December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Where's reference? (was:RE: [DES] DES Key Recovery Project, Progress Report #7)
by Mullen, Patrick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>---------- >>From: Phil Karn[SMTP:karn@qualcomm.com] >>>If past cryptographic software is any indication, the DES Cracker >>>will be available from an overseas ftp site within hours of release in >>>the US. >> >>And lacking that, the author can always print it out on paper and >>physically mail it out of the country; this is specifically allowed by >>the new Commerce rules as I understand them. And who's to say that the >>overseas FTP copies weren't scanned from such a paper copy? :-) >> >>Phil > Where can I get a reference to this? I thought you weren't supposed to transmit cryptographic code out of the U.S. under any means, including print... >(???) > >~ Patrick >

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > The exercise reveals to me that only by ignoring the first paragraph > > of your example, the part that reads "Imagine if you will a list, > > the original purpose of which was to act as a free and open forum > > for discussion of cryptography and related issues." can you make > > a claim of content based censorship. The purpose of this list was Maybe this was misleading, that was indeed a purpose of the list but it was also supposed to be a free and anarchic list where people were not prevented from posting whatever they want. Even if it were the case that we accepted content based censorship that is no defence of the obvious class system that is in place whereby certain posters are automatically sent straight to the moderated list and others are censored regardless of the content of their posts. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > ...That was the intended direction of the list, it > > has rapidly disentigrated over recent months into a censored list > > where the elite post to the main list and anyone else is nearly > > always relegated to a seperate list for the crypto-untermenshcen. > > Again, nonsense. The moderation experiment (moderation, not > censorship) has been in effect for all of ONE WEEK. Where does > Paul get this hysterical "recent months" stuff? The list has been disentigrating for some time since the disgusting incident when Dimitri was forcibly unsubscribed from the list. There have also been a number of postings from members of the list claiming to understand anarchism who support censorship to "protect new members of the list". > > If you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty try the following: > > > > Imagine if you will a list, the original purpose of which was > > to act as a free and open forum for discussion of cryptography and > > related issues... > > Paul's argument is the essence of literal conservativism, "but > I don't things to change!" Without change, though, there can be > no progress. Moderation is a one-month experiment. There is no > intellectual dishonesty in saying, "let's try something else for > a while." So, there would be no intellectual dishonesty in a country claiming to be a free and open society "trying out" fascism for a month or two? - After all it`s a private country just as this is a private list.... > > Now imagine that list falling into a state of content based > > censorship and censorship based on an unspoken but ever present > > class structure,... > > "Unspoken but ever present class structure"? I wonder how Paul > was able to divine this? Certainly it is unspoken, but that, of > course, it because it does not exist anywhere but in Paul's > fertile imagination. There is a clear trend easily observable on the list whereby certain members postings are censored when their content is of a standard that, if the moderation were objective and based on content alone, would warrant their being sent to the censored list. If anyone here archives all of the list postings or is willing to retrieve them from the archive we can run some statistical tests and comparisons in a few weeks once the sample is large enough, however, the list oberfuhrer and leutenant von Sandfort will claim the statistical correlation between poster reputation among the upper class of list members and the number of their posts let onto the moderated list is caused by persistent flamers so this will not convince them.. > > It is a foregone conclusion that the upper class of list members will > > have no dispute over the censorship and therefore the change will be > > permenant,... > > Great! I thought that hadn't been determined yet. What a > relief. I think you`ll find your poor attempt at making light of the situation does little to hide the fact that this censorship has finally confirmed that this is a private list and is no longer meant to be a free, anarchic discussion forum. I can tell you one other thing for sure, even if the moderation "experiment" were to end in a month as a last ditch attempt by John Gilmore and Sandy Sandfort to recover some of their lost credibility it would be a vain and entirely unsuccesful attempt. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

