December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Cellular location...
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:54 PM 1/25/97 -0500, Mark M. wrote: >I wonder how expensive it would be to put a GPS receiver in a cell phone and >have the option to transmit the coordinates on a separate channel. There >would be little difference between this and forcing cell phone companies to >triangulate every call. The primary motivation for this is almost certainly >"location escrow" to make it easier for the feds to track drug dealers. It would only be marginally reliable. GPS signals are so weak (coming from satellites in 11,000 mile orbits) that reception outdoors is sometimes iffy if the signals have to go through foliage. Reception indoors is probably only rarely do-able. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

WinKrypt
by Frank Willoughby 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Out of curiosity, is anyone familiar with WinKrypt by Syncronsys? I picked up a copy & there is no mention in the documentation which encryption algorithm it uses & what the key lengths are. FWIW, my impression is that the documentation seems to deliberately avoid mentioning the algorithm/key lengths. Hmmmm. (food for thought) I was curious how it compares to McAfee's PC Crypto which uses 40-bit DES or 160-bit Blowfish (user-chooses) & other PC/laptop encryption products. BTW, I would also appreciate your input on any crypto products which you believe to be robust, easy-to-use & secure. (I know I can only have 2 out of 3, but it's worth a try anyway). 8^) Please send marketing info to me directly at: frankw(a)in.net and **NOT** to the entire mailing list. (BTW, I mentioned WinKrypt & PCcrypo because they are the only two which are available at many computer stores as COTS s/w). TIA for your help. Best Regards, Frank

1 0

(Fwd) Just Say No to Telcom "Reform"
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thought this might interest you guys. ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 13:00:14 -0800 (PST) From: Audrie Krause <akrause(a)igc.apc.org> Subject: Just Say No to Telcom "Reform" To: iaj-futuremedia(a)igc.apc.org * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ACTION ALERT Please re-post where appropriate * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dear Friends, On February 8, the first anniversary of the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996, NetAction and the Center for Educational Priorities are launching a month-long Internet demonstration to call attention to the wide gap between the rhetoric and reality of this sweeping legislation. President Clinton and Congress promised the American people that enactment of the Telecommunications Reform Act would lead to a cornucopia of technological innovations that would change the nation's cultural frontiers, expand our choices, dazzle our eyes, and inform our minds. Instead, we've been censored in cyberspace, subjected to TV ratings systems, and prevented from experiencing the benefits of a truly competitive marketplace by the emergence of "cartels" created by mega-mergers in the telecommunications and media industries. This is not reform! And it's not too late to demand that our decision makers deliver on what they promised us on February 8, 1996: MORE competition, MORE consumer choices, MORE widespread access to information technology. The Center for Educational Priorities and NetAction are spearheading this demonstration in an effort to pressure the Federal Communications Commission and other state and national regulatory agencies to ensure that the Act is implemented in a way that truly benefits the public. We invite you to join this effort by linking to the site at <http://www.cep.org/protest.html> for one month beginning on February 8. By linking to the protest site, you will be adding your voice to a united demand for true telecommunications reform. The site is currently under development. When completed, it will feature brief summaries of the impact the Act has had in its first year on telecommunications and technology policy, media ownership and content, and censorship, along with suggested actions to help ensure that implementation of the Act truly benefits the public. We are also creating extensive links to other organizations working on these issues, as well as to other sites with current information on censorship, mega-mergers, universal service, school hook-ups, and the v-chip. We welcome suggestions for additional links to add. Please let us know if you will participate in the demonstration by contacting NetAction, by email at akrause(a)igc.org, or by phone at 415-775-8674. Thanks! =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

3 2

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:30 AM 1/26/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> writes: >> 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. "I have a solution to that problem." Seriously! 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. For the benefit of the masses, the AP ("Assassination Politics") solution to, for example, the Iraq problem would be to allow anyone and everyone in the world to donate money towards the death of Saddam Hussein, and any leadership which survives him, until that leadership satisfies the public that they won't be following in Hussein's footsteps. Simple. Economical. And, dare I say it, fair. I believe that the Coalition spent $60 BILLION dollars doing the Iraq war, and they didn't even get rid of Saddam. I'm sure AP would have done the task for under $100 million, and possibly far less. (and that money would have been collected by donation, not stolen in taxes. Much of that money would have come from the Iraqi people themselves, BTW.) There would be few if any civilian casualities, no hunger or poverty caused among the people. Even their soldiers would be relatively unaffected, except that their militaries (as well as ours) would be disbanded. Reminds me of the punchline to that joke. "He sent two boats and a helicopter! What more did you want?!?" Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

5 9

Re: overview.htm (fwd)
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Nurdane Oksas wrote: > i think it's good also to exercise outdoors as well as your > indoor nordictrack machines..sun and air is esp. necessary; but remember, tanning will kill ya. - Igor.

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn wrote: > 1. The subscribers have spoken by staying put, or, > 2. The subscribers are so lazy and unaware of what's going on that > they've just left things as is. > Now, in my opinion, we've come to this: Some people here will hold > the optimistic view of the bulk of the subscribers, and others will > hold the pessimistic view (the bulk will presumably be in-between). In case of 2, they are probably not worthy of your help. - Igor.

1 0

Re: Cellular location...
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:54 PM 1/25/97 -0500, Mark M. wrote: >I wonder how expensive it would be to put a GPS receiver in a cell phone and >have the option to transmit the coordinates on a separate channel. There >would be little difference between this and forcing cell phone companies to >triangulate every call. The primary motivation for this is almost certainly >"location escrow" to make it easier for the feds to track drug dealers. It would only be marginally reliable. GPS signals are so weak (coming from satellites in 11,000 mile orbits) that reception outdoors is sometimes iffy if the signals have to go through foliage. Reception indoors is probably only rarely do-able. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

RE: Internet, Countries, Nationalism, etc.
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Jim Choate 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. ................................................................... When your little company grows up to become a big World Leader in robotics, will you then be a member of this technocracy, participating in a one-world government, whether we like it or not? Will you sit on the Board of Honchos making important decisions about net access for all, perhaps active in the Chamber of Borgs? :>) .. Blanc p.s. I be femme

1 0

Text files
by satan_is_a_hacker＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ho was the one who wanted a list of my texts? I deleted the message accidentally

2 1

Re: David Kahn advocates GAK
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:03 AM 1/27/97 GMT, Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl wrote: >On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 17:32:56 GMT, John Savard <seward(a)netcom.ca> wrote: > >>This is surprising, given that (in Kahn on Codes) Mr. Kahn expressed >>forceful opinions > >>- against certain aspects of export controls, > >>- questioning the value of the NSA's mission, in contrast to social >>demands on government revenues. > >I didn't find his opinions forceful in Codebreakers, 2nd. ed. > >Questioning the NSA's purpose vs. advoctating GAK are not incompatible. > >>However, while I oppose making key escrow mandatory in general, and >>share the general suspicion of a voluntary Clipper, if Mr. Kahn's >>support for Clipper is limited to cellular telephones, then I have no >>quarrel with such a position. > >>Encryption is illegal, without special permission, for use over the >>airwaves, particularly where mobile radio is involved. This is a >>long-standing restriction, and not unreasonable. Private communication >>between people at home is one thing, but allowing criminals to closely >>coordinate their activities on the move is another. It's odd that I can't seem to find the original message here. Contrary to the original claim, encryption over radio is generally legal. (One noted exception to this is ham radio...) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0