December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: (fwd) Cell Phone Cancer Study
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As follow up to the Stewart Fist report on new findings of cell-phone hazards, the Jerusalem Post says that the report is causing alarm in Israel -- where cell-phones are heavily used -- and that the government intends to investigate. Motorola et al are hunkered. The scientific study is in the journal "Radiation Research," Volume 147, Number 5, May 1997: http://www.cjp.com/radres/html/may97toc.htm Michael H. Repacholi, Antony Basten, Val Gebski, Denise Noonan, John Finnie and Alan W. Harris "Lymphomas in Emu-Pim1 Transgenic Mice Exposed to Pulsed 900 MHz Electromagnetic Fields" (p. 631) However, there is not an on-line version, unless someone knows of it elsewhere. What say the cellular folks here to this story?

2 1

Re: (fwd) Cell Phone Cancer Study
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks for critiquing this sensitive topic. The 11-page paper was published by Radiation Research, as noted here, whose editor is at Oak Ridge National Lab, if that offers credibility. Radiation Research's Web site shows an impressive range of credentials of scientists in the field, perhaps superior, if more specialized, to that of Science and Nature, both which oft times suffers the chancres of promiscuous sci-populuxitis. Best is to see the report for oneself. A copy is available for US$30.00 by fax. Request by calling the publisher at (423) 574-5874. Or E-mail to: Radiation Research Biology Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory <radres(a)aol.com> We've had a layman's look and cite the authors' final cautionary paragraph: "This is not to imply that any humans at all are necessarily at increased risk of cancer as a consequence of exposure to RF fields. No single experiment on animals can allow such a conclusion. Rather, we believe the study reported here indicates a need for further research. Tumorigenesis in genetically predisposed mice may provide a useful assay for interactions between RF fields and biological systems. With the current rapid expansion in the use of RF fields for telecommunications, a reliable assay is required to enable a better assessment of limits to safe levels of human exposure." Send more money or die, sucker, the "responsible" scientist's clanging alarm, eh?

1 0

Re: Controversial Commercial ISP for Remailer?
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Dave Hayes wrote: > > Igor Chudov writes: > > > I am interested in your view, Dave. > > > > There are only two reasons that I can see your interest serving. > > You either wish to support my views or oppose them. Neither case > > serves your potential enlightement, therefore I shall choose to > > not answer. > Dave, you are a very insightful man, but in this case you were > mistaken: I am interested to hear your views for my enlightenment. I responded that way for a reason. I offered my view on spamming spammers. You replaced "spamming spammers" with "hacking spammers". I do not see the relevance, hence my answer. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Who are the learned? Those who put into practice what they know.

1 0

Re: Controversial Commercial ISP for Remailer?
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ray Arachalian writes: > On Tue, 6 May 1997, Dave Hayes wrote: > > Igor Chudov writes: > > > I am interested in your view, Dave. > > There are only two reasons that I can see your interest serving. > > You either wish to support my views or oppose them. Neither case > > serves your potential enlightement, therefore I shall choose to > > not answer. > A very Zen answer (and quite a slippery one at that.) Thank you. > What if Igor was simply curious as to your views? Curiosity does not generally have zero attachment to other goals. If it did in this case, the information is not useful. > If not what difference does it make whether he supports or opposes > your view? Moo. > Why do you care whether or not a person is enlightened by your > response? I don't. > If you truly are following Zen, then it is not for you to decide > what will or won't enlighten others since this would mean taking > responsability for another person's karma. I neither follow nor lead Zen, but it is interesting to note your conjugation of "truth" and it's implications. > IMHO, your response isn't one of potentially enlightening others, but rather > fear of sharing your opinion. Since it is clear you cannot understand the former, the latter is all that is open to you to understand. Perhaps that is good enough, for your purposes. > This is two fold. If you fear he will oppose it, you are seeking > the approval of others. If you fear he will agree to it, you fear > that those who oppose his views will oppose yours. There are many more folds that you have overlooked. I may desire him to oppose it, thus seeking negative approval. I may desire him to agree to it, thus seeking positive approval. I may desire him to neither agree nor oppose it, thus seeking his enlightenment by my words, which is really seeking positive approval. I may fear he will neither agree nor oppose it, thus seeking his lack of enlightenment by my words, which is really seeking negative approval. > You could take the hidden third option and claim privacy, however it > is too late to do so since you have already shared some commentary - > and thus this path is closed to you. No path is closed to me, except by my choice. > Your responses so far were to the ethical and moral standards of spamming the > spammers. I wasn't interested in such. I am comfortable with my own morals > and take responsability for my actions. However, the point of this paragraph > is that you have tried to share with us your morals, and thus thrust them > upon us, later, here, you say you lack the will to share your views with us, > and thus back out of passing judgement on our hypothetical actions. > And at this point I am no longer interested in your oppinion on this > matter for it is jaded by fear, so please, don't even bother to reply. :) Notice the way you respond to my sharing: You pass judgement on my views, thus preventing your own enlightenment. Then you say you lack the will to be interested in my response, thus becoming guilty of what you claim I am guilty of. This was truly a mirrored interchange. I thank you for the opportunity to witness my self in you. ;-) ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet A passerby caught Nasrudin prying open the window of his own bedroom from the outside in the depths of night. "What are you doing? Locked out?" "Hush!" came the reply. "They say I walk in my sleep. I am trying to surprise myself and find out."

