December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

That question is one for Tim to answer, but I should point out that philosophical anarchists are not necessarily opposed to rules, just government rules -- which this moderation policy clearly is not. -Declan On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > Toto wrote: > > 3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling > > clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, > > just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim > > to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last > > point is unenforceable except through reputation and social > > repercussions). > > 3.6.3 "Why isn't the list moderated?" > > ...hardly consistent with many of our anarchist leanings, is it? > > - "No, please, let's not become a 'moderated' newsgroup. This > > would be the end of freedom! > > Is this why T.C. May hasn't posted in quite a while? > > >

2 1

Keystroke sniffer question
by Scott 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How can you detect if there is a keystroke sniffer on your computer. Is there a file name to look for? Where do people get them? ======================================= Scott Bellavance scott-b(a)ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~scott-b/homepage.html ======================================= -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzAu56UAAAEEAL8pOdPu2pw5E91f99ByJWT+O1smtcOlIr6GL9TdCbdZ6I2U UPLl7RL5cV4e3Wv4nIIZiOIePMAUouM5fQZib4vnGpCKM/WxfGQBRGafsq2mlzvE IKLBrdYhQ5STl/qZIaCKI2+V4hdsvTPaI0PCqGzGoiDv9gbbZ40Gi3F38KqtAAUR tCtTY290dCBSLiBCZWxsYXZhbmNlIDxzY290dC1iQGl4Lm5ldGNvbS5jb20+ =Hfbk -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

2 1

Re: "Secret" Postal Device stolen
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Stewart wrote: > >>>Postal Service offers $25,000 reward for stolen . . . something > I was also guessing keys - truck keys are a less subtle target than > box storage keys, and telling every thug in the country that > mail trucks are an easy target, just take the keys from the carrier, > seems almost worth sounding really stupid in public to avoid. > They did say that it wasn't something they carried in their pockets, > but do mail carriers hang their keys on their belts? Mail carriers in some areas carry keys for buildings with security doors (sometimes Master keys). Or perhaps they've taken over the CIA's crack distribution route. Is anyone on the list willing to 'knock off' a couple of mail carriers and get back to us with a definitive answer on this? (Doesn't this kind of thing fall under the moderator's job description?) Toto

3 2

Re: Free & Open Society & toleration (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Nobody has a problem with your ideals, it's just that Jim Bell is > trying to say (correct me and forgive me if I'm wrong) that: > > 1. Society will never subscribe to your ideals. But other than two points they already do. The two points being, 1. Libel is a recognized legal concept now, the difference is one of degree. That degree of difference being how much money there is available for the lawyer and their willingness to enforce the concepts of justice in the society based upon their perceived ability to profit by it. 2. The extension of acceptance of reasonable legal representation by lot from not only the defence but also the prosecution. My solutions to these two issues are: 1. Removal of the lawyer from the ultimate choice of whether the case should be pursued. 2. The minimalization of the defendants and plaintiffs monetary resources by removing them from the legal system by choosing the legal representation of both parties by lot. 3. By moving the responsibility of police to provide evidence from the prosecution to the court we equalize the impact of irregularities in evidence selection as well as minimizing the sorts of evidence disputes which so impact some trials (ie OJ Simpson). 4. By the implimentation of a bond proviso on the part of the plaintiff the system provides a check and balance reducing nuisance cases as well as reducing the taxation load on the citizenry. > 2. Society is not static, i.e., instead of remaining at a constant > level of corruption, the officials will keep demanding more, > until there's a sudden, catastrophic break. Absolutely, that is one of the reasons I refuse to seperate those who represent the social contract (eg the Constitution) and those who are impacted by it, which includes even those who represent it and enforce its various responsibilities. AP relies on this distinction as axiomatic. This axiomatic view is ultimately based in a jealous greed for what others have (ie power, percieved or real) and the implicit belief that all people are NOT created equal. > 3. The AP solution has the potential to stabilize the level of > corruption, which should make violent revolutions and genocide > unnecessary. But it doesn't. What it does is provide a mechanism for de-stabalization. Just look at the Middle East and the history of assassination. Assassinations have never stabalized that region or any other. There is nothging in our current understanding of human psychology and social interactions that leads to the conclusion that threats of violence will necessarily force people to comply. If it did the government (as perceived by AP) would not have to deal with real opposition. Simply threaten the opposition and it melts away for the same reason that supposedly the government would cease to oppose radicalism (ie changes in the status quo forced by small groups upon the masses). If anything every real world example of AP demonstrates an increase in corruption (eg. Beirut). The closest analog in history to AP is the "Flowery Wars" as practiced by the Aztecs. However, these were motivated by a belief in religous homogeneity and not one of politics. Also, implicit in this was the axiomatic acceptance of a real class seperation between those who ruled and those who were ruled. By no means could one accept the premise that this caused the Aztec rulers to be more sensitive to corruption or the continued existance of their system. Another good example is assassination in ancient Rome, it is clear that such activities in no way reduced corruption. If anything AP provides a rationale (ie self-defence) to impose even harsher a priori conditions on sections of a society by another part of that society. Hardly what I would consider a stabalizing condition let alone democratic. What is required for stability is for each group to feel unthreatened and secure in expressing their beliefs without fear of reprisals and at the same time recognizing they must provide room for others beliefs. There must also be the realization that refusal to abide by these precepts will be met with immediate consequences. Something AP can't do, as it explicitly promotes threats and the carrying out thereof. On another issue, it was asked what purpose there is in suing a poor person. Simple lack of monetary wealth should be no more reason to exempt a party from justice than having large quantities. A citizen should face the consequences of their actions, how rich or poor they are is an irrelevant issue. Concepts required for a true working democracy: Liberty Justice Equality Fraternity Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

