December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Toto Obese-rvation? I hope you are not assuming that I am obese, just because I am responding to a post originating from 'fatmans.demon.co.uk.' I would hate to become relegated to the upcoming cypherpunks-fatpeople list because of assumptions of this nature. ................................................. Well, Toto, if you don't like this obeservation, you can always unsudribe from "unmoderated" and subcrive to "expurgated". (There's also a rumor about a new "exfoliated" list for Snakes of Medusa starting up....) .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Encrypting ZIP disks
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lucky Green wrote: | At 11:40 AM 1/25/97 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: | > | >Paul Kocher announced that he has cracked it, and can recover data | >quickly. He is not publishing details of the break. | | Why? Probably to make money. Paul does do this for a living. Even if he hasn't cracked it, the ZIP protection mechanism is propreitary and exportable. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

2 1

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:11 AM 1/22/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: >> 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 Nonsense - the net doesn't "belong" to "Singapore or China" - it's made up of the activies and property of many different people. If some of those people don't like what other people are saying, or reading, they've got no right to limit it, just because they've got enough guns to call themselves "the government". If they don't like something, they don't have to read it, or they can send out their own counter-propaganda. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: Cellular location...
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09:27 PM 1/25/97 -0800, Steve Schear wrote: >>> Presented in a "this will help 911" context. Still disconcerting. >>> >>> [...] >>> Companies working on the technology to track cellular phone calls >>> have been given additional incentive with a Federal Communications >>> Commission order that all cell phone service companies have location >>> programs in place by the year 2001. >>> [...] >> > >Looks like this might create an opportunity for 'anonymous' cellular rentals. > >--Steve Anonymous cellular accounts have been available in NYC for a year or so. See any copy of the Post or the Daily News for the ads. A similar service just started in Mexico City according to the NYT. You call the company and order the phone for circa $249.00 C.O.D. This includes one hour of calls. Subsequent hours are purchased for $36. Not cheap but anonymous. No roaming either. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMuuHDIVO4r4sgSPhAQFKjwQAoYOpb6t/L3/ah6yN7bMnwlTXX34q7yLC ECW8R7QzZsvZoHd9LxwN38DrvHsCmyot+xWwF/Drixupen8ydJz9yXcmSpddeYM6 r8mmvQcA27YmNID6LF4iAh1Z7gqYu1iUyIaxEE6WhPN1cAEobJn9x3rFVV1dpouC Y88L4vFRo+I= =acJo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

