December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Clinton's Bigger Gun Ban
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/29/97 8:08 PM, Tim May (tcmay(a)got.net) passed this wisdom: >The Klinton Klan has already effectively banned imported SKS ammo >(7.62x29, as I recall, given that I don't have any rifles >chambering this popular round). > --- >Before you rush to correct me, I _meant_ to write "7.62x39" of >course. > >(A round used by the Chinese, Soviet, and East Bloc nations, and >roughly equivalent to the American M-16 round, known either as the >.223 or 5.56mm. The NATO "7.62" is in a longer case length. >7.62x54, as I recall. Known in America as .308. If I remember right they were able to do this because the only ammo available for 7.62x39 is from the Chinese and uses steel core projectiles not lead. Then when Olympic Arms came out with the cutdown weapon chambered for 7.62x39 it was able to be banned uder a regualtion banning "armor piercing ammo that could be used in a handgun." One thing though, 7.62x39 really could not be compared to the 5.56 NATO, its really more potent out to 2-300 meters; it is still a .30 cal vs 5.56 NATOs .223, but its far less potent than 7.62 NATO (7.62x54). The 7.62x39 was the standard caliber of ComBloc weapons for several decades, most specifically the AK-47, AKM-44 (sniper weapon), and SKS carbine. I think the Dragunov sniper system used a more potent cartridge. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNFyiGMdZgC62U/gIEQJ62gCfbBu3uY42gRThKwxyi1I/uDm6pAwAoMkl GuTW74QapGZbXo/kGN4KokYM =qkl4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "Bacon and eggs: A days work for a chicken; a lifetime commitment for a pig"

3 2

Washington Times: "FCC wants to extend V chip to computers"
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Front page: "Not content to monitor the progrom on your television set, the FCC now wants to install a vchip in your personal computer -- a move that could extend the agency's reach into cyberspace... "Lawmakers said the vchip law was intended only for TV sets..." "Some question whether this will lead to FCC regulation of the Internet..." Dave Banisar, Rep. Tauzin, Ed Black make appearances. -Declan

2 1

Re: Remailer hating Nazis (was Re: The BIG Lie (Jesus Confesses))
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous <anon(a)anon.efga.org> wrote: >> > If so, then burn in hell, Nazi scum-sucking weasel! >> > >> Ditto for Paul Pomes and Gary Burnore. > >I'm familiar with the role of Gary Burnore <gburnore(a)netcom.com> and that >of his DataBasix associates Belinda Bryan <eridani(a)ix.netcom.com> and Billy >McClatchie (aka "Wotan") <wmcclatc(a)primenet.com> in getting the Mailmasher >and Huge Cajones remailers shut down. Jeff Burchell posted a public >expose' of their harassment to Usenet back in June, apparently catching the >DataBasix folks off-guard. But what's the story with Paul Pomes? What has >he done? Paul Pomes was complaining about Jeff Burchell's huge cajones remailer to Jeff Burchell's upstream and employers about the same time the rest of the Databasix gang was doing it. Paul Pomes appears to be a part of the Databasix gang. >Perhaps the best thing that can be done with people like Burnore is to put >together an FAQ about their tactics, similar to what his "fans" have done >for the "Rev." Steve Winter. Then when Burnore tries to stir up trouble by >first fabricating anonymous "abuse" and then demanding that it either be >stopped and the culprit(s) identified (knowing in advance that's >impossible), or else that the remailer be shut down, someone can forward >that FAQ to the remailer's upstream provider, or whoever is being pressured >to pull the plug. And if Paul Pomes engages in the same dishonest tactics, >that needs to be done with him as well. Gary Burnore had a mongo page at http://www.netscum.net/burnorg0.html. So did Paul Pomes, Belinda Bryan, and the rest of the Databasix gang. Too bad it's down for now, but it'll be back.

