December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: WebWorld 3-4
by William Ono 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto, you're being careless again. -- William Ono <wmono(a)soundwave.net> PGP Key: 0xF3F716BD fingerprint = A8 0D B9 0F 40 A7 D6 64 B3 00 04 74 FD A7 12 C9 = fingerprint PGP-encrypted mail welcome! "640k ought to be enough for everybody." ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Return-Path: <cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com> Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by orb.direct.ca (8.8.3/8.8.0) with ESMTP id FAA18320 for <wmono(a)direct.ca>; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 05:11:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id FAA24094 for cypherpunks-unedited-outgoing; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 05:09:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from wombat.sk.sympatico.ca (wombat.sk.sympatico.ca [142.165.5.136]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA24076 for <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 05:09:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from hdtzrgrk (badger47.sk.sympatico.ca [142.165.25.47]) by wombat.sk.sympatico.ca with SMTP (8.7.1/8.7.1) id HAA08223 for <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 07:06:41 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <332FE560.4C91(a)dev.null> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 07:08:48 -0600 From: Bubba Rom Dos <bubba(a)dev.null> Reply-To: camcc(a)abraxis.com Organization: Circle of Eunuchs X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-SYMPA (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: WebWorld 3-4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="ww3.htm" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="ww3.htm" Content-Base: "file:///C|/AC/Writing/WebWorld/ww3.htm" Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk X-UIDL: 1300f39d8cafe42321938c16069fd2a6 <BASE HREF="file:///C|/AC/Writing/WebWorld/ww3.htm"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"> <TITLE>The True Story of the InterNet</TITLE> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="Internet Assistant for Microsoft Word 2.04z"> </HEAD> <BODY> <HR> <CENTER>The True Story of the InterNet Part II </CENTER> <CENTER>WebWorld & the Mythical 'Circle of Eunuchs' </CENTER> <CENTER>by Arnold </CENTER> Copyright 1995, Pearl Publishing <HR> Channel Revolution I've been getting decent treatment around here since I sandbagged Schultz. It was hell when I was first sent here. Claiming to be a Net'er won't win you friends among the Channel Citizens at the best of times, since they have always resented our freedom from Channel Laws, but being perceived as a nut-case claiming to be a Net'er puts you at the bottom of the pile even among your fellow fruit-cakes. It could be worse. They could have transferred me to the "Home Shoppers Bargain Psychiatry Warehouse". That's the worst of the worst. The Shop'ers have the poorest government on WebWorld. When the citizens of the former world governments got to choose their citizenship at the end of the Channel Revolution every deadbeat compulsive spender on the face of the Earth signed up with the Home Shopper Channel Government. When the United States and the European Community Collective had conceded (they were the last of the holdouts), the Home Shoppers Revolutionary Movement had made a wise move by declaring Leona Helmsley their first President. The other fledgling Channel Governments laughed at the Shop'ers, but got a rude awakening when the computer polls started showing the overwhelming numbers of people electing to cast their lot with the Shop'ers. The Shop'ers ran ads showing Leona purchasing magnificent jewelry and other high-priced items from the Home Shopping Channel and the masses rushed to join the bandwagon. Some of the slightly more discriminating people became citizens of the Consumer Channel, but they were few and far between. When the dust cleared, over a half a billion people found themselves citizens of a Shop'ers government that consisted of compulsive spending deadbeats, former Third-World citizens without a dime in their pockets (but with big dreams of buying all the trinkets in the flashy political ads), and 'credit card fraud' gypsies aiming to grab the goodies and split. The Revisionist Channel Government did surprisingly well. They weren't given much of a chance in the original polls, being branded as basically just a 'Holocaust Denial' fringe group, but they, too, adapted quickly to the changing dynamics in the newly declared WebWorld. Henry Kissinger III was one of the few who foresaw the potential of the Revisionists to do well in the new scheme of things. He had grown up at the feet of his grandfather, one of the great world leaders in the BC (Before Channel) years, listening to the tales of how the Nazi regime came to power by preying on the vanity of the pseudo-intelligentsia and the disenchantment of the masses. The Revisionist Channel Government moved quickly to expand the narrow base of their appeal. In the former United States of America they appealed to whites by running political ads debunking the 'myth of slavery' as a plot to coerce whites into a 'guilt' complex that could be used against them. In the black areas they debunked the 'myth of slavery', convincing the uneducated into believing that blacks had originally ruled America and that when whites gained control of the government they rewrote history to keep black people from regaining their superior stature. In Japan, they revised 'history' to give the Japanese superiority over the Chinese-in China, the same story in reverse. England-Ireland, Iraq-Iran, everyone was played one against the other and the slow-of-wit all rushed absurdly to become citizens of a government who claimed each of the citizens was superior to the other. The original fears of the other Channel Governments quickly changed to relief when it became apparent that the Revisionist citizens would be too busy fighting internal battles to cause any problems for the other CG's. When the smoke finally cleared at the end of the Channel Revolution, the Money Channel Government ended up with the fewest citizens and the largest amount of goodies. They were one of the few Channels to actually restrict citizenship. While most of the Channel Revolutionary parties lobbied hard for big numbers, the Money Channel lobbied