December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Getting into MIT is impossible
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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 --

2 1

Altavista
by mjw＠VNET.IBM.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Mark Waddington Subject: Altavista > However, the doubleclick.net ads appear to bear no relationship to the > keywords being searched... Interestingly, I've just noticed over the last couple of days that the in-line ads are directly relevant to the search words I enter. I did a search yesterday on "Quicken" and "security" and all the in-line ads I was shown referred to security or penetration detection products. Mark Waddington Interactive Financial Services | Phone : +61-3-96266574 Business Development Manager | Mobile: +61-412-217316 IBM Asia Pacific | Fax : +61-3-96266273

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Dr.Dimitri Vulis The Mafia in the U.S. doesn't work. The sicilian Mafia is very successful at assassinating any public officials that fucks with it. ............................................................ What do you suppose they would do if someone like you tried to break up their meetings? :>) .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Sovreign Right of Lawful Access
by Mike McNally 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Somebody wrote: > > This morning at the RSA keynote, David Aaron, the US Crypto > ambassador quoted the "Sovreign Right of Lawful Access" as > something that goverments were determined to preserve. Speaking as a private indiwidual, and not as a drone in the employ of IBM (don't get me started on the "but wait, key recovery *isn't* the same as key escrow" hoo-ha), that dude scared the piss out of me. As an IBM employee worried about commercial this-n-that, he was merely depressing. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Mike McNally -- Egregiously Pointy -- Tivoli Systems, "IBM" -- Austin mailto:m5@tivoli.com mailto:m101@io.com http://www.io.com/~m101 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Schear wrote: > > >jim bell wrote: > >> > >> At 10:21 PM 1/26/97 -0800, blanc wrote: > >> >From: jim bell (in response to Dimitri Vulis') > >> >Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to > >> >prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see > >> >any recognition of this fact. > >> >........................................................ > >> > > >> >1) Jim, why do you insist on discussing this on an forum for encryption? > >> > >> Because it's on-topic, that's why. Because it's not merely a list > >> concerning METHODS of encryption, it's also about the _reasons_ for using > >> encryption, as well as the _effects_ (both small-scale and large-scale) of > >> using encryption. > > > >Actually AP is one of the more interesting topics here. I think that there > >is a clear need for an AP bot. > > > >Do you feel like writing it? > > > > - Igor. > > Jim's all talk, I on the other hand am serious. Did you receive my Monday > e-mail? > yes, and found it interesting. - Igor.

1 0

Re: Last nail for US crypto export policy?
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Yee-hah! Congratulations (and enjoy the $1000 check!) So what did you do interesting cryptographically in the crack, other than coordinating a bunch of workstations? Was it just brute force with well-tuned code? Given the figures in your press release, it sounds like you tested about 350 billion keys out of a trillion possible, so you hit the winner a shade early. That's about 400,000 keys/sec/box. Are the machines mostly Pentiums, Alphas, Suns, etc.? At 03:59 PM 1/28/97 -0800, Ian Goldberg <iang(a)cs.berkeley.edu> wrote: >EXPORTABLE CRYPTOGRAPHY TOTALLY INSECURE: CHALLENGE CIPHER BROKEN IMMEDIATELY > >January 28, 1997 - Ian Goldberg, a UC Berkeley graduate student, >announced today that he had successfully cracked RSA Data Security >Inc.'s 40-bit challenge cipher in just under 3.5 hours. .... >Goldberg used UC Berkeley's Network of Workstations (known as the NOW) >to harness the computational resources of about 250 idle machines. >This allowed him to test 100 billion possible "keys" per hour -- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

2 1

Libel & the 1st Amendment
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, It has been asserted by at least one member that the 1st Amendment protects libelous or other defamatory speech. This is hokem. The 1st most certainly does not protect lies in any form. It protects opinion, this is distinctly different then stating a untruth about some party or distribution of material with the attributation to them without their permission. No civilized society can exist that permits lies and other defamations of character and expect to survive for any length of time. Simply for no other reason than contracts and other such instruments would not be worth the paper they were printed on. Let alone any laws or other issuances from the government itself. ARTICLE I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Where in there do you see a right to lie, cheat, or steal? If it did, it would be a lie because it would not protect the very freedom it says it is. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>In our society, which, if I remember correctly, 10% of the population >control 90% of the wealth, AP would only lead to 10% of the population being >able to screw the remaining 90%. At least as it is, it takes a simple >majority. > >As for the murder of the rich, here is a scenerio. > >A collection of poor pool their capitol to have a tyrant killed. >The tyrant assembles a counter-wager saying that anyone able to prove thier >ability to kill him without harming him, and who can show they got through >will get 110% of the poor's bid. >The household is told that a standing bounty has been placed with a >collection of individuals, on the head of the trigger man involved in the >tyrants murder. >The poor can not hope to match the tyrants bid as they only have 10% of the >wealth, the household knows that thier participation in an attempt on the >tyrant will get them killed. Even if the attempt was successful. >The people from the outside who would benefit from the bounty benefit more >by taking the tyrants offer and then trying again, i.e. tiger teams. I think a hole in your thinking is to assume that the assasins have no motive other than financial gain. I would submit that there are those that have the skills, training and a political agenda coherent with the wagerers, lacking only the financial incentive to make the risks acceptable. These wetworkers won't consider accepting the bribe of the rich/powerful --Steve