2 1

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:00 PM 1/27/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> writes: ... >> 2) Why do you suppose the Iraqis haven't already thought of doing this >> themselves? > >Perhaps because they love Saddam, who really is a great guy. Stop listening >to what U.S.gubmint and media tell you and use your brain. What did >Saddam do to _you? Those of us in the US have the luxery of secret ballots, Iraq is not. What was reported to me (by the media) was that those who decided to vote against Hussein, in a time when food was scarce, decided to vote against eating. It was not made illegal to vote him out, merely a catch 22, unless enough people agreed openly, the vocal minority would suffer. What we should have been doing as the troops pulled out and a no fly zone was being established was dropping bombs full of bread on the populus. Then they could have voted any which way they chose. ... >> Destructive people often ascend to positions of power not simply because >> they are ruthless, but because they have 1) many sycophantic followers and >> 2) many ignorant, vulnerable people unable to prevent it. You might be >> able to kill off one Saddam, but potentially many others would be waiting >> in the wings to take his place. The situation surrounding the existence >> of someone like Saddam is part of the contributing factors which keeps him >> there, not simply that one man himself. It was the same with Hitler and >> with so many others - they don't just have an excess of "power" >> concentrated within themselves which puts them in positions of control over >> others - there will have been many people who will have helped put them >> there, expecting to derive benefits from it. > >I don't like your Saddam example, having much admiration for the man, but >again this goes back to the perceived likelihood of future assassination. >If Saddam is killed in an unlikely event, he will be succeeded by someone >who does not fear assassination. If all potential successors are convinced >that the rubout can be repeated, they won't go for the job. Remember, the >purpose of "terrorism" is not just to kill someone, but to "terrorize". > >> And what will be done about all those people who made this "power" >> possible? You don't just kill the one man and be done with it - you have >> to also "kill" the conditions which maintained him. > >You rub out enough key people and terrorize their potential successors >into not wanting to take over their jobs, and the system collapses. ... I don't remember where I heard this, and in all likelyhood, I heard it here. This is certainly not a direct quote, ant would the origional poster please speak up. There came a time, in some ancient civilization when the king committed suicide by eating poisoned food. In the remaining week, most of the household, apparently in honor of the deceased king, jumped on kitchen knives and butcher knives, killing themselves. The brother of the king would not come out of hiding because some unknown person was terrorizing him with a meat cleaver. After a year, it was apparent that no one in the line of succession still survived, all killing themselves with kitchen utensils. It was rumored that the post was cursed. It was then that the royal galley slave bravely stepped foreward to rule the kingdom until one of the origional line should return. The decendants of the galley slave have ruled to this day. Like I said, I don't know where this came from, but I would like to see it again, if it came from here.

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>That's it? The system collapsed because the guards left their posts? >And no mutiny charges? Incredible. I was there. The collapse of East Germany was quite spectacular. There was at most three months of warning. First there was a series of sit ins at foreign embassies, then a migration of large numbers of people in their twenties within the eastern block. I missed the actual collapse of the wall itself having to go to England. I was told of the sequence of events by friends in Berlin. By this time the protestors were confident enough to stage open demonstrations. The authorities had tolerated small scale demonstrations for some time provided they did not appear to be part of a larger movement. The sudden increase in numbers from tens to tens of thousands left the authorities unsure of what to do. They could not be sure of the reliability of the police should they attempt to violently suppress the demonstrations. To imprison the ringleaders was equally dangerous. The communists were aware that the South Africans had continued to be troubled by Mandela and Biko long after they were imprisoned or murdered. At some point a group of protesters approached the wall, probably hoping to goad the police into making an arrest. The guards made no response and the numbers increased to the point where firing of warning shots was impossible without causing a massacre. West German protesters joined from the other side of the wall. The border guards did try to use a water cannon but to little effect since the range was insufficient. At some point someone appeared with a sledge hammer and a pickaxe. Some people say that this was at the start of the protest, others that someone fetched them. I have heard people who believe that they were brought from either side of the wall. They started attacking the wall and soon had removed one of the panels. Next day the border guards quite literally abandoned their posts. The Brandenburg gate was opened for the first time in fifty years and the party apparatus all but collapsed. The only military activity during this period was GDR forces preparing against possible invasion by Soviet forces. Not that this was a logistical possibility since it was unlikely they would get across Poland unopposed. Read Norman Davies book "Europe a history" if you want to find out the background for the velvet revolution. It is one of the most amazing events in political history. It is a pity that people have forgotten so quickly about the real causes. It was not military power that prevailed but the protest movement. Unfortunately US commentators tend to see everything in terms of US cultural norms, many of which were explicitly rejected by the protestors. The East Germans wanted West German affluence, they wanted to be part of Western Europe. They were certainly not responding to US military spending as right wing theorists claim, nor was the economy collapsing because of the arms race, it was collapsing because of the costs of a totalitarian state and the incompatibility of that state with modern industrial organization. Phill