discretely for the movers and the shakers; people who had plenty of cash and assets, and who knew how to use them. The CC's (Ca$h Cows), as they were known back then, had the foresight to gain control of the InterNet, a seemingly insignificant entity at the time. It had, at one time in history, been the rage, but it faded into the background after its proverbial fifteen-minutes of fame and glory. Only the movers and the shakers realized the true history and importance of the InterNet. In the decades preceding the Channel Revolution, the First Great TV Era had come and gone, being replaced by the Computer Era. Computers were the wave of the future. Computers ruled! Computers eventually were linked world-wide by the newest world-darling, the InterNet, under the auspices of the World Wide Web, which was crowned King and then inexplicably disappeared into an ever-present but lightly regarded fog of everyday banality after the advent of WebTV. WebTV once again made Television King, exploding to 500 Channels and ushering in the Second Great WebTV Era and the Channel Revolution, which led, in turn, to the Great Channel War, later known as Channel War I. There were rumors everywhere, in those days, of Gomez and the Dark Allies, backed by the Ca$h Cows of the Money Channel, striving for control of the airwaves, for control of 'broadcast reality'and for control of the minds of mankind. Then, for no apparent reason, the rumors abruptly stopped 'cold'. This made the few remaining people who were still capable of independent, rational thought processes, even more nervous than the rumors had made them in the first place. At the close of Channel War I, the leaders among the winning factions directed the fear and hate of the masses towards the InterNet, thus gaining support for wide-ranging laws supported by all Channel Governments which placed serious restrictions on the InterNet, along with corresponding WebWorld Security checks and balances on the its management and the power of the Net'ers.. The Money Channel Government, which by that time held three channels under its control, railed as hard as anyone against the threat of the InterNet but their overly obtuse professions of indignation were viewed with suspicion by the other CG's. To lessen the threat of MCG control of the InterNet, the other Channel Governments, in return for begrudgingly conceding the Money Channel Government's right to control three channels, demanded that ownership and control of the InterNet be turned over to the CypherPunk Channel Government, a spin-off of the 'Wired' Channel which had become one of the early casualties in Channel War I. The basic premise behind their demand was that the InterNet, which still filled an essential need, would not be as threatening in the hands of a bunch of fun-loving, loosely organized misfits as it would be in the hands of the movers and shakers. No one seemed to notice how easily the CC's gave in to their demands. (And the 'Ca$h Cows' didn't seem to notice the overly obtuse professions of indifference with which the CypherPunks accepted the mantle of control over the InterNet.) The Money Channel Government, which now included the Money Market Channel and the Zero-Tax Channel, had secretly backed the CypherPunks in Channel War I during their internal battle with the 'Wired' Channel Government's established honchos. 'Wired', a leading-edge computer magazine during the height of the Computer Era, had parlayed their fifteen-minutes of fame into a major-league enterprise commanding their own TV Channel, and became one of the key players in the Channel Revolutionary War. The Ca$h Cows, having learned from history the formidable power of counter-revolutionary movements, had the incredibly astute intelligence to realize the value of empowering (and at the same time controlling by proxy) the seemingly disenchanted CyberMisfits at the core of the 'Wired' Channel Government's power base. After biding their time, the CC's manipulated the CypherPunks into taking the blame for launching the opening salvo of Channel War II. The CypherPunks, being well-grounded in the Tao and incredibly astute students of Tai-Chi and the Tarot, realized the incredible power of playing the Fool, and they allowed themselves to totally go-with-the-flow of the Money Channel Governments 'deceptive' manipulations. I can see you rolling your eyes again, smiling smugly. "Right," you're saying, "and now this looney-tune is going to tell us that he was one of the legendary CypherPunks." I know the CypherPunks started Channel War II. I instigated the Battle of Channel 49-and I made sure we lost. I wasn't just a CypherPunkI was the Fool. <HR> Alexis Alexis brushed the tiny, woolen balls of lint from the hair at base of the old man's neck. They fell slowly to the floor, doing a swirling-dervish type of dance as they were caught between gravity and the upward pull of the ceiling fan twirling lazily above their table at the back of the bar. The fan didn't help much. Her thin, cashmere blouse, soaking up the sweat from her nubile young body, clung to the gently flowing curves of her breasts, and she knew that every man in the bar was fully conscious of when she was taking shallow breaths, and when she was breathing deeply. They were following the rise and fall of her breasts like a shore-leave sailor, sitting on the beach and watching his ship, his beloved, rocking gently in the waves, as if beckoning him to come to her and share her gentle rhythms on a journey beyond this place, towards a fate that lies just beyond a horizon that they will never quite reach. They were equally conscious of Bubba, half-asleep, leaning his head ever so lightly on her shoulder, and slightly below her shoulder, on the lower part of her collar-bone, so very close to her tender young breasts, but never quite touching them. She knew it was driving them crazy. The young man, Jonathan, who was sitting at their table, was positively a wreck. He had said nothing in the fifteen minutes he had been sitting, waiting for Bubba, though he had 'almost' begun to speak several times, then stopped. Alexis knew that it was because, try as he might, he couldn't think of a sentence that didn't have the word 'breasts' in it. Finally, he managed to say, "It's certainly very hot, today. Is Bubba your grandfather? The humidity certainly makes one's clothes...", his own reference forced him, involuntarily, to look down to stare at her breasts, as he added, weakly, the