PGPmail for Windows, Version 4.5
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Anyone running Windows 95 who hasn't grabbed the beta of PGPmail 4.5 from http://www.pgp.com/ is crazy. It works seamlessly with Netscape 3.0 and Eudora Pro 3.0. The 30-day demo of Eudora Pro is at: http://www.eudora.com/prodemo/. It is easy to use. I just installed it and pointed it at my old pubring.pgp and secring.pgp files and went to work. All my messages have been signed since then and some have been encrypted. The installation program found my existing copies of Eudora and Netscape and installed the PGP add in without any fuss. My only problem was finding the controls for the add in which (in the case of Eudora) consist of buttons to encrypt, sign, bring up the program, insert a copy of your key, and actually modify the message. The controls only appear on the message create, and message read windows. Easy to use. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMuuKMYVO4r4sgSPhAQFfzAP+LkDjOecHxz0iEVVggLLABxAOE9tVyOLl AIkKlagFqK+lBboo7fETCZtSpmDHcNsJG6Et6BWO5aYf7Artw+jXj+734c+w4RWj zcj6+351LUqT60TmcukH02p2MT0sd8w1dAnhD8+o1E13G5h5N1CF/p6KQjmHOiQ6 9T1ehMax0jE= =E8Pu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> writes: (a bunch of sensible stuff) > . Many individuals reside within a nation not because they favor its po > litics, but because they feel more comfortable among their own kind than > with strangers elsewhere - for example, Chinese who have lived in China all > their lives (and whose ancestral roots are there) will wish to stay there > and do what they can within the boundaries of that nation, rather than for > instance moving to Canada, when the going gets rough. Also many "un-freer" societies restrict the ability to emigrate, and many "freer" society restrict the ability to immigrate. It's not so easy for someone living in Communist China to pick up his ass and go someplace else, like Taiwan. A large number of people got shot while trying to cross the Berlin Wall. Plus if they do get out, they may have difficulty going to countries like U.S. or Canada. (In case anyone missed it, the U.S. is much more selective about who it lets in as immigrants than it was earlier in the century.) > It is true that individuals still live within the physical boundaries of > "nations" which have formed in the past, and they still hold the concepts > of these boundaries in their minds and they still identify closely with > these, and they still vote problems upon themselves. But it is becoming > an anachronism, and it is becoming inaccurate to speak of "what > Singaporians want for the internet". This phrase would describe many of > those who live in Singapore, but not all of them. It is more accurate to > speak of what "individuals who use the internet" want, of what > "individuals who want to communicate" want, of what "individuals who want > to connect with others" want. > > The identifications of self as a citizen who must be identified with the > vote of a majority, and consequently suffer the perception of oneself as > someone who "voted to accept restrictions of the net, therefore should not > be helped against it", is becoming irrelevant. When a distress call goes > out from someone anywhere on the planet, the assistance and relief may come > from anyone anywhere who chooses to rally others and provide assistance. > > It is not the traditional "we" against "them", and it is not the "citizens > of the US" helping those who "voted themselves a Hitler into power" or > "voted themselves into restrictions against free speech". It is "those of > us who appreciate the liberty in communications technology" against "those > who would take it away". However U.S.G. is able to say that people of Iraq or Lybia or Cuba should not be permitted on the 'net. It also bombs Iraq and murders their civilians in retaliation for something their governments supposedly did. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Toto wrote: > I think that anyone who thinks that moderation is, or could ever be, > anything other than a dance into the arms of the establishment, is > already crazy. Apparently, Toto does not know very much about John or me or our relationships with the "Establishment." It is who are using a intellectually dishonest smokescreen of "freedom of speech" in order to disrupt and hamper the work of Cypherpunks who are dancing into the arms of the "Establishment." > For the record, I don't think that either John or Sandy is crazy. > I think that they have their own pre-established goals which others > on the cypherpunks list are not privy to. I can't speak for John, but my goals have been stated too often and too completely for anyone not to know them. I want us all to have privacy. The Cypherpunks list was created to facilitate discussion--and ultimately action by those who were inclined and able to do something to further that goal via the use of cryptographic and other technologies. I believe that childish name-calling and personal attacks interferes with rational discourse and a spirit of common purpose and community. It is obvious to me that those who are waving the bloody flag of "censorship" are doing so for either of two reasons. The ones to whom I am the most sympathetic are those who simply do not have a clear and coherent understanding of rights in an anarchistic, volunteeristic society. The ones for whom I have no sympathy are those whose obvious goal is disruption of the Cypherpunks list and who are hiding behind a phoney interpretation of "free speech." I think both of these groups are intellectually dishonest in the extreme when it comes to telling others how this list should be run. I doubt any of them would permit the sort of disruptive behavior that goes on here to go unchallenged in salons they sponsor in their own homes or on Net lists that they themselves maintain. This is a voluntary list folks. We tried incivility and that did not work. Right now we are experimenting with reasoned discourse in an atmosphere of interpersonal respect and good will. If most list members like the change, it will continue. If not, then we can go back to the swill or perhaps try something else. In the meantime, get over it. If you really like flames and spam, show John and me how it really should be done. Start another list. Of course squating and claim jumping appeal to the lazy a lot more than homesteading. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: DPT Win 3.xx, 95, NT ENCRYPTION program
by Igor Chudov ＠ home 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <5cd7ki$52b(a)news.xs4all.nl> bernard(a)xs4all.nl Crypto wrote: Newsgroups: comp.security.misc * DPT Win 3.xx, 95, NT ENCRYPTION program * * DPT16 or DPT32 total encryption Windows program. * * Encrypt fast, Files, Dir, Floppys, e-mail, text or Messages .... * * Key up to 30 Kb, Hide your encrypted data's in a picture file. * Direct mail encryption, Visit the Data Privacy Tools home page. * * at; http://www.xs4all.nl/~bernard Bernard, thanks for an interesting post. I am Cc-ing your message to Cypherpunks mailing list which is ostensibly dedicated to discussions of cryptography. As follows from info on your home page, you do use simple XOR to encrypt your data. It was not clear to me though, how do you generate the keys to encrypt the data. I am sure that many readers of cypherpunks mailing list will be interested, so please send a copy of your reply to cypherpunks(a)toad.com. igor

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 03:28:53 -0800 > From: Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> > Subject: Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd) > > At 12:11 AM 1/22/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: > >> 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 > > Nonsense - the net doesn't "belong" to "Singapore or China" - 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. 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 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. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com ps I also support France's current attempt at forcing the Georgia university web site on French soil to use French.

2 1

Internet, Countries, Nationalism, etc.
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, blanc has put forth an interesting assertion relating to nationalism and the Internet. If he is correct then we will have a one world government (ie technocracy) whether we like it or not. I agree with this assertion, which is why I hold that it is a waste of bandwidth trying to 'control' the Internet or access thereof by citizens of such countries as Singapore. Let them cut themselves off, it does us all a service, and themselves a dis-service. If the citizens have as much dissatisfaction as some members claim they will take care of it themselves. When they get hungry for ideas, materials, and food they will change. You can take a horse to water, you can't make him drink. You can drown him however. Then you are walking, not riding. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1