December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

index.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CNN logo US navbar Infoseek/Big Yellow Pathfinder/Warner Bros Main banner Start your retirement planning using Portrait Planning. Click Here. rule REPUTED MOBSTER'S ADMISSION MAY CAUSE CASE TO CRUMBLE Mercurio June 18, 1997 Web posted at: 9:47 p.m. EDT (0147 GMT) BOSTON (CNN) -- The trial of reputed mob boss Frank "Cadillac" Salemme was thrown into disarray Wednesday when mob journeyman Angelo "Sonny" Mercurio told a U.S. District Court he had been an informant for the FBI. The dramatic admission came after federal Judge Mark Wolf asked Mercurio if he had been an informant for the FBI in 1989 -- the same year his pals were being wiretapped by the agency. Mercurio, who is serving time in Georgia for marijuana possession, faced a jail sentence for contempt if he did not answer the question. _______________________________________________________________ PEG TYRE's report as seen on CNN VXtreme logo VXtreme Streaming Video _______________________________________________________________ "Yes," he replied in a loud and clear voice. His disclosure could threaten the government's case against Salemme, the reputed head of the New England Mafia, and four other reputed mobsters. Mercurio's answer raises questions about whether the Justice Department misled a federal judge to get a wiretap that helped lead to the conviction of other organized crime figures. Judges will not grant wiretaps if they know authorities haveinvestigative alternatives, such as informers. "It is an important part of a mosaic that we're going to build to argue that there has been outrageous government misconduct in this case and ask for a retrial," defense attorney John Mitchell said. Salemme's lawyers say they'll ask that the wiretaps be thrown out. If the judge agrees, the case against Salemme, as well as mobsters already convicted on wiretap evidence, could be in jeopardy. Judge says government's credibility is at stake The government's case against Salemme hinges on a wiretap recording of a ceremonial induction into the Patriarca crime family in Medford, Massachusetts, in 1989. The wiretap information led to convictions against Salemme's alleged predecessor, Raymond "Junior" Patriarca, and several others. Mercurio's admission proved the FBI lied in sworn statements they used to get permission for the tap. Agents claimed they needed the electronic surveillance of the induction, when instead they had Mercurio on the inside to help them. Scarpa "The entire premise and entire foundation of the tap may well be rotten, and the tape will be suppressed," defense attorney Anthony Cardinale said. It also potentially undermines 20 major mob convictions in New England. "I think FBI agents have gotten the message from the courts and from Congress that in organized crime cases, anything goes," criminal defense attorney Gerald Shargel said. Wolf said he will continue to press to see if the FBI obtained other wire taps by providing false information. At issue he says is the credibility of the government in the eyes of its federal judges. Correspondent Peg Tyre contributed to this report rule Read the next US story: * Negotiators optimistic about tobacco talks - June 18, 1997 Related stories: * CNN - Federal jury convicts 12 suspected Mexican Mafia members - May 30, 1997 * CNN - Mob bosses took a beating last year - Jan. 3, 1997 Related sites: * US Mafia, Short History & Key Players + Patriarca, Raymond L.S. * CSS Organized Crime Menu * Gangsters! * The New Mafia Order A history of the mafia from Mother Jones Magazine * GANG LAND: The Jerry Capeci Web Page Search for related CNN stories: ________________________________________ ______ [Help] Tip: You can restrict your search to the title of a document. Infoseek grfk Example: title:New Year's Resolutions rule Message Boards Sound off on our message boards Tell us what you think! You said it... [INLINE] Start your retirement planning using Portrait Planning. Click Here. rule To the top © 1997 Cable News Network, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you.

2 1

Re: CDT Policy Post 3.08 - Senate Committee Approves Key-RecoveryCrypto Bill
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:47:49 -0400 >To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu >From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> >Subject: Re: CDT Policy Post 3.08 - Senate Committee Approves Key-Recovery >Crypto Bill >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >At 13:45 -0400 6/19/97, Jonah Seiger wrote: >> >>Senator Conrad Burns' (R-MT) effort to block the McCain-Kerrey bill was >>defeated by a vote of 12 - 8. The 8 Senators who voted with Burns deserve >>a great deal of credit for standing up for the Net. > >Perhaps your definition of "standing up for the Net" is different from mine. > >The eight senators who "deserve a great deal of credit" voted for a bill >that would have codified into law a 56-bit limit on encryption exports and >would have sparked the development of a national key recovery >infrastructure. > >Burns' ProCODE II "effort" would have permitted only the export of up to >56-bit crypto products without key escrow. Products of any strength *with* >key escrow could be exported freely. > >ProCODE II would also create an Information Security Board composed of the >Commerce Secretary, and representatives of the NSA, CIA, FBI, and White >House. > >Maybe it's just me, but I don't need my elected representatives "standing >up" for me by passing these kinds of bills... > >-Declan > > >