word, "cling." "To my breasts, you mean?", Alexis replied casually with a slight air of interest, rather than offense, in her tone. "Oh, no!", the young man almost cried out, "I meanI mean, I'm sorry, I'mI'm" "Stuttering, I believe, is the word you're looking for.", Alexis said with a small, friendly laugh. "Yesstuttering.", Jonathan returned her cue rather honestly, she thought, for someone who appeared to be more inclined to bolt for the door than to engage in humorous conversation regarding his obviously extreme embarrassment over the situation in which he currently found himself . But he wouldn'tleave, that is. He was one of them, a Net'er, or a computer programmer of some sort, no matter which Channel he was a citizen of. And he needed to see Bubba-he needed to-no matter what he had to go through to do so, because the alternative, not seeing and talking to him, was unimaginable. "You know, you people only come here when you discover that there's nowhere else for you to turn.", Alexis said abruptly, with a hint of harshness in her voice. "Excuse me?", the youth replied. "You know perfectly well, what I'm talking about." she said with an air of consternation. "On the streets, your type make fun of him, you have for years, and years. You call him a crazy, drunken old fool. You think he's a joke." Her voice was rising steadily. "When it starts happening, when you see things-strange things, troubling things-then you come running to him and want him to explain things, to make it all right, or make it go away, because you don't want to see these things, you don't want to know what's going on around you, and you can't bear to live for only a few days, or a few weeks, with what he's had to live with for years." Alexis was standing, now, having lowered Bubba's head to rest on the table as he dozed on. She was right in front of the sitting Jonathan, her ample breasts hovering inches from his now-dismal face, though his body was more desirous than ever of having her. She sat quickly down on his lap and put her fingers through the opening between the first and second buttons of his shirt. She stroked his chest slightly, as she continued, "If you want to speak to Bubba, then you have to answer the questions I am about to ask you, and do so absolutely truthfully." Jonathan could only nod-yes. Speaking was beyond him, as he found his body becoming tense beyond belief. "You asked if Bubba was my grandfather, but you really want to know if I'm fucking the old geezer-if all those stories about him are true. Right?" "Yes." Jonathan was looking at the ceiling, and self-consciously trying not to move his body in the slightest. "And you're here because strange things have been happening, strange thoughts have been troubling you, making you afraid." "Yes." She reached her right hand around to his back, stroking it in what might be considered a 'motherly' way, except that her breasts were only fractions of an inch from his chest and directly in his line of sight, and her breath was hot upon his cheek as she began to whisper in his ear, "You've lived quietly, for years, in a nice, sterile world of numbers, and data, and pure mathematics where everything is programmed and controlled, stable and docile, and now you have fears and other feelings and they're putting you in a quandary, because numbers and programs don't care how you feel, and they don't feel 'back'." Jonathan just sat silently, with no reply possible to someone who talked as if she had been reading his mail-watching his life more carefully and clearly than he had been doing himself. "And now you're running to Bubba for help, to find out if the myth of the 'Circle' is true, if there is someone, somewhere, who can make it better, or make it go away, because during all the time that he spent putting himself on the line, trying to convince people like yourself that the danger was real, you merely wanted to take the easy way, to just be left alone to be swept along with the great tide of humanity around you." Jonathan was wishing, with all his might, that Alexis would stop, but she continued, "Your programs and your machines are doing things that you didn't design them to do, things that you didn't program them for-weird things, evil things, and there's nothing you can do to stop them, right?" Jonathan was starting to sweat quite a bit, himself, now. Some of it was from the heat, some from remembering the 'night terrors' of late, and some of it seemed to be rising up, steaming, from his loins. "Yes, all of that, and more." Alexis was now sitting on his lap, facing him directly, her two hands on his hips on either side of him. The few, scattered patrons of the bar were having problems with their own loins as they watched the display she was putting on for their benefit, leaning close to whisper in his ear, "I'm only thirteen years old", she could feel him almost audibly groan as she ran her hands lightly over his buttocks, "but when you get back home, and you're still hard, you're going to be thinking of me while you 'do' yourself, you sick pervert." "Actually, I don't think I'll make it that far," Jonathan replied in halted breaths, "but I'm hoping to make it as least as far as the next alley." Alexis leapt off of his lap, slapping him lightly on the shoulder, saying, "Shame on you, talking like that to a thirteen year-old." She laughed in amusement, and he laughed in relief at having been saved the embarrassment of 'messing' himself in the bar, a public place, and he was happy to sit and sip his beer for a time, dreading any further conversation. Finally, she spoke, once again. "You might as well go home, now. There's nothing for you here. "All the dangers that Bubba spoke about are true, I think you know that, now. But the Circle of Eunuchs is just a myth, there's nobody doing anything about it. Nobody can do anything about it. It's only a matter of time, now." Alexis's face took on a sad, forlorn look, and she returned once again to brushing off the small balls of wool from the nape of his hairy neck, leaning down to kiss Bubba lightly on the cheek, with genuine love, ignoring Jonathan, once again. After a few moments, he rose somberly and made his way to the door. He knew that he, too, would be sad and forlorn tonight. But he also knew that she was right-he would be thinking of her tonight while he was 'doing' himself. He smiled, in spite of himself. <HR> Chapter 3 - Channel Revolution / Chapter 4 - Alexis <HR> </BODY> </HTML>