Free & Open Society & toleration
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a free and open society must tolerate any action. This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy. It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting individualy or in concert. I hold that for a democratic society to retain concepts of freedom and equity under the law as well as be economicaly viable, especialy in an environment where 'reputation' is critical such as a network over which economic transactions can take place with nothing more than a email order and a EFT, must not provide ex post facto AND carte blanche protection of the speech of the citizens. For such a system to operate requires a 'reputation' system to be in place. For such a system to be viable it MUST protect those reputations otherwise the concept of a 'contract' is worthless. I DO hold that this system MUST provide a priori protection of all speech. I further hold that any distinction between the 'government' and the people of a nation is a false and misleading distinction which is not in the best interest of the society because it by DEFINITION promotes a class society which is by definition contrary to the goal of equity under a democracy. It further provides a mechanism by which the representatives of the 'state' may claim immunity from the very standards they are charged with enforcing. This is because the charter of such a society is itself simply a contract between any arbitrary individual of that society and the sum total of the remaining citizenry (ie the 'state'). I further hold that one of the current legal practices based on precidence which MUST be replaced is our system dealing with defamation. I further hold that our current system of legal representation is inherently flawed and prevents equal representation under the law. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

4 3

Re: Embarrass a Marylander, Go to Jail
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:04 PM 2/3/97 -0500, Robert Hettinga wrote: > >--- begin forwarded text > Excerpted from... > > ============================================================= > AOP Bulletin Friday, February 3, 1997 Volume 97:05 > ============================================================= > > The following is information distributed to members of the > Association of Online Professionals and others involved in the > online communications industry. Contacts and other information > about AOP may be found at http://www.aop.org. > > > ***************************************************** > Maryland Recycles Law On "Annoying" E-Mail > ***************************************************** > > A Maryland bill that would make it illegal to send "annoying" or > "embarrassing" e-mail was introduced this week by Democratic General > Assembly member Samuel Rosenberg. I would find any email "annoying" that supported such a bill. Maybe we ought to send emails to Rosenberg, stating that we find his entire proposal "annoying," and ask him when he's going to turn himself in for his misdeeds. Another good argument for AP. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Getting into MIT is impossible
by Clint Barnett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

