December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Civil War Crypto Question... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 15:35:00 -0500 > From: John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> > Subject: Re: Civil War Crypto Question... > Jim Choate wrote: > > >Myer implimented including a 'cipher disk' whereby the Union was able to > >change their telegraph codes on an hourly schedule. It was apparently very > >effictive in dealing with taps and such. > > > >Anyone know of another source that discusses this disk? > > Myer's code and cipher disk (with illustration) are briefly described > in Fred Wrixon's "Codes and Ciphers" along with an entry on > Civil War crypto with a photo of a Confederate cipher disk. > > We've put the entries and illustrations at: > > http://jya.com/cydisk.htm > > The book is: > > "Codes and Ciphers: An A to Z of Covert Communication, > from the Clay Tablet to the Microdot," > Fred B. Wrixon, Prentice Hall, 1992, paper. $18.00 > ISBN 0-13-277047-4 Thank you, thank you, thank you. I'll order a copy from the local bookstore today! Merry Christmas! ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendment
by The Sheriff 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> Where do you get the right to tell others how they can make a living? > >I don't have that right. However, the Supreme Court has said that the >Congress has that right. If you would be so kind as to a) specify that supreme court ruling, and b) identify an online resource where I can obtain the text of that decision, so that I can 1) confirm or deny your allegation, and 2) debate your position intelligently, I would greatly appreciate it. >> I am not allowed to place toxic waste, or noise, where it can affect >> others; I can ingest toxins privately and listen to whatever music I >> like so long as you don't detect it in your backyard. > >Well, racism is hiring decisions is something that is detected in other >people's backyards. That's why its illegal. What if I run a business out of my house? What if I don't need employees (such that I could affort to hire a couple of people, or nobody at all)? If I hire someone who is white because I don't want to hire someone is black, then it is not a loss that is felt within the black community, since I don't *need* to hire anybody in the first place. >>> In a fantasy world, it is mutually consensual. It the real world, it is >>> seldom mutual. > >> You prefer a shotgun or otherwise arranged marriage? > >I prefer a level playing field. The above phrase is something that I hear a lot, and it deeply disturbs me. Regulation is allways seen as the arm of fairness, when the above phrase is mentioned. I am not allowed to choose to hire someone based on skin color, and yet the country is riddled by "affirmative" action programs -- which, in the short and brutal version of the description of "AA" is just a system of RACE-BASED PREFRENCES. I find it very interesting that liberal activists in California, who rabidly insist that racism is wrong, that we must have racial dialogues, that we should all "just get allong," used the court system to fight Proposition 209, which ends affirmative action in that state. The people voted their will, and the activists took to the courts to override the people's will -- in effect, saying that the California voting public is just a bunch of idiots. I don't like someone telling me that I don't know better. When I like is as little government influence in my life as humanly possible, be it in my choice of breakfast cereal, or employees. >> Private behavior is private behavior, and trade is a private behavior. > >Not in this country. If you don't believe me, check out Article I, >Section 8 for one explicit example. I read Article I, Section 8. I shall quote the relevent portion that relate to this discussion: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; ... " Now, then. Notice the eighth word -- "amung." As I understand it, this means that the Fed can regulate INTERstate commerce, not INTRAstate commerce. This is why (again, as I understand it) the Fed will inspect meat crossing state lines, but not meat that is moved around within a state. It is for this reason that not all meat is inspected by the Fed. If anybody has refrences to texts that prove me wrong, bring them forward so that I can refine my argument. :) So, back to my home business. Let's say I build computers and sell them around the state. Since I'm not transporting my product from one state to another, the Fed can't constitutionally regulate how I do business. >>> With freedom comes responsibility. Decency is one of them. This is ALLWAYS the case. You earn freedom through being a responsible adult. When you don't infringe on the rights of others, the government has no grounds under which to infringe on yours (through punishment or direct order). >> But obligate decency at gunpoint is not worth it. > >It's called civilization. You should try it some time. No, no, no. To obligate "decency" at gunpoint is definitely NOT anything but facicism (sp?). I remember a time when people were obligated to do the "decent" thing and worship God and Jesus Christ -- and, as the bumper sticker says, "The last time religion and politics were mixed, someone got burned." Decency is a very fuzzy word. After all, the KKK says that white people are the only decent people. The KKK is in the minority. To use your own words: "No majority group has a right to discriminate against a minority." By your own words, the KKK should be allowed to discriminate against blacks when they hire if they want to, since they are in the minority when compared (by numbers) to all of the groups they think are lesser than those of white skin. After all -- does skin color constitute the only minority? Not according to the definition of the word. Best wishes and fresh-roasted peanut taste, The Sheriff. -- ***<REPLY TO: sheriff(a)speakeasy.org>*** --- As kinky as it sounds, finger me to see my PGP key and confirm the signature attached to this message. --- Any and all SPAM will be met with immediate prosecutory efforts. Solicitations are NOT welcome here! --- ----BEGIN INFLAMATORY BLOCK---- Version: 160 (IQ) Comments: Definitely one of their greatest misses. Reporter: "Do you know what Public Enemy is?" --- Citizen: "Public enemy?" [long pause] "Probably somebody in office." -----END INFLAMATORY BLOCK-----