1 0

Report from Supreme Court on CDA arguments
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

************** http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,744,00.html The Netly News Network @The Supreme Court March 19, 1997 By Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) Noah Robischon (noah(a)pathfinder.com) U.S. Supreme Court justices pummeled government proponents of the Communications Decency Act this morning during a review of the law that will set new standards for free speech in the 21st century. The notorious CDA, reviled throughout cyberspace since the day it was signed by President Clinton in February 1996, would criminalize the ill-defined category of "indecent" communications on the Net. A Philadelphia federal court struck down the law a year ago. Justice Antonin Scalia called the lawsuit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against Attorney General Janet Reno, "a distinctive form of First Amendment argument unlike others" because it covers an uncharted and rapidly developing communications medium. "That's a new case for us," he said. Deputy Solicitor General Seth Waxman argued that the CDA merely established boundaries on the Net and made it harder for pornographic material to fall into the hands of minors. He likened the law to a cyber-zoning ordinance; without it, he said, the Internet "threatens to give every child a free pass to get into every adult movie theater or bookstore in the country." But less than a minute after Waxman started, the justices impatiently plowed into his presentation. Justice Stephen Breyer demanded: "Suppose a group of high school students decides to talk over the Internet and they want to talk about their sexual experiences. I mean, that's been known to happen in high school." Would they "be guilty of a federal crime?" Justice Antonin Scalia cut in, joking: "There's no high school student exemption?" "You might find it in the legislative history, but I do not," Waxman replied. For much of the 70-minute hearing, the discussion swirled around the question of how netizens could comply with the CDA. Waxman claimed that the act includes a battery of ways to protect a person from prosecution -- visitors to "indecent" web sites would be required to provide credit-card numbers, for instance. But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was unmoved. "How does that fit in with the use of web sites by noncommercial users, libraries?" she asked. Justice David Souter wondered if the portions of the act banning the "display" of indecent materials would imprison parents. "I take it a parent who allows his computer to be used by a child viewing indecent material, that parent would go to prison," he said. When Waxman demurred, Scalia took up the chase. "No... One of those offenses is a display offense," he pointed out. Chastened, Waxman replied, "I see your point." Bruce Ennis, arguing on behalf of the ACLU and American Library Association coalitions, contended that the CDA bans speech, even for adults; is not as effective as blocking software; and is unconstitutionally vague. Justice Scalia, who noted that he uses a computer, pointed out that technology is rapidly changing. "So much of your argument is based on what's currently available," he said to Ennis. "This technology is changing so quickly. Is it possible that this statute is unconstitutional now but could be [constitutional] in four or five years?" Ennis replied: "Not as it's written." During a subsequent press conference, Ennis added that indeed, the technology is changing, and is giving parents more control over what their children do and see online. "Precisely because the technology is changing, the government should not be trying to enforce this law," he said. The ACLU attorneys who joined Ennis were grinning: the justices appeared to understand the nature of communications online, noted that teens have rights, and focused on free speech, not porn. After the hearing, the anti-CDA protestors who had braved a chill rain to chant "Hey-ho, the CDA has got to go!" were displaced by a larger, bullhorn-wielding group of anti-porn advocates. One sign demanded, "Don't sacrifice my child on the altar of the First Amendment." One of the most vocal protestors was 19-year-old Berkeley student Kenritsu Yamamoto, who happened to be dressed as a Net cupid, complete with angel wings and a circuit board breastplate. He was acting in the Pure Love Alliance's skit illustrating how pornography and "Net abduction" harms children. In the skit, Yamamoto accidentally kills a small child to demonstrate the dangers of a world without the CDA. "If a small child buys porn at a 7-11, then the store can be held accountable," said Yamamoto. "But on the Net, there is no accountability." A few steps away, Donna Rice Hughes, Enough Is Enough's communications director, was explaining why she thought the CDA should be upheld. "Without the CDA, Larry Flynt can make his teasers and centerfolds available to kids on the Internet," she said. Across from Hughes stood Bruce Taylor, the lawyer who argued against Flynt in the Supreme Court more than a decade ago. "The technology is advancing so well that the court is going to see that people can use this stuff without violating the law," he said. If the Supreme Court disagrees and strikes down the CDA, some members of Congress have pledged to try again. Netly cornered Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), a stauch supporter of the CDA, in the basement of the Capitol after the argument. What would he do? "How to do this I don't know, but our objective hasn't changed," he replied. "Some way, somehow, we will have to find a constitutional way of doing this for kids, protecting them from porn the way we did for printed material." Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia) says he hopes the high court "will give the Congress some very clear guidance." But any Congressional tinkering will come after the Supreme Court decides. A ruling is expected in early July. [McCullagh is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the CDA.] ------------------------- Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