2 1

A Legal Strategy
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Let's say you are James Joyce and you are writing "Ulysses" on your nice little Linux machine. Because you fear persecution, you use encrypted virtual disks. Because you are clever, you have ten such disks. One contains your drafts of "Ulysses", four contain harmless information, and five contain noise. The jack booted thugs kick down your door and drag you to jail. The Judge orders you to produce the pass phrases of all the disks or be penalized for contempt of court. Now, you are in an interesting situation. You can't give the passwords for half of the disks, but you are unable to prove this. This means you have nothing to gain by giving the pass phrase to the "Ulysses" disk - you will always be seen as holding out. Even if you convince the Judge that some of the disks are noise, you have no reason not to include the "Ulysses" disk in this set. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNF1945aWtjSmRH/5AQGEMQf/Rv6ZMLV/Jw9lnKa2p9QjDd3L3oukDfL7 X/WEA4MpNJ80AHLfL9yro58iElJe8hSN0Ld6T56Cusw32numtO10du553ACTzeWP 6ktMokhKfsHFbmzbGu2U/ajlymEU3CwcD8sBkEJlCJ6J1E57jTaPpaxn6dPjak9p EmSQD3LoI9C/soacZOJPbNoMu2WA9Xb+tQ+RDfwU2jkZnqjdjLt0WKz2GpiMA3EY fQ2p69U0nKICyS/r7l8hM5aVMihxuexY7w1BNCKVSKIjGO+K0Niqz/APj782hKfy 3O1LHOmxcqVtxOTIZ9c1P8mSYpN/E4My8vcen9bp8a5GBzkIeVdQTQ== =RpFf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: democracy?! (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 22:06:03 GMT > From: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> > Subject: Re: democracy?! > > Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> writes: > > What is a reasonable summary? Reasonable to who? What 'lot' of > > democracies? > > This is getting kind of repetitive. I agree, I keep asking for your examples and proof and you keep avoiding providing them. You should consider being a politician or a lawyer. It's a real pity you can't seem to approach this discussion in good faith and with a sense of open analysis. > Perhaps you could provide a > counter example to disprove my claim that democracies result in more > petty privacy and freedom invasive laws than would be the case with a > pure market anarchy Pure market anarchy? What the hell is a pure market? I know what a free market is. Define it first. Explain how it, without an explicit bill of rights, will protect my rights? Explain how we don't end up with a Microsoft that owns everything which effectively reduces to a commercial communism? Where are my 'exit' choices then? What in the world would motivate such an entity to provide me with the resources to be a direct competitor, something clearly not in its best interest for long-term survival? How will others learn the technology and its applications outside the purvue of these economic regulatory entities. The unlimited expansion of the rail-roads in the 1800's is a excellent simili for comparison for both what such a system would be like as well as the major problems it *doesn't* address. Taminy Hall ring any bells? There was a free market political system if there ever was one; pay me and I'll do it for you, don't and you can freeze in hell. A more modern example is the history of the telecommunications companies which even after being broken up have now re-combined so that we in effect only have 3 domestic tel-comm providers, and they are discussing how to combine their resources. Further explain why such a system will guarantee that my views will at least be addressed at some level and not relegated a priori to a trash-heap because it goes against the market analysis of some bunch of bean-counters? Who do I go to for resolution of claims against these entities, the self-same entities? You call that justice, equality, or even representation? Explain why and how such a economic based system will guarantee my right to free speech or even to run a small business which I currently do when it is clear that I am in open competition with the very entities which provide me the resources to make the money? What is the economic motivation for the resource controlling entities to support my freedoms when it reduces their income? Explain how your system prevents economic black-balling? Another implication is that we will see more of the sort of business stategies implimented by PGP Inc. (for example) where they want a percentage of your income *without* accepting a percentage of the risk, economic tyrany is tyrany just the same. What recourse do I have if the monopolies which arise in such a system decide that the services or resources I need won't be provided? Am I then supposed to just calmly accept becoming some prole for some zaibatsu? What happens when those monopolies decide that if they work together they can further streamline the market, and my going to church or taking a vacation goes against those business requirements? It sounds like you are supporting Hirshleifer who says: "The mere fact of low income under anarchy... of itself provides no clear indication as to what is likely to happen next." [Personly, Hirshleifer is an idiot who apparently doesn't hang out on the wrong side of the tracks and therefore has no clue as to what motivates the poor or stupid.] Which in effect breaks down into one of two results for individuals (which all free market anarchists admit openly) who don't have sufficient income to buy their indipendance and their say: 1. they devote a great deal of effort to fighting to gain control over resources. or 2. they capitulate to some other party and turn over their resources for food and shelter. History would argue that people will accept neither of these as a solution to day-to-day living. Economists should stay out of politics. It's one of the reasons that at no point