1 1

Request_for_quotation
by cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Att. Sales / Export Department Re: Request for quotation A RFQ for products which, to the best of our knowledge are similar to those offered by you ,was placed with us by one of our clients. We are a world wide sourcing firm and we are paid by our clients to find them suitable suppliers . To you ,our service is totally free of charge !!! The information we will get from you will not only be immediately sent to this particular client but also to all other clients looking for similar products . To define and advise us the products you are interested to export and/or to get more information about us and our FREE SERVICE , please use our Internet interface at: http://www.thebol.com Best Regards theBOL - Purchasing Department

1 0

Re: Civil War Crypto Question... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, There is a historical problem w/ the accredation of the various signals in use during the Civil War in the book: > "Codes and Ciphers: An A to Z of Covert Communication, > from the Clay Tablet to the Microdot," > Fred B. Wrixon, Prentice Hall, 1992, paper. $18.00 > ISBN 0-13-277047-4 The author claims (from John Young's cydisk.htm): <B> Myer, Albert</B> (1829-1880), U S. Army surgeon and cryptographer. To finance his medical studies, Myer worked as an operator for the New York, Albany, and Buffalo Telegraph Company. After entering the army, he developed a visual signaling method in 1856 and called it flag telegraphy. (Two British officers, Sir Francis Bolton and Vice Adm. Philip Colomb, independently developed a similar system at about the same time.) Though it was approved for use in 1860, the year Myer became chief signal officer, the system was not fully appreciated until the outbreak of the U.S. CIVIL WAR in 1861. Myer's technique then came to be known as "wigwag," from the motions of its hand-held flags or disks for daytime signaling and torches or lanterns for sending messages at night. This is clearly several errors regarding 'wig-wag' signaling techniques and Myer. These techniques go back to pre-Napoleonic times. Myers was a alphabetic system where arm position denoted the letter, not the arm motion (hence wig-wag). In: The American Civil War and the Origins of Modern Warfare Edward Hagerman pp. 40 "But the primary motive was recognition of the benefits of this technology to tactical and strategic coordination. The increasingly extended lines of large American armies, especially their tactical extension with the rifled musket, as well as the rough terrain, challenged existing technology based on wigwag signals supplemented by couriers." In addition, McClellan didn't appoint Myer to be his signal officer until August 20, 1861. Further, there was *no* signals department in the US Army to be appointed to until *after* March 3, 1863 when legislation was passed bringing the official Signal Corp. into being. I don't have clue what Wrixon is talking about, but it clearly doesn't have anything to do with history in general or crypto specificaly. Cite this Wrixon's book with care. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Cypherpunks IRC Christmas Eve Party
by Eric Cordian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If anyone wants to drop by #Cypherpunks on EFNet this evening, myself and others will be around to chat. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