2 2

Cocksucker John Gilmore attempts to rewrite history again
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've been reading a thread in the Usenet newsgroups alt.cypherpunks and comp.org.eff.talk. EFF, you may recall, is Cocksucker John Gilmore's setup, and a pair of Gilmore/EFF's stooges - llurch(a)quixote.stanford.edu (Rich Graves <rcgraves(a)disposable.com>) and sethf(a)athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) - have been posting lies in an effort to rewrite the recent events which have totally destroyed Cocksucker's reputation on the net. Rich Graves wrote in article <5gl63i$4eu(a)quixote.stanford.edu>: >comparing me to Vulis doesn't work, I don't think. He'd have >mailbombed the list subscribers at the drop of a hat; and in >the case of cypherpunks, he and GruBoursy did, to such an >extent that the list had to move from toad.com to cyberpass.net. >I'm sure I've disappointed some people by doing nothing of the >kind. Doesn't stop Seth from saying I'm obsessed, of course. This is a lie. I haven't mailbombed cypherpunks. The list moved from toad.com to multiple sites because the readers no longer trusted Gilmore to host the list. In article <5gkfag$36o(a)quixote.stanford.edu> he also wrote: >>In any case, I personally would not ever absolutely reject posts >>arbitrarily from someone if I was moderating a list, even if 99.9% of >>their posts were absolute junk. (I've been in such situations---try >>moderating an biological evolution newsgroup and fend of all the >>creationists.) > >You've never met Dr. Vulis, then. Imagine 50 messages a day like this: > >http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/dir.archive-96.10.24-96.10.30/ > >|Timmy May has tons of dandruff (and dried up semen) in his beard. >|Is he Jewish??? >| >|--- >| >|Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM >|Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps Rich is lying... >Vulis also posted megabytes of Serdar Argic screeds, just to be annoying, >and with the stated intention of disrupting the list. That's called a >denial of service attack. More lies. I haven't posted megabytes of Serdar Argic materials, and I have repeatedly stated that it is NOT my intention to disrupt the mailing list. >While the cypherpunks move from toad.com to cyberpass.net was far from >ideal, it worked reasonably well because the list was aware of what was >happening. Is that why John Gilmore is sending his minions to post lies and to confuse the readers about what was happening? In response, sethf(a)athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) further wrote in article <5gmnuj$1ha(a)senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>: >>>In any case, I personally would not ever absolutely reject posts >>>arbitrarily from someone if I was moderating a list, even if 99.9% of >>>their posts were absolute junk. (I've been in such situations---try > > Yes, Ram, I know you'd likely handle such a situation differently. >But as I keep saying, on a human level, I just can't work up any >criticism for Declan for not wanting to deal in any way shape or >form with a person who so frequently mudslings and smears him so much. Again, this is not true. I disagree with many of the things Declan says, but I'm not smearing him and not slinging mud at him. I'm also not aware of having being banned from any forum Declan moderates, whatever that is. Seth further has the audacity to praise John Gilmore for showing the "patience of a saint": > It wasn't up to Vulis level, absolutely. But I think taking >the junk from Vulis showed the patience of a saint. This is actually very funny.

2 1

Re: [CRYPTO] PRNG
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy May, a product of anal birth, appeared with a coathanger through his head. o o o o o /~> <><><> <> Timmy May o...(\ |||||| ||

2 1

Re: Market Failures, Monocultures, and Dead Kids (Oh My!)
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> writes: > Dale Thorn wrote: > > > > Really? Define _common_. I have lived in the Mid West for about 85% of > > > my life, and I know no one who learned these things from their parents. > > > > C'mon guys. Parents diddling with their kids is more than common - > > probably 1/3 of all fathers do something sexual with one or more > > of their children at some point. People just suppress it. > > I can't believe it could be that common without the government > finding a way to 'tax' it. Def: relative humidity - the sweat on snow's balls as he fucks his sister. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: WebWorld 3-4
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

William Ono wrote: > > Toto, you're being careless again. Moi?