in either the Declaration of Indipendance or the Constitution that businesses are given rights are even given consideration except in regards of taxation of inter-state commerce. People should have seperation of government and religion and that includes the worship of wealth. > (perhaps old Iceland would be a suitable anarchy > to consider as a comparison). If it's so damn good how come it doesn't exist anymore? If it provided such a superior governmental system providing the maximum return on investment why did it go away? Why did they instead elect to go with a king? Futher, explain how such an anarchic system can be expanded without demonstrating the exact same sorts of scaling problems consensual democracies such as ancient Greek ran into? It's one thing to rule a few 10's of thousands of people who are related, share world-models and have limited resources and quite another to rule 4+ Billion people who speak hundreds if not thousands of languages and concommittent cultural beliefs? > Do you have a democracy in mind which > doesn't result in lots thought crimes and other "crimes" which are so > far removed from normal free market schelling points. It's just a > natural tendency of a democracy. Thought crimes and such are not a result of any political system but a result of the psychology of people. Please be so kind as to demonstrate (along with my previous questions I am still waiting on) how a political system effects the basic psychological development of the participants. Further, explain how the belief in the resolving power of money is any different than the resolving power of Buddha? You seem to be claiming that if we pray to the all mighty dollar all will be right with the world. > > > But they do share a characteristic: > > > distortions of free market in the form of voting for theft and > > > redistribution of other peoples money leading to annoying government > > > micro-management, and general do-gooder busy-body-ness, and the many > > > laws on thought crimes. > > > > Again, demostrate your assertion(s). > > > > Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? > > Who? What? Current democracices. When? Now. Why? Market > distortion. How? Politicians brokering legalised mass theft and > market distortion for game theoretic reasons. You seriously expect any reasonable person to be satisfied with such a side-step? And in case you hadn't realized it, the entire concept of free-market is a result of those same game theories. Are you claiming that such free market based systems will abandon game theory when it clearly provides insight into how those free markets operate? > > > Your constitution says you can own and carry > > > guns; your politicians and law enforcement increasingly say that you > > > can not. Your response to my saying that is that _I_ don't understand > > > the constitution? > > > > No, my responce is prove your assertions. > > You prove your assertion: are you saying there are no gun controls in The simply fact that one has a constitution that guarantees certain rights is *not* a guarantee that others won't find those rights threatening and want to take them away (see Hirshleifer's two alternatives above). And your assertion is that if we go to a free market anarchy then we no longer have to worry about anyone telling us what we can and can't do? Please be so kind as to demonstrate why a free market anarchy will prohibit monopolistic organizations who would be just as threatened by armed individuals as any other centralized organization? > > Explain to me why you believe these are valid views > > because they are a statement of readily observable reality? Where do I observe them? Give examples. Whose reality? Are you seriously claiming that there is one absolute reality? > > What you did say was that back in the old days people ran around > > killing those who bothered them. Which isn't true either. > > That bit was a statement of a belief that few people would be inclined > to invade someones privacy and attempt to impose sanctions for what > they viewed as thought crimes. It takes governments or religions to > do this kind of thing, individuals aren't likely to Governments and religions *ARE* people. There are times where I think you have said the stupidist thing possible and then you keep typing. Individuals are the ones who killed the Jews, put pepper spray in the eyes of demonstrators, and just about everything else that gets done. > > > The point was there were way less laws, and few were telling their > > > neighbours what they could think. > > > > Really? What was the law count say in 1865 versus 1965? 1897 v 1997? > > Demonstrate your point. > > I say: there were less laws in 1897 US than 1997 US. > > Tell me: do you refute that claim? I don't know, never looked at the numbers *AND* it isn't my job to refute it. *IT IS* your job to prove it since it is *YOUR* claim and apparently has some relevance to your thesis' validity. The number of laws at any given time is irrelevant and immaterial to my position (nice attempt at a straw man). It is plain stupidity to make claims and not have a clue as to the reality. I shure as hell won't be asking people to put their lives in my hands unless I could address such issues in a manner that they would feel comfortable with. Gut feelings are almost always wrong. The mere fact that you feel that we should take such claims at face value is a clear indication of what kind of worth you place in others. You believe yourself to be an angel apparently. Oh, and for the record. Studies of deaths during the 1800's indicate that the vast majority were accidental self-inflicted gunshot wounds, far more than the Indians or other 3rd parties inflicted combined. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