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: jim bell [ on discussing AP on the cpunk list]: Because it's on-topic, that's why. Because it's not merely a list concerning METHODS of encryption, it's also about the _reasons_ for using encryption, as well as the _effects_ (both small-scale and large-scale) of using encryption. -- Well, you're right, this is probably a good place to discuss it, so all the NSA spooks will know what some of youall are up to. [ why the Iraquis haven't thought of applying it themselves - to Saddam]: As for why the ordinary Iraquis didn't think of it... Or the ordinary people of any or every country, as well. Why didn't THEY think of it? -- I was thinking the reason that most people don't think of applying AP is because they're normal. It is not the first thought of a normal person to kill another human, just because they've been offended - even severely. It takes an extraordinary circumstance to motivate one to such destruction, especially if there are a thousand armed troops supporting the object of the attempt. But in fact I do think that many in Iraq (whoever they were) did consider it seriously and have attempted to get rid of Saddam. I heard on a TV special that he has survived about 5 or so attempts on his life. This means that not only was he not killed, but he didn't learn anything from it and it created no fear in him about continuing to rule as a dictator. It probably was more discouraging to his enemies than himself. [ on why the Mafia hasn't achieved a rational society by the use of AP]: In fact, apparently, they function diametrically opposed to the AP system. A complete AP-like system is structured (via encryption, etc) to totally avoid anybody having to trust anyone else. Each participant is kept honest mathematically. Nobody can inform on anyone else, because nobody knows anyone else's identity. -- There are extraordinary times when people, even though they be of sound mind and body, are moved to band together and kill another person. There are a few occurances in history that anyone can immediately think of as examples. But this is in an *extra-ordinary* situation. A society of people - where "society" indicates their desire to live in each other's company, associating openly and developing working relations - would not really be a "society", would not last as an association of people, if they were expecting extreme, destructive reactions from others in response to any degree of perceived insult from themselves. Therefore, although I can appreciate the need to be able to deal with political tyrants by just killing them, and currently encryption and anonymity makes it possible to do this "blindly" without anyone knowing each other, I can't see where implementing this method of relating to others, in a system of daily operating procedures, would do better than to create an atmosphere of total paranoia and psychological breakdowns. I think it is very important that individuals be able to defend themselves - from anyone. It is unfortunate that citizen-units are not typically instructed in the methods of self-defense, nor especially allowed to practice it without "official authorization". If we were better able to do this, the fact that anyone anywhere could immediately deal with threats to their existence would in itself be an impressive "deterrent", contributing to the general welfare and peace. Be that as it may, although the capacities of encryption and the internet make anonymous AP possible, the drive of human intelligence is toward knowledge, towards knowing the reasons for things. It would wish to know what is right or wrong, it would wish to know how to be the most accurate, it would wish to know about cause and effect, it would wish to know how to be in command of itself, normally. If someone does something "wrong" which makes another unhappy, normally they will wish to know what it was and how to correct it. If every time someone made a mistake they got punished, without the opportunity to understand the error and without the opportunity to make corrections, they would be a psychological wreck. If every time someone made mistake they got assassinated, not only would no one wish to do anything for fear of losing their lives, creating a "society" of timid sheep, there probably wouldn't be many people remaining to savor the triumph of being superior. AP is just another form of war. You can bet that if assassinations increased a hundred fold as a result of your method, not only "governments" but some very bright people would get together to figure out a defense against it, for they also would be "at risk". .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Best Computer School?
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rick Osborne wrote: >Lucky you. It had been a dream of mine since I was an annoying >overachiever of 6. Sux to be white trash, I guess. Wrong! White-americans play a very important and useful role in the new multi-cultural society. Sheesh! _Someone's_ got to work, support their families, pay taxes, and obey the law. Hee hee! Him so stoopit!

1 0