have a free ride, to demand a valuable connection facility on their own terms. > ps I also support France's current attempt at forcing the Georgia university > web site on French soil to use French. 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. 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. Phill

1 0

I-Link
by biz25＠prodigy.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, PRESS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: THIS IS URGENT--TWO U.S. BASED INTERNATIONAL GIANTS MERGE FOR A GROUND FLOOR OPPORTUNITY. THIS WILL BE THE MOST IMPORTANT EMAIL OF YOUR MLM LIFE. Two major publicly traded giants have joined forces to harness new telecommunications technology which promises to alter the way the world communicates. Until now, calls had to be transmitted through hard wire, fiber optics, or expensive land-based relay stations. Within months, all this will change. According to industry experts, calls in certain closely guarded test markets are already being made directly from phone to phone via satellite. Distance is no longer a factor. Without the considerable costs of hard wire installation, maintenance, and major overheads. With this new technology, rates are predicted to fall as much as 50% and more. This means that a direct dial call from Sydney Australia to London, Tokyo, or anywhere else in the world, might well be less than ten cents per minute. Calls within any country should also be reduced well below any currently being offered by any existing provider. Each user will only need a portable "little black box" which contains all the electronics to instantly convert any telephone into a two-way satellite transmitter. According to industry spokesman, the clarity of the voice link significantly exceeds present standards and the technology applies to fixed based phones as well as cellular units. Although the two major participating companies have requested anonymity until the official announcement in a few weeks time, it has been revealed that each is the industry leader in its respective field with combined annual sales exceeding Eighty Billion Dollars. This Technology will be made available throughout the world as quickly as the new company can cope with anticipated demand. Pre-Launch requests are now being accepted from interested parties that will enable them to move to the top of the list to receive information on a priority basis as soon as it becomes available. In an unexpected announcement, the company has revealed its desire to introduce this technology through network marketing. To maintain an orderly marketplace, the number of Pre-Launch distributors has been severely limited. If you are interested in being placed on the priority list to receive additional information about the new service or wish to be involved in the world wide marketing, please send the form below in any of the three manners listed. and all forms and instructions will be dropped into your email box in moments. There is NO COST or obligation in taking this first step. You make the final decision only after receiving all the relevant information. Unprecedented $$$ Opportunity 1) TWO Industry Giants is Software and Telecommunications with combined annual sales in excess of $80 Billion to team up to create a major marketing joint-venture to revolutionize the telephone industry. 2) Domestic and International Rates expected to Plunge in excess 50%---far below any currently being offered by any present company. Calls linking almost all-international locations could drop below ten cents per minute! 3) Crystal Clear Technology is achieved by two-way, direct satellite link through an inexpensive, highly portable "Little Black Box" which easily connects to both fixed and cellular phones. 4) Amazing Profit Potential. The company unexpectedly revealed it would distribute this new technology through MLM. The first 5,000 responders to this announcement could easily become instant millionaires. 5) FREE PRE-LAUNCH RESERVATIONS. The following form will assure your position on our priority list. 6) TOP SECRET DETAILS will be communicated as soon as available. 7) NO COST OR OBLIGATION NOW!!! Reserve your right to make a final decision once we release the information on the products, program, and what we ca do for you with our massive marketing power. 8) Do Not Delay!! Priority places are reserved as received. Make certain commit your contacts IMMEDIATELY to keep your own marketing organization in tact. This will totally revolutionize the way the world communicates. Virtually everyone who uses a telephone or a fax for business will be converting to this system. Submit your no-obligation Priority Reservation Form Immediately. 9) Copy and rewrite this document to reflect you as the sponsor and pass on to your email friends. -------------------------------[ Start of Form ]-------------------------- INTERNATIONAL TELEPHONE PROGRAM PRE-LAUNCH PRIORITY RESERVATION FORM Mail to: John Gilmore PO Box 990103 Naples, FL 34117 Phone 941-353-1049 or Fax to: 1-619-561-8967 or Email to: jgilmore(a)netnaples.com (In place of signature type "I Agree" for email entries) ***cc to: ulus12a(a)prodigy.com *** Please complete ALL information below. Incomplete applications cannot be processed Social Security or EIN Number_______________________ Print Full Name________________________________________________________ Business Name (if applicable)____________________________________________ Mailing Address (NO PO Box)____________________________________________ City______________________________State_________Zip Code_______________ Home Telephone Number (___)________ Work Telephone Number (____)________ Fax Number (_____)_____________ E-Mail Address_______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sponsor Information: Name____Sonya Seaman__________SS/EIN_161-64-8877____ Home Phone 610-760-8527 E-Mail Address____ ulus12a(a)prodigy.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I would like to be placed on the priority list to receive information on the major breakthrough in worldwide telephone services. I understand there is no cost or obligation. I reserve the right to make a final decision once I have reviewed all the relevant information. I further understand that by submitting this application, I am assured that I and my organization will be afforded its proper pre-launch positioning, and that by signing below, I agree that my position in the genealogy will not be altered or circumvented in any manner unless agreed in writing by my upline sponsor. Signature_________________________________ Date________________ I am interested in marketing in: ___________USA _________Other Countries (Specify) ________Worldwide -------------------------------[ End of Form ]-------------------------- http://www.bluesky.net.au/~aim/downline.html id#: 21 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.mlmpals.com/chain/ch049.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri L"iposuction" Vegetable had his foreskin ripped off last night by a vacuum cleaner. ,/ \, ((__,-"""-,__)) `--)~ ~(--` .-'( )`-, Dr.Dimitri L"iposuction" Vegetable `~~`d\ /b`~~` | | (6___6) `---`

1 0