2 1

Press
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Disgusted with the censorous antics of Declan the Lying Forger, some of us may be forgetting there are still some good journalists out there. Today's newsday has an excellent article by Gail Dutton, reporting from the AAAS's Conference ion Anoynmous Communications on the Internet. She managed to identify all the important issues in a ways that a layperson can understand, without oversimplifying; presented different points of view, including her own without editorializing and/or pushing her opinions as facts. I'm not saying that Declan should learn from her, because Declan is clearly too stupid to learn; but other aspiring journalists should get hold of this piece and use it as a paradigm for their own writing. I urge JYA the Copyright Violator to get hold of Newsday and to add Gail Dutton's article to his collection of Copyright Violations. Also: a guy named Joe Celko writes an SQL column for the freebie DBMS magazine, which I sometimes read. Here's a short except from his january column: Crypto and Databases More and more raw databases are being sent out on CD-ROMs because the price per unit to publish them and the cost of equipment to read them is so low per byte. For example, you can get some fo the Miller Freeman magazines on CD-ROM, and one Miller Freeman magazine, Dr. Dobb's Journal (www.ddj.mfi.com) has been very successful with software and textbook collections on CD-ROM. if you missed an issue when you went to the dentist's office, national Geographic and Misdscape are releasing 1078 years of national geogra[hic on 30 CD-TROMs for $300 for educational institutions - every page of every issue. As of this writing, I do not have a price for individual buyers. For mroe informaiton contact Mindscae at www.mindscapeschool.com or 800-231-3088. On the same subject, a U.K. company, PAN Technology Ltd (www.pantechnology.com) has launched CopyLok, a method of copy protecting CDs. CopyLok prevents copying on CD recordable devices and on expensive Laser Beam Recorders that produce replicators, glass masters, and stampers for injection molding. In allows any information to be loaded on the hard disk of a computer, but will only allow that software to run if the original CD is in the drive. It stops friend-to-friend copying, illegal shop replication, and mass replication and also prevents Internet distribution. The product looks good and will be popular with PC software and computer game companies, which have to dal with software piracy rates in China and Vietnam of 96 percent and 99 percent, respectively. CopyLok is the reslt of three years of research, and is the first and only anticopying technology to have received Philips approval and a Philips' patent Application. it doesn't contravene any of the Philips worldwide standards for CD-ROM recording, such as the Yellow or Blue Book. The downside of all this is that part of the protection scheme uses strong cryptography to recognize the CD. The Clinton administration is still opposed to strong crypto, so U.S. companies could be put in a situation whee they have to publish their CD databases overseas to get protection. Once more, we disarm the victims and punish the innocent. Hmm. Other than the observation that copy protection sucks (I broke it back when it was used with 360K floppies and I'll break it on CDs if it's worth my while), we observe that if the COpyLok software uses crypto to authenticate the CD, not to encrypt the data, then it could be exported with no paperwork. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendment
by lord_buttmonkey＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> You aren't being oppressed the other party doesn't want to interact >> with you, unless that party is government providing base services to >all >> (e.g. police/courts/border protection). > >Actually, you can be. How? >> You *are* being oppressed if mutually consensual behavior is >interfered >> with by >> others including the State. > >> You *are* being oppressed if you are coerced into a relationship you >don't >> want. > >You are not being coerced into anything. If you don't want to serve >food to Blacks, don't open a restaurant. It's your choice. Umm, no, freedom doesn't work like that. If you open a *private* establishment, you have the right, according to the constitution, to deny *anyone* the right to enter or eat in your restraunt. However, if you were banned from using the government postal service for being Jewish, then yes, you are being oppressed. >By the way, you are also not allowed to dump toxic waste in your own >backyard. Are you being oppressed? Depends. Does it affect your neighbors? If so, then no. If not, then yes. >> An employer-employee relationship is like a marriage or any other >arrangement >> between adults -mutually consensual. > >In a fantasy world, it is mutually consensual. It the real world, it >is >seldom mutual. Tough shit. If you don't like your job, no one's forcing you to stay. Just leave it and get another one.

7 11

Home Business: $10 K/mth: No Selling:No MLM!!
by NoSelling＠mci2000.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

============================================================ We maintain a current REMOVE list. If you wish to be removed from our list then please hit "reply", enter "remove and (your full email address)" as the subject and we will promptly remove you from our list. Thank you... =============================================================== Are you afraid of Success? LET ME SCARE YOU TO DEATH! Hello Entrepreneur! My name is Dave Starkey, QUESTION- What if... YOU could earn... an Immediate, Substantial $5,000 - $10,000+ Monthly Income... In As Little As 45-90 Days -- And all it required was a telephone? What if I could show you how to generate a six figure income in just several months? I'm not talking about the elusive dream of residual income in Network Marketing. This is NOT MLM! NOT a Chain Letter or other Online Scam! I'm truly earning MUCH more every week than I ever before earned monthly chasing success in other programs! I made $20,000 in my first month! I'll teach you how!!! What is it that I and so many others are doing? ==>CALL NOW TO FIND OUT: 1-800-322-6169 Ext. 9508 Seriously, if I can do this, ANYONE can. What if you do even better than I am? Best of success to you, and thanks for your time. Sincerely, Dave Starkey ============================================================ We maintain a current REMOVE list. If you wish to be removed from our list then please hit "reply", enter "remove and (your full email address)" as the subject and we will promptly remove you from our list. Thank you... ============================================================ /-

