December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by drose＠azstarnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Phill" wrote: >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. I am woman, hear me roar in numbers too big to ignore As R. J. Wagner once said, "Koo koo, baby." Hey, I hope that the above is construed as neither a flame nor as "off topic". May I additionally congratulate Nurdane on her birthday? Yo "Phill"! When's your cyber-revolutionary birthday? Maybe we can all chip in to buy you a biscuit. (See, in England, they say, "That certainly takes the biscuit". Eh, "Phill"?) BTW, "Phill", did you want to make good on your bet to Sandy at this time? Ain't C-punks fun nowadays?

1 0

Re: libsln.htm -- Is Libel a Crime?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:33 AM 1/28/97 -0500, aga wrote: >On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, jim bell wrote: > >> At 01:14 AM 1/27/97 -0600, ichudov(a)algebra.com wrote: >> >These postings do not prove that libel is a crime. It is because libel >> >is not a crime. Libel is a tort, and unlike with crime, the government >> >cannot initiate a legal action against someone for libel. Only injured >> >(libeled) individuals and not the government can sue in a libel case. >> >> On the contrary, in some jurisdictions libel is indeed a crime. However, >> that doesn't mean that prosecutions happen anymore, but the laws are (in >> some places) still on the books. > >Jim, either you are full of shit or that Law is VERY >unconstitutional. The first amendment prohibits any Criminal Laws >from being made against libel. You'd think that, wouldn't you? Yes, I agree that those laws are unconstitutional, but so is about 90+% of what the Federal government does today. Sigh. Criminal libel statutes are apparently (in the US, at least) a holdover from an earlier era in which government took the place of King George, and wanted the power to punish people who were too outspoken. The fact that they are "never" (?) used anymore is presumably a reflection of their unconstitutionality. Criminal libel statues should also be considered unconstitutional because they give way too much leeway to the prosecutor to decide whom to prosecute. His friends will never be charged, but his enemies will. One obvious problem with the LACK of a criminal libel statute, from the standpoint of the "government-controlling-class," or "the bigshots," is that it's impossible to sue (and collect from) a (comparatively) poor person for defaming him...but it's still possible to put him in jail. Civil libel is, therefore, essentially useless to a government agent as a means of keeping the masses in line. Myself, I believe that libel should be eliminated as a cause of action in civil cases as well as it has, de facto, in the criminal area. If anything, the ability to sue for libel makes things worse: There is an illusion that this is easy and straightforward, if not economical. It is neither. The result is that people are actually MORE likely to believe a printed falsehood because they incorrectly assume that if it wasn't true, it couldn't be printed. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

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

More Circumventing the ITAR
by Mark Rosen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm curious as to exactly what the ITAR/EAR/Whatever says specifically about "unrestricted FTP sites." My program, Kremlin, is available for download at the web page below. On my web page, I have some stuff in bold print that informs about the ITAR and tells people to go away if they're not from the US or Canada. Does this count as an unrestricted FTP site? It's not all that much different from what MIT has up for PGP. Also, back to the question of registration numbers. A registration number is just a string of letters and numbers, and is essentially the same as a friendly letter; it contains no cryptographic code. For all anyone knows, I could just be charging for pseudo-random numbers, again, nothing of cryptographic significance. Is it illegal for me to mail someone outside of the US or Canada a registration code? Thanks for any help. Mark Rosen FireSoft - http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/2690 Mark Eats AOL - http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/6660

2 1

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.)

3 2

Re: libsln.htm -- Is Libel a Crime?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:33 AM 1/28/97 -0500, aga wrote: >On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, jim bell wrote: > >> At 01:14 AM 1/27/97 -0600, ichudov(a)algebra.com wrote: >> >These postings do not prove that libel is a crime. It is because libel >> >is not a crime. Libel is a tort, and unlike with crime, the government >> >cannot initiate a legal action against someone for libel. Only injured >> >(libeled) individuals and not the government can sue in a libel case. >> >> On the contrary, in some jurisdictions libel is indeed a crime. However, >> that doesn't mean that prosecutions happen anymore, but the laws are (in >> some places) still on the books. > >Jim, either you are full of shit or that Law is VERY >unconstitutional. The first amendment prohibits any Criminal Laws >from being made against libel. You'd think that, wouldn't you? Yes, I agree that those laws are unconstitutional, but so is about 90+% of what the Federal government does today. Sigh. Criminal libel statutes are apparently (in the US, at least) a holdover from an earlier era in which government took the place of King George, and wanted the power to punish people who were too outspoken. The fact that they are "never" (?) used anymore is presumably a reflection of their unconstitutionality. Criminal libel statues should also be considered unconstitutional because they give way too much leeway to the prosecutor to decide whom to prosecute. His friends will never be charged, but his enemies will. One obvious problem with the LACK of a criminal libel statute, from the standpoint of the "government-controlling-class," or "the bigshots," is that it's impossible to sue (and collect from) a (comparatively) poor person for defaming him...but it's still possible to put him in jail. Civil libel is, therefore, essentially useless to a government agent as a means of keeping the masses in line. Myself, I believe that libel should be eliminated as a cause of action in civil cases as well as it has, de facto, in the criminal area. If anything, the ability to sue for libel makes things worse: There is an illusion that this is easy and straightforward, if not economical. It is neither. The result is that people are actually MORE likely to believe a printed falsehood because they incorrectly assume that if it wasn't true, it couldn't be printed. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by azur＠netcom.com 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. (fwd)
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Phill" wrote: >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. I am woman, hear me roar in numbers too big to ignore As R. J. Wagner once said, "Koo koo, baby." Hey, I hope that the above is construed as neither a flame nor as "off topic". May I additionally congratulate Nurdane on her birthday? Yo "Phill"! When's your cyber-revolutionary birthday? Maybe we can all chip in to buy you a biscuit. (See, in England, they say, "That certainly takes the biscuit". Eh, "Phill"?) BTW, "Phill", did you want to make good on your bet to Sandy at this time? Ain't C-punks fun nowadays?

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: 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

3 2