December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Question: RC5 assembly code?
by Juriaan Massenza 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have the source code for RC5 encryption algorithm, but it is in C, well it is still cool since it is "portable" but I am actually looking for a PowerPC assembly code for the same, or at least for the Key Expansion, Encryption and Decryption routines. I am not a PowerPC coder at all, I barely know 8086 assembly. Somebody have it already written? The "formula" for RC5 is pretty interesting and looks like is made to be implemented in Assembler. Cia0, Juriaan

1 0

Re: Real Terrorism
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Stewart wrote: > > At 01:14 PM 5/11/97 -0400, lucifer Anonymous Remailer wrote: > > AMMONIUM TRIIODIDE CRYSTALS > Sigh. Terror isn't our business, and any handbook that > can't tell ammonium tri-iodide from nitrogen tri-iodide > is more dangerous to its readers than anyone else. > > If you _really_ wanted to scare governments, > you'd start publishing papers saying things like > > AMENDMENT 1 - Congress shall make no law ...... But if we did that, then Congress would probably pass a law for our protection... TruthMonger

1 0

Re: RSA, PGP IN LEGAL FLAP OVER ENCRYPTION TECHNOLOGY
by jimbell＠pacifier.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 19:47 5/13/97 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote: >On Tue, May 13, 1997 at 07:11:48PM -0800, Jim Bell wrote: >> However, I've been waiting many years for some patent-law-knowledgeable >> person to explain why mathematics, which was widely seen as being absolutely >> unpatentable prior to the invention of public-key cryptography, suddenly >> became patentable just in time for RSA, etc. >> >> Until I hear such an explanation, I _DO_ begrudge RSA and others that "right." > >Wow! I agree with you! Sit down until the feeling goes away. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: whine politics again
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

lucifer Anonymous Remailer wrote: > What the ultimate result here should be we all demand our legislators pass > a law prohibiting the establishment of daycare centers, schools, hospitals > or nursing homes within 1000 ft of government centers, army bases, or any > federal offices. > > They could call it the "No Human Shielding law." > > What legislator would dare complain that the federal government not use > his or her constituents children to shield ATF, FBI or other TLA agents? No BATF agents died in the Oklahoma City bombing. Seems they all had the day off, so they didn't need shielding. (They didn't have the decency to suggest that the daycare take the day off, as well.)

1 0

Re: Would the anonymous person(s) please...
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

bennett_t1(a)popmail.firn.edu wrote: > > Would all those anonymous remailing people with a flame tendency, please > flame the person of your attacks, and don't send this bullshit to the > list? Thanks... No. (but thanks for asking so politely(

1 0

unsafe SAFE:
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

according to http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,10604,00.html Kerrey's effort has one thing in common with the SAFE Act: It calls for the creation of an Information Security Board. The board proposal caused some privacy watchdogs to pull their endorsements of SAFE because it wouldn't have to comply with federal open-meeting act. Since a common hand has presumably been at work in both bills, this looks like good cop / bad cop to me. The good cop says, "I am your friend" He is not your friend. Create a federal board, and it will exercise power. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

4 3

Re: [STEGO] Secure envelopes
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Someone too gutless to use their real name and full address in their email, disguising themself as "The Spectre" wrote: > I, personally, have been on this mailing list for a while now, > and have never seen *any* worthwhile posts from either of those remailers, > or any other for that matter. If you've got something to say, say it. > Anything less is cowardice, in one form or another. It seems that The Spectre finds much on this list to be worthless, including the value of anonymity. (Except in his or her own case, obviously.) All of The Spectre's comments seem to be reruns of old posts which were followed by calls for list censorship. Personally, I prefer the ASCII art. TruthMonger

1 0

Worthless List
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Spectre wrote: > In response to this childish, no.cajones.com message, I have removed all > previous filters and added one, simpler filter on incoming mail. Delete > when recieved from nobody(a)huge.cajones.com or lucifer(a)dhp.com. > > I suggest you all to the same.. it may actually serve to make this list > worthwhile... Yet another dweeb who considers the list not to be worthwhile, but who wants to tell everyone else what to read and what not to read, nonetheless. Is there going to be another round of missives about how the list's ASCII art is the Big Enemy of cypherpunks everywhere? I'm have much more concern about a small pimple I just found on my butt. Perhaps I should start a thread to discuss the implications of this for privacy and freedom worldwide. PimpleMonger

1 0

Re: The Inducement of Rapid Oxidation of Certain Materials in or Near Government Buildings
by jimbell＠pacifier.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 19:34 5/13/97 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote: >On Mon, May 12, 1997 at 05:15:24PM -0400, Duncan Frissell wrote: >>Governments have murdered 170 million people since 1900. My >>back-of-the-envelope estimate is that the civilians of the world have only >>murdered about 20 million people in the same period of time. Quite a >>disparity. > >Your estimate seems high to me. But it is meaningless, in any case. This isn't the first time you've called information that is detrimental to your position words equivalent to "meaningless." I suppose that's easier than disproving the other person's claim, or proving your own. >First of all, it neglects to consider that governments may have >prevented more murders than they caused. This is unknowable, since >we don't have any worthwhile control cases. Your position is laughable. Statistics on murder rates are knowable for many countries. Studying the murder rate for those countries will at least provide a range against which deaths due to government-caused wars can be compared. >Second, such cases of civil breakdown aside, all humans, for now and >for the conceivable future, live within the context of some kind of >government. The option of non-government simply doesn't exist. That's precisely what the governments and their agents want us to believe. Minarchism is certainly possible, and at the risk of appearing to blow my own AP-horn, it is indeed plausible that the public can take down all governments in a reasonably straightforward fashion. The fact that governments will strongly dislike this option is no reason to not consider the possibility. > The >issue is how can governments be improved. By eliminating them, of course. >Third, murders caused by governments can't really be separated from >murders caused by individuals. That is, in many cases deciding >whether a murder is a personal action or a government action is >impossible. "Aye vas joost vollowink orderz!" Sorry, we're still laughing at you. >Fourth, it's fashionable in these circles to paint all governments >with the same brush, but in fact, some are much better than others. >But it only takes one bad one to start a war. Furthermore, human >motivations are complex and irrational, so wars are started for >essentially insane reasons. This is a human problem, not a problem >of government. No, quite the contrary. Considered from the perspective of the cumulative interests of society, wars are not beneficial or "profitable." Only from the very limited viewpoint of the military-industrial complex and government employees does war appear to be a net benefit, and that's true only because the interests of most of the population (on whom the effect of war is a net negative) is ignored. The reason war occurs is that the decision to have a war is made not by society as a whole, but by that tiny fraction which profits. Put the decision to have the war back into the hands of the population as a whole, and war will decrease. Give the public the option to make war upon the government parasites infesting their own land, and war will end forever. >[Parenthetically, it is absolutely amazing to me that he and >practically everyone on this list just seems to assume McVeigh is >guilty...do they know something I don't?] For the purposes of most of the arguments we make, the identity of the actual bomber is irrelevant. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Re: Disinformation in L.A.
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:19 PM 5/11/97 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >You might remember I wrote recently about the DoJ report released this >month that calls for new legislation to ban bomb-making info online. Now >Feinstein's office tells me she's going to introduce a bill. Feinswine never saw a gun/mind control bill she didn't like. She is an ultra fascist that rose to power thanks to the yellow dog Bay Area voters. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi

8 12