December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Don't lie to the marketers or Feds! from ZDNET
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/print/971215/264108.html >For Social Security Number, the EPIC page recommends using >a number, which won't be reprinted here, used on "sample" >cards decades ago. The figuring: "Most clerks probably >won't recognize it as a fake" and it won't interfere with >other Social Security numbers. > >For addresses, the EPIC page suggests using hometown parks, >city halls and police stations. It specifically suggests >the address of Comiskey Park in Chicago. Makes one wonder >how White Sox officials feel about the prospect of getting >extra junk mail and spam really destined for disciples of >EPIC's peculiar freedom of information act. What crime >against the common good did Jerry Reinsdorf commit except >to sign Albert Belle to an ungodly contract undermining >baseball owner solidity against rising salaries? > >For telephone numbers, the recommendation is >1-202-224-3121. That turns out to be the switchboard of the >U.S. Congress. If this is intended to send some sort of >message to solons about the loss of control of personal >information, it's likely to be wholly lost. The only people >it will punish are operators handling incoming calls at the >Capitol. They will only regard the extra calls as more >wrong number calls they have to handle. They will have no >way to figure out that this is some sort of subgrassroots >effort to gum up the works. And they will certainly have no >way to provide statistics to Congress on the result. > >The EPIC page is, in that last case, urging Americans to >waste taxpayer dollars, for no clear purpose. > >On a larger scale, the EPIC document only exacerbates the >issue it tries to solve. The answer to the loss of control >of personal information on the Internet is not to >contribute instead to a boom in unreliable data. >

2 1

Disection of Politics
by Douglas Decicco 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There is that word "FREE" which has a scope similar to the other massively abused word "LOVE". As far as I'm concerned the term "FREE WORLD" is as ambiguous as the sentence "I LOVE YOU." Sometimes people mean by freedom that the government penalizes those who impinge upon the civil rights of others or the attitude of the people under that government tends to uphold such civil rights willingly because of the prevalent ideology of that social group. This freedom is important to me, and why I am grateful to have been born into this century under a fairly civil-minded constitutional government. When it comes to monopoly issues it is not civil freedom that is under question, not the rights of free speech, belief system, assembly or the simple choices of spouse or educational objective. It is the right to secure control over hoards of assets that is in question. I think that successful business people who seek monopolous control are actually sick with an insecurity which underlies their apparent love of money. It is clear to me that even though the human mind does not appear to be up to motivating itself for the good of the whole which many of the non-free-enterprise economic systems have proposed, free enterprise has many deficiencies. It is inefficient and it encourages lack of humility, greed, theft, dishonesty and, above all, gluttony. Take a walk through a shopping area in a Christmas-celebrating country at this time of year and just watch. People are buying hoards of useless items. The fallacious conjecture is that this "stimulates the economy". No, it distracts the workforce from work that could benefit people in meaningful ways. The reason I believe in the dissemination of cryptographic technology and mailing lists like this one is that it assists the continuance freedom of speech, a freedom which invites me to practice restraint and exercise responsibility. I am torn between joy over Internet communication and disgust in the ugly creatures that free-enterprise has nourished while funding this communication mode. When I find myself reading the manipulative legal statements of any of the large corporations I loath myself for being so willing to purchase their products, even if it pays my bills.

2 1

Re: Hate speech and censorship
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I can warmly recommend Cyberpass. Cyberpass does not censor political speech. They provide anonymous accounts to a considerable low price. The connection is telnet with a UNIX shell and SSH support. Cyberpass is a division of Infonex InterNet Services. They have a policy "Go and get a court order" which is very unusual. They already host the OSTARA domain www.ostara.org containing stupid nazi propaganda. Others I could mention are Concentric Network Corporation and Panix - Public Network Corporation and Webcom. http://www.cyberpass.net http://www.cris.com http://www.concentric.net http://www.webcom.com. I am sure there are others who do not censor. But these are those I trust most. Most ISPs are more concerned about pornography than hate speech.