4 3

Smartcards - Drivers Licenses in New Jersey
by Robert A. Costner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The New Jersey legislature has announced that they will begin issuing smartcards for driver's licenses. The New license is reported to contain * biographical info * auto insurance info * medical insurance info * health info The cards are also claimed to be capable of carrying * fingerprints * photographic images * health records * billing statements The Capitol Report article and a Web based feedback forum can be found at http://www.cpanj.com/legislative/drivers_license_1196.html -- Robert Costner Phone: (770) 512-8746 Electronic Frontiers Georgia mailto:pooh@efga.org http://www.efga.org/ run PGP 5.0 for my public key

3 2

Major security flaw in Cybercash 2.1.2 (fwd)
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text From: Bob Antia <antia(a)leftbank.com> Subject: Major security flaw in Cybercash 2.1.2 (fwd) To: mjbauer(a)leftbank.com (Michael Bauer), rah(a)shipwright.com Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 10:04:14 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Approved-By: aleph1(a)UNDERGROUND.ORG Message-ID: <f58bccfc52aba91d0973f9bf33160ddd(a)anon.efga.org> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 22:54:16 -0500 Reply-To: Anonymous <anon(a)ANON.EFGA.ORG> Sender: Bugtraq List <BUGTRAQ(a)NETSPACE.ORG> Comments: This message was remailed by a FREE automated remailing service. For additional information on this service, send a message with the subject "remailer-help" to remailer(a)anon.efga.org. The body of the message will be discarded. To report abuse, contact the operator at admin(a)anon.efga.org. Headers below this point were inserted by the original sender. From: Anonymous <anon(a)ANON.EFGA.ORG> Subject: Major security flaw in Cybercash 2.1.2 To: BUGTRAQ(a)NETSPACE.ORG CyberCash v. 2.1.2 has a major security flaw that causes all credit card information processed by the server to be logged in a file with world-readable permissions. This security flaw exists in the default CyberCash installation and configuration. The flaw is a result of not being able to turn off debugging. Setting the "DEBUG" flag to "0" in the configuration files simply has no effect on the operation of the server. In CyberCash's server, when the "DEBUG" flag is on, the contents of all credit card transactions are written to a log file (named "Debug.log" by default). The easiest workaround I've found is to simply delete the existing Debug.log file. In my experience with the Solaris release, the CyberCash software does not create this file at start time when the DEBUG flag is set to 0. The inability to turn off debugging is noted on CyberCash's web site under "Known Limitations". The fact that credit card numbers are stored in the clear, in a world readable file, is not. --jet -b Bob Antia antia(a)leftbank.com The Left Bank Operation, Inc. http://www.leftbank.com TCP/IP Internetworking LAN/WAN/NT/UNIX Admin PGP fingerprint 9B 70 FF 2D 03 CC 5F C1 3E 29 6E D4 16 79 44 A8 --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

1 0

Re: Bay Area Cypherpunks meeting announcement
by Colin Plumb 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Additionally, there will be a release of the PGP 5.0 Unix Specific Source Code Update at the public meeting. -- -Colin

1 0

DO YOU WAGER / GAMBLE ON SPORTS ?
by 99001680＠msn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

MR ACTION HAS THE WINNERS FOR SUNDAY & MONDAY NFL & BASKETBALL GUARANTEED TO WIN !!! UP NOW AT 1-900-484-7777 $18.00 per call Under 18 years of age ?? Don't Call!!! This is a guaranteed pick line. If you do not have a winning day with these selections we will replace the selections or make a refund!!