1 0

Re: Opportunity knocks
by rcfuzz＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Get started in Bulk Email without spending a fortune! Over 500,000 AOL EMAIL ADDRESSES on disk for only $5.00 (including shipping.) Addresses come on 5 .ZIP files are in single line text format and are easily imported or pasted into your favorite email program. These addresses can be used by DOS, WINDOWS and MAC users. Please send CHECK or MONEY ORDER for $5.00 to: Bob Cauttero Productions, Inc. 214 West Shore Road Harrington Park, NJ 07640 Please include your email address if you want to receive a shipping confirmation. For RUSH DELIVERY (Same Day Shipping), please add $1.00 ($6.00 Total) For a FREE sample1000 address file, REPLY to this message with the word SAMPLE in the SUBJECT BOX.

1 0

Anonymity Press
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(New York) Newsday, December 24, 1997, pp. C5, C6. Anonymity and the Internet Balancing freedom of speech with the need to protect identities By Gail Dutton Special Correspondent "Is Singapore the future?" asked information scientist Dave Farber of the University of Pennsylvania. If it is, the right to communicate anonymously on the Internet must be protected now, to ensure continued freedom of speech, according to participants at the Conference on Anonymous Communications on the Internet, sponsored by the American Academy for the Advancement of Sciences last month in Irvine, Calif. "Law enforcement in the U.S. is a trusted third party," Farber said. But, Lance Cottrell, president of Obscura Information Security, added, "What is considered a good government today may become an oppressive government 50 years from now." The debate hinges upon whether any government should be able to trace messages--encrypted or not--to their sources. Singapore's repressive system is probably not the future here, but participants at the conference agreed that the right to communicate anonymously must be addressed now. Anonymous e-mailers have been around since the beginning of the Internet, but they have become increasingly simple to use. Anonymous Internet e-mail and Web visits aren't just for techies. For example, with The Anonymizer, developed by Cottrell sending untraceable, anonymous e-mail is as simple as clicking on the Web site (http://www.anonymizer.com) and uploading your message. Entering a Web site is just as easy, and can be done from the same site. Now that anonymity is simple and available to everyone, law-enforcement agents are getting nervous. There is always the potential for abuse. Laws are written for a paper-based society, according to attorney Joe Rosenbaum, who specializes in information technology at Hughes, Hubbard and Reed in Manhattan. "But, with the Internet, access is multiplied so that individuals lose control of their personal information," Rosenbaum said. For example, public information becomes widely and quickly accessible to anyone with an Internet connection, and private information is available for mining by any site a user visits. As a result, profiles of households can be developed and linked directly to them, based upon Web visits and information they provided individual sites--such as names income, news preferences and any other information a site requires for registering. The profiles could be used for academic research or--what more people dread--market research. "Corporations need to recognize the right of data ownership by individuals," maintained conference speaker Donna Hoffman of Project 2,000, a communications project at Purdue University. "Lack of trust [between customers and companies] is the primary barrier to Internet commerce. People are bothered by things online that they aren't significantly bothered by offline," she added. At work, if your employer asked your honest opinion of a very sensitive, politically charged work issue, would you give your unvarnished opinion? In writing? Would your answer change if you were guaranteed 100 percent, untraceable anonymity? If you said "yes" to the last question you just gave corporations a reason to promote anonymous communications. Companies tend to be as protective as individuals when it's their information being mined. They can filter out certain addresses, banning them from the site. However, individuals-- often competitors--sometimes can enter anonymously and get the data they need. To combat this, "You can build a site that doesn't allow anonymity," Cottrell said. That would only slow that research --not prevent the data from being compiled. Often the information companies are trying to protect is publicly available sometimes in their own printed literature. With The Anonymizer, developed by Lance Cottrell of Obscura Information Security, sending untraceable, totally anonymous e-mail is as simple as clicking on the Web site and uploading your message. Pseudonymity "Most people aren't looking for the same type of security as the National Security Agency," Rosenbaum said. Generally, pseudonymity--which is traceable --provides acceptable security for all but the most sensitive communications, he said. The right to protect personal information, even from corporations and market-research firms, is a driving force behind pseudonymity. So far, consumers do not trust the security and privacy of the Internet. "Contrary to what companies believe, consumers aren't interested in selling their personal information. Instead, people want a relationship based upon trust-- trust that the company won't sell their information," Hoffman said. By using