8 15

Automatic Translations
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just discovered an amazing, wonderful service which translates text into and from various European languages. Samples included here, of this text. Ich entdeckte gerade ein Überraschen, wundervollen Service, den Text in und von den verschiedenen europäischen Sprachen übersetzt. Proben hier umfaßt, von diesem Text. J'ai juste découvert stupéfier, le service merveilleux dans lequel traduit le texte et de diverses langues européennes. Échantillons inclus ici, de ce texte. Ho scoperto appena uno stupore, servizio meraviglioso in cui traduce il testo e dalle varie lingue comunitarie. Campioni inclusi qui, di questo testo. Acabo de descubrir sorprender, el servicio maravilloso en el cual traduce el texto y de varios lenguajes europeos. Muestras incluidas aquí, de este texto. The URL is http://babelfish.altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/translate? For a more challenging series, here's the following Cypherpunkish text translated into a language, back into English, then into another language, etc., just to see what sorts of interesting things happen. (I mistyped "here" as "hear," through inattention, and this will screw up some of the translations still further...oh well.) Cypherpunks write code. Crypto anarchy. Big Brother Inside. We're from the government, and we're hear to help. National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway. Abandon all hope, all ye who enter here. The tentacles of Medusa are torturing my mind. What have you got to hide? Cypherpunks schreiben Code. Schlüsselanarchy. Grosser Bruder Nach innen. Wir sind von der Regierung, und wir sind hören, um zu helfen. Nationale Ränder sind nicht gleichmäßige Geschwindigkeitsstösse auf der Informationsautobahn. Verlassen Sie alle Hoffnung, alles ye, das hier eintragen. Die tentacles der Medusa quälen meinen Verstand. Was haben Sie erhalten, zu verstecken? Cypherpunks write code. Schluesselanarchy. Large brother inward. We are from the government, and we are hear, in order to help. National edges are not even rate impacts on the information motorway. Leave all hope, all ye, which enter here. Those the tentacles Medusa torment mean understanding. What did you receive to hide? Cypherpunks écrivent le code. Schluesselanarchy. Grand frère centripète. Nous sommes du gouvernement, et nous sommes entendons, afin d'aider. Les bords nationaux ne sont pas des impacts égaux de cadence sur l'autoroute de l'information. Laissez tout l'espoir, tout le ye, qui entrent ici. Ceux la compréhension moyenne de torment de méduse de tentacles. Qu'avez-vous reçu pour cacher? Cypherpunks write the code. Schluesselanarchy. Big centripetal brother. We are government, and we sums hear, in order to help. The national edges are not equal impacts of rate on the motorway of information. Leave all the hope, all the ye, which enters here. Those the average comprehension of torment of jellyfish of tentacles. What did you receive for hiding? Cypherpunks scrive il codice. Schluesselanarchy. Fratello centripeto grande. Siamo governo e sommiamo ci sentiamo, per aiutare. I bordi nazionali non sono effetti uguali del tasso sull' autostrada delle informazioni. Lasciare tutta la speranza, tutto il ye, che entra qui. Quelli comprensione media del torment delle meduse dei tentacles. Che cosa avete ricevuto per nascondersi? Cypherpunks writes the code. Schluesselanarchy. Large centripetal brother. We are government and we add we feel ourselves, in order to help. The national edges are not equal effects of the rate on the freeway of the information. To leave all the hope, all the ye, that it enters here. That medium understanding of the torment of the jellyfishes of the tentacles. Which thing you have received for nascondersi? Cypherpunks escreve o código. Schluesselanarchy. Irmão centripetal grande. Nós somos governo e nós adicionamos-nos sentimo-nos, a fim ajudar. As bordas nacionais não são efeitos iguais da taxa no freeway da informação. Para deixar toda a esperança, todo o ye, que entra aqui. Essa compreensão média do torment das medusas dos tentacles. Que coisa que você recebeu para o nascondersi? Cypherpunks writes the code. Schluesselanarchy. Great centripetal brother. We are government and us we add ourselves we feel ourselves, the end to help. The national edges are not equal effect of the tax in freeway of the information. To leave all the hope, all ye, that it enters here. This average understanding of torment of the jellyfishes of tentacles. That thing that you received for nascondersi? Cypherpunks escribe el código. Schluesselanarchy. Gran hermano centrípeto. Somos gobierno y nosotros nos agregamos que nos sentimos, el extremo para ayudar. Los bordes nacionales no son efecto igual del impuesto en la autopista sin peaje de la información. Para dejar toda la esperanza, todo el ye, que entra aquí. Esta comprensión media del torment de las medusas de tentacles. Esa cosa que usted recibió para el nascondersi? Cypherpunks writes the code. Schluesselanarchy. Great centripetal brother. We are government and we added ourselves that we felt, the end to help. The national edges are not equal effect of the tax in the freeway without toll of the information. In order to leave all the hope, all ye, that enters here. This average understanding of torment of medusas of tentacles. That thing that you received for nascondersi? ---and so on--- I like some of the new versions better! "Great centripetal brother" indeed! And this definition for the 1998 tax code: "The national edges are not equal effect of the tax in the freeway without toll of the information." Not surprisingly, once a translation picked a word not in the reverse translation, as with "Schluesselanarchy" and "nascondersi," the word then persisted in later attempts at translation. A kind of fixed point for the cycle. Anyway, this was a lot of fun. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