1 0

Content controls
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Sender: hutchinson(a)click.ncri.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 09:29:04 -0500 To: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> From: hutchinson(a)ncri.com (Art Hutchinson) Subject: Content controls Cc: whgiii(a)invweb.net, dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu Sender: bounce-dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: hutchinson(a)ncri.com (Art Hutchinson) >>>A whole bunch of people are now talking about these cash-settled recursive >>>auction processes, and they're a direct, and now obvious, consequence of >>>bearer (or at least instant) settlement markets for information on geodesic >>>networks. When you add anonymity to the transaction, you pretty much have >>>the final straw for "rights" tracking. Watermarks just tell you who the >>>information was stolen from, for instance. So, one more industrial >>>information process bites the dust. > >>Whoa! Hang on here. Sure, watermarks will tell you who information was >>stolen from, but they're just a stalking horse... a weak second cousin to >>*persistent* content control technologies (such as IBM's Cryptolopes and >>Intertrust's Digiboxes). These allow rightsholders to manage a wide >>range of parameters (including price, usage context, and any other >>variable for which you can imagine having a certificate). Whats >>fundamentally different about what are generically referred to as secure >>envelopes, is that they can maintain controls *indefinitely* >>(persistence), across an un- >>known, ad hoc, web of distribution over which one otherwise has no >>control. And yes, this can all work even in a completely disconnected >>environment (laptop at 35,000 feet). > >>They allow rightsholders, if they so choose, to *continue* being rights- >>holders in a highly networked, digital world, and in a wide range of new >>ways, based on entirely new (or old) business models, that take advantage >>of rich/elaborate conditions for usage (e.g. you can view this picture >>anonymously, but it will cost you 2X as much, and you can only get it at >>low resolution, and you can't view it at all unless you can prove that >>you don't live in the Middle East). No certificate for these conditions? >>Sorry, no content. > >>They are based the same basic stuff (public key cryptography of course) >>that *can* fuel wild anarchic visions of anonymous exchange. ;) > >>But they aren't at all deterministic of any particular economic model. > >Well how exactly does one prevent data from being stolen once it has been >unlocked? I pay my 2X to view the picture anonymously and now I copy it >save it and distribute it worldwide. I fail to see how any >encryption/watermark scheme can prevent me from doing so. The control technologies to which I referred earlier turn the lock/unlock idea into far more than a binary choice. This is what I meant by "persistence". The content cannot be used without its accompanying control set (which again, *might* include payment). Part of the control set I may impose on anonymous viewers could include preventing them from copying or saving the content directly in digital form. This is counter-intuitive to those of us who are used to having cut/paste available at our fingertips in most applications, but its relatively trivial to disable these functions on a file by file basis. Alternatively, I might impose controls that permit anonymous users to see *only* lower reso- lution versions. (by analogy, if you're going to wear a ski mask into a jewelry store, you aren't likely to be shown the expensive stuff - if they let you in the door in the first place). If you were really determined, you could always take a photo of the screen, re-scan it, do some image enhancement to get rid of the graini- ness, re-save it and post it on your web page for all to see, (the so-called digital-to-analog-to-digital work-around), but this is darned inconvenient. Also, try doing that with music or movies.... while avoiding the roving automated net 'bots that will be out looking for illegal copies of content (these are already common). Not worth it. For most people. If it were, we'd already have massive illegal scanning operations in third-world countries, and plenty of demand for their wares. Sure, this exists, and may even grow a bit around the fringes, but this hardly proves the case for a single vision of an anarchic Robin Hood future for all content (Sell today else I rip you off tomorrow!!) As a non-disclosed third party, I'm not at liberty to discuss the 'guts' of either the Crytolope or Digibox technologies (though I have seen them) Both are covered, as you might imagine, by a fairly extensive array of active and pending patents. If you want to learn more, I'd recommend contacting them directly: www.intertrust.com (or their partner, Softbank NetSolutions) www.infomkt.ibm.com Cheers. - Art Art Hutchinson hutchinson(a)ncri.com Northeast Consulting Resources, Inc. phone: (617) 654-0635 One Liberty Square fax: (617) 654-0654 Boston, MA 02160 www.ncri.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Working at the intersection of business and IT strategy to help organizations embrace electronic commerce opportunities" For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "dcsb-request(a)ai.mit.edu" with one line of text: "help". --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

1 0