1 0

None Re: Recipient Anonymity
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Matt Ghio wrote: > A group of servers collects messages of equal length for anonymous > recipients. All servers exchange messages so that each has copies of all > messages. > > A recipient wishes to retrieve a message from the servers without any > server knowing which message he is receiving. The recipient selects a > group of n servers. From each server, S_1...S_n-1, he requests a random > selection of messages, with a 50% probability that any particular message > will be selected. The server returns the xor of all messages requested. > He sends the final server a request which is the xor of all the previous > requests and the one single message that he wants. > > The xor of all the responses is the desired message. It is impossible to > determine which message was received unless all servers collude. So what you're saying is: - Messages - A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Server 1: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 Server 2: 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Server 3: 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 So server 1 sends back the xor of messages A,C,D,F...Z; server 2 sends back the xor of B,C,E,F,G...etc. The xor of all of that cancels out everything except Message Q. But as long as at least one of the servers doesn't keep logs then nobody will know that except the person who downloaded it. Clever. It sure beats reply-blocks. :)

1 0

Bullshit RE: HACKERS SMASH U.S. GOVERNMENT ENCRYPTION
by ARTURO GRAPA YSUNZA 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I actually got a kick out of reading the bullshit in the press release. >Oakland, California (June 18, 1997)-The 56-bit DES encryption >standard, long claimed "adequate" by the U.S. Government, was >shattered yesterday using an ordinary Pentium personal computer Actually it was more than 70,000 clients working together > "That DES can be broken so quickly should send a chill through the >heart of anyone relying on it for secure communications," I'm shitting bricks. No mention was made that only 25% of the keyspace was tested. >"Unfortunately, most people today... Unfortunately some companies depend on BS to sell products. Glad to see C2Net is no different, [Rest of the noise removed] You should have given credit to DESCHALL whose effort is be applauded.

7 7

DES is dead. RC5 is next.
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Now that a stake has finally been put through the heart of DES, let's all join in breaking RC5-56. See my signature for details. Thanks for you help, --Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. DES is dead! Please join in breaking RC5-56. http://rc5.distributed.net/

2 2

PGP 5.0 source shipped to Europe!
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Unknown Cypherpunks shipped the PGP 5.0 source to Europe. http://www.ifi.uio.no/pgp/pgp50.shtml See the source books! Read the shipping label! Trace the package! --SourceMonger

1 0

Re: INFORMATION
by David Downey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----Original Message Follows---- >From owner-cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net Wed Jun 18 23:17:57 1997 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by sirius.infonex.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id WAA08563 for cypherpunks-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:25:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from cpunks@localhost) by sirius.infonex.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id WAA08541 for cypherpunks(a)infonex.com; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:25:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rigel.cyberpass.net (root(a)rigel.infonex.com [206.170.114.3]) by sirius.infonex.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA08529 for <cpunks(a)sirius.infonex.com>; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:24:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by rigel.cyberpass.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA29918 for <cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net>; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:23:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id VAA09031 for cypherpunks-unedited-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:30:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kim.teleport.com (kim.teleport.com [192.108.254.26]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA09026 for <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:30:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kluge (ip-pdx38-11.teleport.com [204.202.160.13]) by kim.teleport.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA07841; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:17:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19970618221325.01cf2b00(a)mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: alano(a)mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 b4 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:13:25 -0700 To: twinsvideo(a)infosel.net.mx From: Alan Olsen <alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com> Subject: Re: INFORMATION Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com In-Reply-To: <Chameleon.970618185549.twinsvideo(a)infosel.infosel.net.mx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Alan Olsen <alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com> X-List: cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net X-Loop: cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net At 06:46 PM 6/18/97 PDT, twinsvideo(a)infosel.net.mx wrote: > >donn't think that i'm lame or somthin' but i realy need information on how to hack so, could you please tell me how to hack >and what do i need in order to hack. I suggest really strong turkish cigarettes. Smoke them constantly and soon you will be hacking before you know it. >don't worry i won't get into trouble. Depends on the age of tobacco purchace in your state. You might have to get into High School before trying the above method. >please hurry it's urgent. That is what they all say... =================================================================== Hacking is something that you learn on your own. While there are a few folks that will show you the ropes, you have to learn on your own. Knowledge is precious, and even more so when you gain it through your own bllod sweat and tears. I hope you really mean hacking, and NOT cracking. There are many of us in the hacking community that are ticked off because the media and the government have lumped us hackers in with the Crackers. Crackers are folks that enter systems for no other reason that malicous damage of systems and vital infromation. These folks are usually punk kids out to romp around Cyberspace doing damage for kicks. There are professional crackers but are usually hired by governments and major corporations for either "NAtional Security" reasons or plain old Corporate espianage. Hackers on the other hand, are folks that believe in the free exchange and flow of information, and yearn for knowledge. While they occationally do break into systems, it is usually only for the challenge of doing so and NOT with the intent of causing damage. Most hackers that enter systems, will usually clean up after themselves after merely looking around the system for awhile just to see what is there with no intent to cause harm, only making modifications to logs and passwd files to clear traces of their entry. They NEVER damage files intentionally and that is a MAJOR no no with most folks in the real hacking community. Some hackers even go so far as to tell they System Administrators of the systems they enter that they did so, and how they did it so the Admins may plug the holes. Unfortunately, the government and the media have placed us within the same catagories as the Darksiders. I, for one, do hope you are a hacker and not trying to become a cracker. --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Recipient Anonymity
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Matt Ghio wrote: > A group of servers collects messages of equal length for anonymous > recipients. All servers exchange messages so that each has copies of all > messages. > > A recipient wishes to retrieve a message from the servers without any > server knowing which message he is receiving. The recipient selects a > group of n servers. From each server, S_1...S_n-1, he requests a random > selection of messages, with a 50% probability that any particular message > will be selected. The server returns the xor of all messages requested. > He sends the final server a request which is the xor of all the previous > requests and the one single message that he wants. > > The xor of all the responses is the desired message. It is impossible to > determine which message was received unless all servers collude. So what you're saying is: - Messages - A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Server 1: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 Server 2: 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Server 3: 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 So server 1 sends back the xor of messages A,C,D,F...Z; server 2 sends back the xor of B,C,E,F,G...etc. The xor of all of that cancels out everything except Message Q. But as long as at least one of the servers doesn't keep logs then nobody will know that except the person who downloaded it. Clever. It sure beats reply-blocks. :)