1 0

key revocation
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I'm revoking my old key, and creating a new, bigger one. Yes, there's a story behind it, and it's a dumb one, and I'll tell it later. Cheers, Bob Hettinga - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCPAy/xh8wAAAEEALAk362NR2Q9eLzwdm/GmMInQj9Z+Mc/t0bng3VTcgZYW+Kg da3Vwiomksh16Jo5r/zva32W826HZqYE4wW/cwznq2k87kMwuNdIGOhbcVlpg0cU 2d6zE+C0myq2uOc2Xddo3zdwdUSgafZVNwqJjCeS88SMeHmtMvgyLN8bw6ZVABEB AAGJAJUDBSAzMI6U+DIs3xvDplUBAYAGA/9eUNjgLgcCmeLxn1pUCzAACPe17bdy Smn83xfZGHCubj0Ylp2hAx3kEy4N98s2TOvPipvga44ckTtyRbG4+ptEhGQ0/pjG TJ8KghRJ3iSmjreSwKiLyBOQ4cj9l0JD9zSXX0+sWCDaZwXat21KlYXJllfSqppd jknFP+NxQ+u7ALQnUm9iZXJ0IEEuIEhldHRpbmdhIDxyYWhAc2hpcHdyaWdodC5j b20+iQCVAgUQMqWfksKmlvJNktGxAQGUgAQAhzF8RRRIwMLLdEwa9MdMrUoW5d/o S2qdA1gxgDLp+fIToYe60z0l6hYPCMWMCb64eZadgjBS6TzvyYBX762TZvuH5BOg FvIovQe0DGscDe9XAGj07I1ynzjBGr8Rq4qe+ZQsnCUE0lHLt25LLj56RUbnBAlW TP78ZOySqCAgBYCJAJUDBRAv+o4Q+DIs3xvDplUBAbtyBACNRQuctSPBgWgX47BT xeOlyzEa6pt0/jB9ZKehe64p0H+raxvgXXc48z0Vg2ePk9g46y48sOIPiFiKj4lR 9zMzujpHQ0YjBmDmCTJvM/LmBAcKiFbSq9GZv5WhzIeoqAaWBbIDcJcl4btEqoxx zzXOCBSYY21cKqWK3II9pmhFQokAogMFEDJIKy96rtRInhTs1QEBc4sEYgLC1HVj J6kcKVZ5L2cttdH+gW8cZaJLKTN6r+O/ec7abE8+BgYNAMyYaf13Ie5W5ilFm3b4 HdCQ1F5fS4UJac6QolOoMYM5QWyd075MFuHdokkMT6a88w0X3I+XxKh8K65YcYmx 24hpbbbWeQVKA3ec2y7R1f4W88ny+sLD3byV5vywgpzw8SzjSYbvCQ== =EPeQ - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQEPAzMwdgMAAAEIALXtk50b0KQWz0RiTBOa25SbWk8cCR6WtafoH3QHwbajqTMI ZwOmujLRGjwAvrdqZbW9RIUP7WAe3XnDiCN+vt7ufBk1YoRuZPb5T01X5pCcVNpw rd4DrMhgoSqLkcbn4+ShUxfPwnc8VemFanQicbcmnsK9CzFB/D2IxmOMVttecx9n Afd2C6h3kWZ4VJARL7g4vvqE+hWJs7z5g1jHJkCr/0KsVVaI/uhE4sha5Bt3Kaxr 0GOi+VS/UQDc+GTjSAgC/AZSQWWNkME3Tn8vQZcso0eRvPLxXrDMYL4gNRYlji8v 40PUaWOX3oW+svXhBJOP7u8SZG7BxQIbDGZZweEAEQEAAbQnUm9iZXJ0IEEuIEhl dHRpbmdhIDxyYWhAc2hpcHdyaWdodC5jb20+ =5U1v - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMzDj7cUCGwxmWcHhAQFa6Af7BXR73ty08djlqgWlC6Ul9kP3JCYd2kcZ QVDYwJBgj4xFdxEldxP1JeJuCI6cjWpRF8lV81roboJSPZ6IjTTRwuDyWNNXvLp6 hJgEOomnfRiBTxAM2/Ombbos2RtatRctDIVQVzvmYECwOXJcOkceJdXah0pozl4O NpVcBVtuQ2G7EaBwfdN7r9xqOeYl4FSEYDaD8LjYPlT3+nC0IujgS76nNHvBqOOt +oJQD0lPJfkl0PIUz9zAqioRof40W1a6JubLVIxZVoolK9DRYZlqpujPell6rk9x /QwU24cuLUmzxd+qGhYXOAE6fS8KPJezI2Ijlvd/5sDjd8/Zw/nIFA== =qhZ5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/

1 0

WebWorld 5-6
by Bubba Rom Dos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