1 0

Re: Handbook of Applied Cryptography
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here's the publisher's URL for Handbook of Applied Cryptography, which amplifies Patrick's summary, and gives ordering info. http://www.crcpress.com/PRODS/8523.HTM Just reading the mouthwatering summaries and the extensive, detailed list of topics is a good primer on crypto.

1 0

Re: [DES] DES Key Recovery Project, Progress Report #7
by Phil Karn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>If past cryptographic software is any indication, the DES Cracker >will be available from an overseas ftp site within hours of release in >the US. And lacking that, the author can always print it out on paper and physically mail it out of the country; this is specifically allowed by the new Commerce rules as I understand them. And who's to say that the overseas FTP copies weren't scanned from such a paper copy? :-) Phil

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> > Subject: Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd) > Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:36:13 -0500 > > I don't agree with your view of states. The inhabitants of a > geographical area are not mere chattels of the governing power. Exactly! By jove you got it! By demanding your liberty but demanding that 'we' go to Singapore or anywhere else and treat them as chattels we have clearly instituted a double-standard. Most parties in this discussion still haven't made that distinction. All we have done is replace their current tyrant with a new one, mainly us. > The right to rule rests on certain criteria which I believe neither > country meets. The harassment of opposition politicians in > obviously trumped up charges disqualifies any country from > calling itself a democracy. Exactly. And by applying pressure on Singapore we only help them keep that tyrany in place. The quickest way I know to make a social institution band together is self-preservation from an outside threat, real or perceived. > I am a cyber-revolutionary and the world has bought into > the chaos of our revolution. I never intended the Web to be a tool > for confirming the present social order which is manifestly > corrupt. ALL social orders are corrupt. The 3 laws of thermodynamics apply to everything including social institutions. 1. You can't get ahead 2. You can't break even 3. You can't quit the game Heinz Pagels (RIP) Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Libel/slander & crypto relevancy (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 01:28:19 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> > Subject: Re: Libel/slander & crypto relevancy > > Civil actions against people doing "graffiti" are only interesting where > the defendant has assets worth suing for. This economic dimension > substantially limits the number of suits which will be brought. Thank you for agreeing with my thesis that the legal industry is one driven by monetary gain and not justice. It is the one major problem with law today, it ignores those who are not 'worth it'. Justice is supposed to be blind and until that happens there can be no true liberty. Law should be involved in rights and wrongs and not 'how much money do I need to buy that villa in Spain'. There is also the aspect of 'reputation' of the organization which was defamed. This will become even more critical to good business over the Internet in the future than it is now. Now the only really important 'reputation' that one has to worry about is their credit report. Since it is very unlikely that such records will be made public in the future they won't be available so some other 'reputation' verification process will be required for parties interested in doing business with other parties they have no information on other than an email address or a webpage. This problem became very clear during the Austin Cypherpunks remailer project last year. The goal was to create a economicaly viable keyserver. The problem rapidly became one of trust and reputation and there was and still is no clear cut methodology for dealing with these concepts, let alone actualy trying to quantify them. Another aspect of this that keeps coming up is one of 'big' corporations with 'lots' of money, this monotonicity in legal thought is the reason I refer to the 'legal industry' and not 'legal profession'. Currently the main force driving law is how much money is available. Expansions of liberty simply can't happen in this environment because there is no mechanism to protect 'little' organizations or persons without 'lots' of cash. This problem is one that is not being addressed by anyone, most especialy lawyers who will loose income which they aren't apt to do voluntarily. > Criminal prosecutions for defamation (in the case of "graffiti") are