2 1

GAK Spreads, FRB Smirks
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A news report today that 22 new members have joined the Key Recovery Alliance, now 61 total. A meeting in Toronto on April 24-25 reviewed committee reports on key recovery prospects for "facilitating the wordlwide use of strong cryptography." And, two Federal Reserve economists claim that smart cards and E-cash have a ways to go to compete with well-tested and trusted paper bucks. No, they smirk, these views do not protect the FRB's central bank hegemony. Both reports at: http://jya.com/krafrb.txt

1 0

Re: [NTSEC] 64-bit En/Decryption speed (fwd)
by Ray Arachelian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 14:17:55 -0400 From: Craig Nulan <Craig.Nulan(a)ccmail.irs.gov> To: Bill Stout <stoutb(a)pios.com>, ntsecurity(a)iss.net Subject: Re: [NTSEC] 64-bit En/Decryption speed 577 Mghz No hardware abstraction layer The native platform on which NT was developed No need to validate beyond this. 10 times or faster. The DEC marketing rhetoric re: Alphas, is fairly reliable, unlike Microsoft's representations re: NT security. Has anyone else on this list examined the apparent demise of TCSEC product evaluations? Anyone else questioned why MS failed to keep NT in the RAMP process subsequent to getting version 3.5 C2 certified in a workstation configuration? Does it strike anyone else as odd that the U.K.'s ITSEC product evaluations are vendor sponsored, vendor scheduled, and conducted in private test environments? Does anyone believe that NT can ever be restructured into a general purpose operating system? A secure, general purpose O/S? Two URL's you'll want to remember. csrc.nist.gov - here you'll want to look at the the `94 and `95 annual reports (and meeting minutes) of the Computer Security and Privacy Advisory Board www.ecma.ch - where you can read first hand how security evaluation criteria are evolving Could it be that it's time to consider NT security from the perspective of the forest rather than from the perspective of endless little leaves on endless expanses of trees?

1 0

crypto.swdev.co.nz ??
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone know why crypo.swdev.co.nz is no longer available via anonymous ftp? Ern

1 0

Re: SAFE
by Lee Tien 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here's what Prof. Froomkin said about SAFE on another list: >What I want to know about SAFE is this: > >1. Will it in effect federalize huge chunks of state criminal law once >crypto is ubiquitous in telephones, email, garage-door openers etc.? >Every state crime will now have a federal component... > >2. Will the federal crypto-use-in-furtherance-of-a-state-crime be a >separate predicate offense for civil (and criminal?) RICO? > >3. What will the five year term for this offense do to the >plea-bargaining dynamic in every garden variety crime. > >Recall my hypothesis: crypto will be seamless and ubiquitous in N years, >where N is not large. Especially if SAFE passes and export controls are >removed. > >On balance, I oppose SAFE. It's not worth it. [I wonder: how does SAFE interact with IPSEC and arrangements like S/WAN? This is not, I think, merely the "willful furtherance" provision. The "law enforcement" access provision may be ambiguous for keys that are not "private"; my understanding of IPSEC is that the key is in the possession of the machine and not the user. I'm unclear whether users have 4th A. standing to challenge law enforcement access to such keys; there are lots of 4th A cases where a person has no privacy interest in information because it's been disclosed to another person, or is in another person's control. Of course, I probably don't understand how IPSEC works, so corrections are welcomed.] Lee