pseudonymity, Internet users can prevent companies from linking customer profiles to their true identities. This option also promotes commerce, by allowing customers to use another name for their transactions, while using a public key encryption method to let companies confirm and authenticate an order. To maintain pseudonymity, customers can pay their bills with electronic cash from companies such as like DigiCash ( http://www.digicash.com ), and have merchandise shipped to a postal box, she said. Although that option is possible technologically, it is far from standard practice. The problem with this solution, Hoffman said, is that buyer and seller would have to rely upon a trusted third party. But, "No one knows who the third party may be, what their responsibilities are and who will reinforce their obligations if there is a dispute." What Are You Hiding? "Anonymity and pseudonymity both involve hiding knowledge from somebody," according to Terrell Bynum, professor of philosophy and director of the Research Center on Computing and Society at Southern Connecticut State University. "Therefore, what are you hiding, and from whom?" The answer, obviously, is identity, and the reason is to avoid repercussions of certain actions. That is a particularly valuable option for whistle-blowers, dissidents, human rights activists and others who put their jobs and, sometimes, their lives on the line. It becomes less palatable when the purpose is to defame or defraud. Concerns The need for anonymity in the United States is very different from that in countries where human rights may be stifled or, for that matter, in Europe, which has data-protection laws, Rosenbaum explained. In the United States, anonymity more often protects careers and reputations than lives. It means users can protect their personal data when visiting Web sites, minimize scrutiny by law enforcement agents or others because of expressed opinions, visit X-rated Web sites without their employers or spouses knowing and send e-mail confidentially. In other nations, anonymity offers sometimes the only way to voice dissent or send human rights information out of the country without risking lives. The downside is that true anonymity also facilitates illegal activities, such as fraud, libel, transmission of child pornography and money laundering. And that ability makes some people--notably law enforcement agents--nervous. "The issue," Rosenbaum said, "is the degree of difficulty in charging and convicting criminals. Making communications more untraceable is creating problems that didn't exist before." Nonetheless, "Acts of physical destruction and violence are almost impossible" on the Internet, said Peter Wayner, a consulting editor at Byte Magazine. Limiting anonymity, however, also can harm by limiting opportunities for free speech. "It is not clear that a happy middle ground can be found that provides sufficient anonymity without risking serious abuses," said Peter G. Neuman, principal scientist of SRI International. Attendees agreed that the dangers of banning anonymous communications are greater than the dangers of allowing them. Site Guidelines Recommended "If you know information is from an anonymous source, you treat it differently than if it is from a known identity or a known and respected pseudonym," said Helen Nissenbaum, associate director of the Center for Human Values at Princeton University. Therefore Web sites should say, up front, whether they allow anonymous postings, the conference attendees agreed. Ideally, anonymity guidelines would come from the Web communities themselves, similar to professional associations' codes of ethics. Individual newsgroups or each person on the Internet could decide whether to accept anonymous or pseudonymous communications. Gail Dutton is a freelance writer. [Box] Keeping Secrets Anyone can drop a letter in a mailbox or place a call from a pay phone anonymously. On the Internet, however, Internet service providers track each message. Because they can be easily read, they also can be scanned for keywords. "The ease of surveillance on the Internet is unprecedented in the history of communication," according to Lance Cottrell, president of Obscura Information Security ( http://www.anonymizer.com ). Because the act of sending and receiving messages is logged, messages must be remailed assure anonymity. "A message is still vulnerable to traffic analysis," said Peter Wayner, Byte Magazine consulting editor. In practice, remailers receive mail, ignore the "from" part of the address, package it into a uniform size message and mail it to another remailer, who does the same thing. "All messages have to be identified in size and form," Cottrell explained. To ensure anonymity, mail is routed through several remailers, in and out of several countries, before it reaches its destination. When remailers' records are checked, as they sometimes are by U.S. law enforcement officials, there should be nothing that allows the e-mail to be traced, Cottrell said. Another free program, currently being developed by Lucent Technologies, offers pseudonymity for Web browsing by changing a user's name, password and return e-mail address automatically for each site a user logs onto. For example, after logging onto http://lpwa.com:8000/, users can visit Web sites in privacy and any e-mail sent to their return address will be forwarded by the Lucent server to the actual address and "carbon copied" to the pseudonym. Lucent knows who uses the service, but other Web sites do not. [End]

1 0