PGP Security
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am passing along the following message, not because of my belief in the accuracy or veracity of its contents, but merely because of the fact that it seems to have kept getting eaten up by various email systems in the attempts to send it to its original destination. The first time it was sent via a remailer, it was bounced for ill- defined reasons. The second time it was sent, the remailer was shut down, and remains shut down. Efforts to send it through a second remailer also failed, with no notice from the server of any problems being received. Other email sent through the remailer at the same time encountered no difficulties. I am only noting the facts, here, not proferring any personal judge- ments on the matter, although I have formed my own opinion as to the meaning of these facts, particularly since I, myself, came by this post during the process of email interception. > X-Anon-Password: XXXXXXXXXX > X-Anon-To: XXXXXXXXXXX > X-Anon-Name: XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX, I thought I would reply privately to you, since you seem to at least have a willingness to allow the possibility of compromises to the security of the encryption methodologies behind PGP programs, among others. To begin with, I'm not sure whether you realize it, or not, but the Navy's spook tenacles run deeper, and extend further, than those of any of the more notable or visibly involved agencies who lurk in the background of security and privacy issues. One of the reasons for this is that their physical existence could be said to mirror the Internet in many respects. The very nature of their 'global' home (the sea), has always permitted them access to people and regions which are denied to others. Also, they are often in the position to be involved in what looks to be merely the 'transporting' of people and information. Whether providing escort services or getting drunk in foreign bars, the expertise of naval intelligence has always lain in the area of observation, first and foremost. By far the greatest tool of intelligence agencies on the Internet, has been traffic analysis. Their techniques are sufficiently sophist- icated that I would not be surprised to find out that they can tell more about us from our Internet activity than can be learned from the satellites capable of reading the newspaper over our shoulder as we sit in the park. Traffic analysis involves all measurable quantum of information, the chief concerns being the patterns and timing of data transfer, from which everything ranging from content and motivation can be deduced. If you wish to think in terms of back-doors, then you would be well advised to go beyond the concepts of 'passwords' and 'holes' and try to think in terms of patterns and timing, and other such 'structures' which are peripheral to concerns regarding 'code' and 'mathematics.' i.e. As well as considering the 'content' of what a program returned, you must also consider 'when' the program returned the result, and the patterns in the timing, as well as the content. An analogy could be made to a person who, being interrogated, answers all questions with a predictable rhythm and then 'pauses,' however slightly, in answering a certain question. You can see that what is revealed by the 'content' of the answer can be greatly insignificant compared to what is revealed by the 'delay' in answering. To expand your concept of 'back-doors' and 'holes,' you have to ask questions such as: "Does it take a program or hardware longer to return a result of '0', than to return a result of '1'?" "What factors can be introduced into the hardware and/or software that can influence the patterns and/or timing of various processes and the results they return?" "Can key searches be made more efficient by analyzing such things as rhythm, syntax, etc? What 'details' or 'qualities' of an individual, group, or 'arena of concern' can be analyzed for the purpose of being able to group them into structures which can be searched for?" "How can 'assigning' a value to certain sequences of numbers be used as a pattern to 'filter' the input data into a form which is easier to analyze?" You are aware of 'tricks and techniques' that apply to mathematics and are widely known. i.e. The process of shifting and adding numbers when multiplying by the number '11'. However, what about those quantum of information which are of no consequence to those seeking for the 'final result' of that multi- plication? Can the peripheral effects of mathematic calculations be used to analyze what has taken place, to narrow the scope of inquiry? My nephew describes numbers as getting 'wider' as they get larger, and he does quick checks of his result through his 'feel' for how much 'wider' a number should be when he is done, even in complicated equations which he ill-understands. (He reminds me of Steven Wright, who claims that someone told him that his socks didn't match, and he replied, "Sure, they do. I go by thickness.") I am currently working on a project which involves merging chaos theory with traffic analysis and other processes to analyze the effects that algorithms display when processed through the filters of varying hardware and software structures and methodologies. The RSA algorithm and accompanying RSAREF subroutines were our first focus, for the very reason that there were certain factions behind the scenes of the Zimmerman/RSA agreement who seemed to have an inordinate amount of interest in the subroutines being chained to the algorithm (for reasons that have nothing to do with patent protection). Those whose expertise goes far beyond my own in this area look at the initial results of the analysis as confirming that their is a 'relationship' between the RSA algorithm and the RSAREF subroutines which will enable them to break the system down into workable units for fairly quick analysis. What is interesting is that the results from small probes into other encryption systems show the same potential for exploitation using varying analysis methodologies and processes. (One fairly well-known encryption routine is almost lame enough to reveal its secrets to anyone with a pencil and a stopwatch, as well as the file size and time it takes to encrypt.) While I would rather you didn't publicize the preceding information, as a general rule, I think that is something that should be shared with anyone who is seriously focusing their efforts on better methods of encryption and analysis of encryption methodologies. I am aware of two other groups who are working along the same lines, although with a narrower range of variables than ourselves, and I am certain that there must be more than a few other entities out there who are also pursuing this line of research. I would appreciate any comments you may have on the above, as well as any suggestions you may have. (Despite having a post-graduate degree in an area which required a thorough grounding in mathematics I may have to refer any highly technical suggestions to those in the group who dream in numbers, sunset to sunrise.)