still > unlikely - a much more straightforward charge would be unauthorized access > to a computer or some flavor of fraud, depending on the facts. This would be hard to do in the situation such as a mailing list because the parties would have 'authorized access' and it does not include the issue of inside parties nor 'web bbs's' where parties can enter comments and other statements in a 'authorized' manner. There are mechanisms to use computers for abuse of other parties besides hacking. > Confusion > aids defendants, so I predict prosecutors will avoid defamation law (and > its tar pits of actual malice and the defense of truth) when they are able > to do so and still have a reasonable chance of conviction. > > >If they don't > >understand the technology (eg forwarding private email to publicly > >accessible lists by accident) how in the world are they going to understand > >what is best, let along convince anyone else? > > There's a world of difference between understanding technology and screwing > up once in awhile. Absolutely. However, if there is not a fundamental understanding of the technology and its ramifications I certainly wouldn't want somebody making a case on my behalf because they would make assumptions which were not based in fact. In Toto's case the point I was refering to was not his sending private practice related material to a publicly accessible list (pretty reprehensible for my attorney accident or not) but rather his unsolicited admission that he didn't have any idea how it works. THAT would worry me if my liberty, possessions, or life were on the line. > I was that "party", and I guess that in trying to be civil I was actually > unclear. If you were a politically important person or organization, and if > Toto's message had caused you real damage, and if Toto were reasonably > available to prosecute, a prosecutor might get interested. But you're not > important, Toto would be difficult to extradite, and you weren't harmed. So > you picked a crappy example to make your point(s) with. Change the facts, > and you'll get a different answer. Duh. Actualy it is the PERFECT example of what is wrong with the law, it is the reason that I went to such extremes to force the situation. If the law can't protect Ma. and Pa. Kettle (their poor, being share croppers) under our 'democracy' it shure can't proctect them under a more 'liberalized' democracy which so many want and the technology will force. If the coming technocracy can't (or for monetary reasons won't) then it won't be any different that what we have now. A tyrant is a tyrant, my goal is to get rid of the cage and not to put a new layer of gilt on it. > You picked a hypothetical which did a poor job of illustrating the points > you're making in this later message. Do you want to talk about whether or > not Toto is criminally liable for making fun of you while making a point > about ownership of networks and its relationship to freedom of speech, or > do you want to talk about the more general case of liability for > misattribution? If it's the latter, yes, there are some issues there, but I > still think that defamation law is a poor way to address them. You seem to > be having an "I've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem. The point is not whether Toto did or did not make fun of me, you seem to have a prediliction for personal attacks. It ain't. The point is that if joe-six-pack isn't secure in knowing that his views and expression are not protected from abuse he won't use it. We all loose in that case. > And all of this seems a bit contrived if the real crypto-relevant point is > "use digital signatures to avoid misattribution". You missed the point, keep pondering. I am shure it will come to you. > Despite your closing, I haven't seen you write anything about "how it > should be", Because I don't know how it should be, and it isn't my place or yours to make that decision. It is our responsibility to discuss this issue and to review the various solutions and what they will mean in the long run (as near as we can make the future out that is). In this example, if party A makes a statement and then B changes it and then re-distributes it as original comments by A then there is a problem irrespective of the monetary worth of A or B. Digital signatures in and of themselves won't help this from happening unless it is required to include the full text and signature of any quote in any subsequent use of that material otherwise the quote and the digital signature are out of sync and therefore worthless. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: [URGENT] Meet-in-the-middle attack
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy C[retin] Maya grew a beard to look like his mother. \|||/ (o o) -ooO-(_)-Ooo- Timmy C[retin] Maya

1 0