wasn't Dolph Lundgren an MIT grad? I seem to remember something about him having a degree in Chemical Engineering or something along those lines. clint barnett lord of the cosmos emily carr institute On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Anonymous wrote: > > > According to Rick Osborne: > > "I disagree and can speak from experience. I was denied admission to MIT > even thought I had a 3.82 GPA, 1440 SAT (one try), and had taken 9 AP tests > with two 5's, four 4's, two 3's, and one 2. As for being well-rounded, I > was on several academic teams, sang in Chorus, acted and stage managed in > Drama, and played Tennis." > > People get into MIT--or don't get into MIT--for lots of reasons. Most > intelligent people apply to several schools, knowing that admissions > practices are subject to the vagaries of reality. > > In my case, my SATs were about 1500, with some 800s in achievement tests. > And the usual bullshit high school clubs, political offices, etc. etc. I > was accepted by MIT, but not by Caltech. I didn't lose any sleep over the > way things turned out. > > And I decided not to go to MIT, either. > > "The only thing I didn't have that the next MIT applicant had was money. I > made the mistake of letting them know that I was dirt poor and would need > full aid/grants/etc, and to quote "The Great Escape" it was "Zzzt! To the > Russian front!"" > > My guess is that "other factors" were involved. > > I noted with some interest, but little surprise, that the guy claiming MIT > required a 4.0 GPA and a 1600 combined SAT score could barely spell, and > had major problems making a coherent point. Methinks this is why MIT > rejected him, not his lack of a "1600." > > ">For what it's worth, I wanted to go to MIT my sophomore year in high > >school, too > > "Lucky you. It had been a dream of mine since I was an annoying > overachiever of 6. Sux to be white trash, I guess." > > MIT offered me a substantial economic aid package, in the form of loans, > grants, and various campus jobs. What does this tell you? > > "MIT may be a great school, but they tend to be snooty assholes for the most > part. (DISCLAIMER: Not all MIT grads/attendees are necessarily "snooty > assholes", I'm just saying that I've yet to meet one that wasn't.) > > I've known about a dozen or so MIT grads, and only one of them was a snooty > asshole, and it was a _she_, one of the first MIT women grads (and she was > _very_ impressed by this). > > Most MIT grads are perfectly reasonable. > > Xanthar > > > > > -- >

1 0

Re: GAK cracking?
by Thaddeus J. Beier 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

TIS's press releases, and the article in the paper, imply that TIS has been approved for 128 bit (uncrackable, except by prior arrangement) cryptography...not just 56 bit. They say, and they should know, that you can export 56 bits now with just a "plan" of key escrow, and that you can export more if you have a system... which, what do you know, they have! thad -- Thaddeus Beier thad(a)hammerhead.com Visual Effects Supervisor 408) 287-6770 Hammerhead Productions http://www.got.net/people/thad

1 0

RE: Govt & cyberspace
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Comments From: Steve Schear (in response to Vladimir Nuri-logical) Even better, this [govmt "tech envy"] is an opportunity to choke off all, or certainly increased, funding in order to hasten its [govmt] collapse. ...&... Don't improve it, remove it! ...&... Democracy is not without its significant shortcomings. If you doubt this read Tocquevelle. ........................................ Very pertinent suggestions. Anyone who knows his history on the list knows how Nuri-logical looks forward to the collapse of governments and is especially fond of reading Tocqueville. .. Blanc

1 0

Re: GAK cracking?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:45 AM 2/3/97 -0500, tmcghan(a)gill-simpson.com wrote: >But under a controversial new Clinton administration policy that took >effect Jan. 1, companies may receive permission to export stronger >programs. > >"I'm happy that we've been able to do this within the first month >without rancor or difficulty," Under Secretary of Commerce for Export >Administration William Reinsch told Reuters in a telephone interview. > >To export stronger programs immediately, companies must agree to >incorporate features within two years allowing the government to >decode encrypted messages by recovering the software keys, however. This ought to be challengeable. (equal-protection violation?) And while the government's actions are normally phrased in this way, another way to describe them is to argue that the government is: 1. Wanting a product or service to be developed. 2. Wants private companies to do this. 3. Wants to do so without Congress appropriating the money. (And they're doing it by, in effect, "paying" for it by allowing certain companies to export freely, with the requirement that the company does the work "gratis".) 4. Wants to do so without any sort of competitive bidding process. (The terms of the contract have not gone through any of the normal procedures.) I assume there are laws and/or rules which prohibit exactly this kind of behavior. Would it be possible to file a lawsuit, and then file for an injunction to prevent this de-facto deal from going through? Might this constitute an anti-trust violation, because multiple companies are acting in concert to restrict access to the foreign crypto market by agreeing to develop ONLY A CERTAIN KIND OF ENCRYPTION, namely GAKked encryption? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0