6 7

Cell Phone Code Cracked
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For details of the crack see the cryptographers' press release at: http://www.counterpane.com/cmea.html The New York Times, March 20, 1997, pp. A1, D2. Code Set Up to Shield Privacy Of Cellular Calls Is Breached By John Markoff San Francisco, March 19 -- A team of well-known computer security experts will announce on Thursday that they have cracked a key part of the electronic code meant to protect the privacy of calls made with the new, digital generation of cellular telephones. The announcement, intended as a public warning, means that -- despite their greater potential for privacy protection -- the new cellular telephones, which transmit streams of digital information in code similar to computer data, may in practice be little more secure from eavesdropping than the analog cellular phones, which send voice as electronic patterns mimicking sound waves, that have been in use the last 15 years. It was such eavesdropping, for example, that caused trouble for Newt Gingrich when a Florida couple listened to his cellular phone conversation in December about the Congressional ethics inquiry. Now that digital wireless networks are coming into use around the nation, the breaking of the digital code by the team of two computer security consultants and a university researcher confirms fears about privacy that were raised five years ago when the communications industry agreed under Government pressure to adopt a watered-down privacy technology. Several telecommunications industry officials said the pressure came from the National Security Agency, which feared that stronger encryption technology might allow criminals or terrorists to conspire with impunity by cellular phones. But independent security experts now say that the code is easy enough to crack that anyone with sufficient technical skills could make and sell a monitoring device that would be as easy to use as a police scanner is. Such a device would enable a listener to scan hundreds of wireless channels to listen in randomly on any digital call within a radius ranging from 1,000 feet to a number of miles. Or, as with current cellular technology, if a specific person was the target of an eavesdropper, the device could be programmed to listen for any nearby digital call to that person's telephone number. Other possible transgressions would include using the device to automatically harvest all calling card or credit-card data transmitted with nearby digital wireless phones. And, because of a loophole in the Communications Act of 1934, making and selling such devices would not be illegal, though actually using one would technically be against the law. These monitoring devices are not yet available, but security experts said that a thriving gray market was certain to develop. And with technical details of the security system already circulating on the Internet instructions for cracking it will almost certainly make their way into the computer underground, where code breaking and eavesdropping are pursued for fun and profit. Technical details of the security system were supposed to be a closely guarded secret, known only to a tight circle of industry engineers. But the researchers performed their work based on technical documents that were leaked from within the communications industry and disseminated over the Internet late last year. "The industry design process is at fault," said David Wagner, a University of California at Berkeley researcher who was a member of the team that broke the code. "We can use this as a lesson, and save ourselves from more serious vulnerabilities in the future." Communications industry technical experts, made aware of the security flaw earlier this year, have been meeting to determine whether it is too late to improve the system's privacy protections. Already the digital technology is in use in metropolitan areas, including New York and Washington, where either the local cellular networks have been modified to support digital technology or where new so called wireless personal communications services are being offered. "We're already in the process of correcting this flaw," said Chris Carroll, an engineer at GTE Laboratories, who is chairman of the industry committee that oversees privacy standards for cellular phones. But Greg Rose, a software designer for the Qualcomm Inc. a leader in digital cellular systems said that fixing the flaw would be "a nightmare." Tightening the security system, Mr. Rose said, would involve modifying software already used in the computerized network switching equipment that routes wireless digital telephone calls, as well as the software within individual phones. Currently, about 45 million Americans have cellular phones, though most of them so far are based on an older analog standard that offers no communications privacy. But cellular companies are gradually converting their networks to the new digital standard, and the new personal communications services networks going into operation around the country also employ the digital encryption system. Nearly a million P.C.S. phones have been sold in the United States, according to cellular industry figures. Besides Mr. Wagner, the other researchers who cracked the code were Bruce Schneier and John Kelsey of Counterpane Systems, a Minneapolis consulting firm. Mr. Schneier is the author of a standard textbook on cryptography. The new digital wireless security system, which was designed by cellular telephone industry engineers was never intended to stop the most determined wiretappers. But because digital calls are transmitted in a format corresponding to the one's and zero's of computer language, they are more difficult to eavesdrop on than conventional analog calls, which are transmitted in electronic patterns. And digital calls protected with encryption technology -- basically a mathematical formula in the software that scrambles the signal -- would be all the harder for a third party to listen to surreptitiously. Because the encryption system that the industry adopted in 1992 was deliberately made less secure than many experts had recommended at the time, privacy rights advocates have been warning since that the code could be broken too easily. An announcement Thursday that the code has indeed been cracked would seem to bear out those concerns. "This should serve as a wake-up call," said James X. Dempsey, senior staff counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology, a public interest group. "This shows that Government's effort to control encryption technology is now hindering the voice communications industry as well as the data and electronic communication realm." Industry executives acknowledged that steps must be taken to address the problem. "We need strict laws that say it is illegal to manufacture or to modify a device which is designed to perpetrate the illegal interception of P.C.S. telephone calls," said Thomas E. Wheeler, president of the Cellular Telephone Industry Association, a Washington-based trade group. Mr. Wheeler said the weaker privacy technology had been adopted not just to appease the Government but because makers of wireless communications hardware and software wanted to embrace a technical standard that would meet export regulations. Those rules, based on national security considerations, sharply curtail the potency of American-made encryption technology. The three computer researchers who broke the code belong to an informal group of technologists who believe strongly that powerful data-scrambling technologies are essential to protect individual privacy in the information age. These technologists, who planned to release their findings in a news release on Thursday, argue that the best way to insure that the strongest security codes are developed is to conduct the work in a public forum. And so they are sharply critical of the current industry standard setting process which has made a trade secret of the underlying mathematical formulas used to create the security codes. "Our work shows clearly why you don't do this behind closed doors," Mr. Schneier said. "I'm angry at the cell phone industry because when they changed to the new technology, they had a chance to protect privacy and they failed." Mr. Carroll, head of the industry's privacy committee, said it planned to revise the process for reviewing proposed technical standards. [End]

1 0