1 0

Courts strike down New York and Georgia Net-censorship laws
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:48:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Courts strike down New York and Georgia Net-censorship laws Two Federal courts ruled today in separate decisions that state laws in New York and Georgia restricting speech on the Internet are unconstitutional. In a 62-page ruling, Judge Loretta Preska of Manhattan's Federal district court struck down a New York state Net-censorship law that restricted online material that might be "harmful to minors," saying that a single state couldn't pass laws that apply to the entire Internet. "The Internet may well be the premiere technological innovation of the present age," Preska said. "Judges and legislators faced with adapting existing legal standards to the novel environment of cyberspace struggle with terms and concepts that the average American five-year old tosses about with breezy familiarity." In Georgia, Judge Marvin Shoob ruled that a state law forbidding anonymity online is unconstitutional since it violates free speech and free association rights. The law is so broadly written, the judge indicated, that even America Online screen names could be considered illegal. This represents a stunning victory for the American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org/) which filed both lawsuits. Judge Shoob "understood clearly the very strong need for our plaintiffs to communicate anonymously," the ACLU's Ann Beeson says. Both judges issued preliminary injunctions barring the state attorneys general from enforcing the laws. But the rulings differ in important ways. Manhattan's Judge Preska did not answer whether the New York law violated the First Amendment, saying she was going to wait for the U.S. Supreme Court's to rule on the Communications Decency Act. She said, however, that she didn't *need to answer* that question to strike down the law since it violated the U.S. Constitution's ban on states attempts to regulate commerce outside their borders. This is an vital point: The court ruled that no state, no matter how hard the legislators try, generally can regulate "indecent" or "harmful to minors" material online. "I cannot stretch enough the importance of this conclusion," Beeson says. These rulings mean that the ACLU's attempts to strike down other state Net-censorship laws -- and around two dozen states have passed or are considering such measures -- will be a virtual slam dunk. Georgia's Judge Shoob, in a shorter 21-page opinion, ruled that the law -- that the Democrat-controlled legislature passed in haste last year to muzzle a dissident Republican representative -- violated the First Amendment. This echoes a recent Supreme Court case, McIntyre v. Ohio, in which the justices ruled that the right to anonymity extends beyond political speech; that requiring someone to add their name to a leaflet is unconstitutional; that writing can be more effective if the speaker's identity is unknown. Next stop: The Supreme Court, which is almost certain to rule on the CDA next week... -Declan More info on the Georgia lawsuit: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,590,00.html More info on the New York state lawsuit: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,532,00.html http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,811,00.html

3 8

Re: E-Cash
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May is another loser who pays for got.net because he lacks the mental capacity to gain net access as a perk of either employment or academic achievment. ((__)) Tim May (00) (o__o)

3 2