2 1

Vision Survey - Rid Yourself of Glasses/Contacts!!
by Ellis Laser 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Our Vision Is To Give You New Vision." "Trust Your Eyes To Experience." Northern California's most experienced laser vision corrective specialtist, Dr. William Ellis of the Ellis Eye and Laser Centers invites you to take our short survey and offers you FREE information about how to rid yourself of glasses and/or contacts, in the form of FREE Seminars, Consultations and videos. Please type your answers into the body of your reply message. Please answer all questions and note the type of information you would like to receive. 1. Do you currently wear glasses or contacts? 2. How long have you worn corrective lenses? 3. Do you have an interest in getting out of glasses or contacts? 4. What activities interest you that are currently inconvenienced by glasses or contacts? 5. Do you wear multifocal lenses? (Bifocals) 6. Are you nearsighted, farsighted, astigmatic or presbyopic (need ifocals)? 7. Check which of the following refractive procedures you've heard about or considered: A) RK B) AK C) HK D) ALK E) PRK F) LASIK Name:Address: City, State Zip Code Work Phone: Home Phone: I have interest in the following: Free Seminars Free Consultations Exam Videos Television Program Information To learn more about advancements in vision correction, Ellis Eye & Laser Centers invites you to our web site. http://207.120.43.144/100130.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ellis Eye & Laser Centers, Inc. respects your online time and Internet privacy. This is a one time only questionaire, your name will be removed from our files. However,if you wish to subscribe and receive future updates and information on our services, you may reply and type SUBSCRIBE in the subject line. Thank you! --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

My editorial in Oregonian newspaper published today.
by jimbell＠pacifier.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The following editorial appears in the Tuesday, May 6 issue of the (Portland) Oregonian newspaper, on the editorial page. Fishing Expedition Swims Against Tide According to the maxim, if you invent a better mouse-trap the world will beat a path to your door. Maybe the truth is that, instead, you'll get assaulted by angry cats who are afraid of losing their jobs. Suppose the government discovered a method to make itself obsolete. Or suppose the military learned how to make us all even more secure, for a thousandth as much defense spending. We'd never hear about it because they'd be out of a job, and job security, not national security, is their highest priority. Two years ago I had a revolutionary idea. I was tired of hearing the usual stories about how much harder society's problems have gotten in the last few decades. It's not that the problems are harder, it's just that large constituencies have been built which depend on these "problems" for their income. For example, when the Cold War ended, there was no military reason we couldn't have reduced our military budget by a factor of two or three. "But no!," said the politicians, let's continue buying those expensive Stealth bombers, submarines, tilt-wing airplanes, and other toys. We weren't afraid of getting attacked, the spending continued because of the threat of unemployment on the part of the defense-industry workers. Legalize drugs and turn a vast legal problem into a far cheaper and more manageable health problem? No, because with 70% or more of the prison population there due to drug laws, you'd have to fire most of the jailers, the prosecutors, the police, the judges, and the lawyers, all of whom have come to depend on the involuntary "generosity" of the taxpayer. Two years ago I realized that the whole corrupt system could be stopped. It would be necessary to not only halt pork-barrel politics at all levels, but also to provide a very few necessary services for people, such as defense and justice, although financed inexpensively and voluntarily. You'd have to shut down all militaries and governments, simultaneously, all around the world, while at the same time protecting our security. Impossible? In the summer of 1995 I began to write an essay, half-jokingly titled "Assassination Politics". It occurred to me that if people could defend themselves by anonymously donating money to anonymous people who act to protect us, you wouldn't need militaries or governments anymore. Nuclear bombs would be obsolete, and in fact they will be hopelessly dangerous to anyone who owns them, because the rest of us will be able to donate money to ensure their owners have no choice but to dismantle them. Conventional militaries will be useless, because threats to people's security will be dealt with far more cheaply by large numbers of tiny individual contributions buying the part-time services of a few semi-professional trouble-shooters. Murderous dictators of the past and present, such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Khadafi, Idi Amin, and so many others simply couldn't operate in such a world, because they (and their replacements, if anyone dared follow them) could be removed for the collective pocket change of a few million angry citizens. There'd be no conventional wars, because anyone who would make war would be a threat not only to his enemy, but also to anyone on "his" side who would be forced to help pay for that war, or even third parties who wouldn't want to see aggression win, for fear they'd be the next target. There would be no draft, because forcing someone else to fight for you makes YOU his enemy, as well: On the other hand, if your cause is just, he will contribute voluntarily, just as you do, to see the bad guy stopped. There would be little crime, because crime will be treated as an attack, and people will be able to donate money to find and stop the criminals. But unlike today, there will be no large constituency (police, jailers, judges, prosecutors, lawyers) who have a vested interest in keeping the crime rate high, thus terrorizing the public into supporting "anti-crime spending" which really just lines their pockets. I've been openly debating the idea on the Internet since then with anyone who will listen. My essay surprises many and shocks more than a few, but I am pleased that such a truly revolutionary concept has been so well received. Even the Columbian newspaper (www.columbian.com) has decided to add a pointer to the essay. The only "threat" in the essay is to the jobs of the people who have been parasites on the rest of us for decades, as well as to the future of tyrannies around the world. But that's why, on April 1, twenty Federal agents burst in and took my computer, told the news media I was "armed and dangerous," and began engaging in a fishing expedition including harassing people simply for knowing me. (No arrest or charges so far.) They may claim that they were looking for something else, but what they are really, desperately hoping to find is...job security. If I'm right, they have none. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1