4 3

Why Linux Users Support Microsoft
by David Miller 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim wrote: >Over the years I've sometimes joined in on the jokes about Microsoft and >Bill Gates...the jokes about the Borg, assimilation, and the habits of >Gates. And I've lately really enjoyed the "Saturday Night Live" skits >involving Bill Gates interrupting the Pope to announce that Microsoft >has merged with Christmas, and so on. That last skit was lame ass -- I like the monkey-boy ones. > Anyway, the recent government actions against Microsoft are reprehensible > to any person who values liberty. Microsoft is being punished for its > success. No shit. I've been fighting the 'free-thinking' Linux crowd for weeks on this. Just because MSFT sucks is no reason for the gov to start this shit. If MSFT sucks, they should be brought to court on those charges, and not because everyone in the world was stupid enough to use their OS. Further, just becuase MSFT sucks is no reason to give the gov the power to regulate software content. Jesus christ, get out of my pants. > Making jokes about Bill Gates is one thing, just harmless fun. But > advocating the Men with Guns (TM) seize control of the products he offers > to uncoerced customers is simply wrong. Yes. This is not a case of "biting the hand that Fed you." It is a case of government power to control a free market. I don't fear Bill Gates, I fear the gov. Who will you fear in 20 years? Linus? Give me a break. --David Miller Windows '95, a dirty, two-bit operating system.

1 0

RE: ECB, CBC, CFB, OFB
by Johnson, Michael P (Mike) 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Somebody asked: >>Can somebody more experienced than I am explain the strengths and weaknesses >>of these encryption modes as applied to CAST, IDEA, DES, and Blowfish? > >> ecb Electronic codebook mode >> c[i] = f1(K, p[i]) >> p[i] = f2(K, c[i]) This is the weakest mode. Patterns in the plain text tend to cause repeated blocks in the output, causing some information leakage. This mode is really only suitable if you have exactly one block or less to encrypt or if random access at the block level is critical. An error in the ciphertext or plaintext only affects one block, as long as bit count integrity is maintained. >> cbc Ciphertext block chaining mode >> c[i] = f1(K, p[i]) ^ c[i-1] >> p[i] = f2(K, c[i]) ^ c[i-1] This is good at preventing information leakage. A one bit error in the ciphertext causes a one block error in the plain text => reasonable balance between tamper detection and error resistance. This mode is commonly used. >> cfb Ciphertext feeback mode >> c[i] = f1(K, c[i-1]) ^ p[i] >> p[i] = f1(K, c[i-1]) ^ c[i] This is good at preventing information leakage. A one bit error in the ciphertext causes a one bit error in the plain text => good for use in high noise environments where error detection and correction is (inexplicably) not used and tamper detection is not as critical. Doesn't require a decryption mode, so a hash function like SHA1 could be used in this mode instead of a general block cipher. >> ofb Output feeback mode >> h[i] = f1(K, h[i-1]) >> c[i] = p[i] ^ h[i] >> p[i] = c[i] ^ h[i] This mode essentially turns a block cipher into a stream cipher without feedback. It must be used with the same caution as such a cipher. In other words, the same stream should not be reused, but a new starting point (initialization vector = h[-1]) and/or key should be chosen for each message. No padding or data size expansion is necessary. Several other modes are possible... For really slow performance, you can try some kind of key feedback. :-) K[i] = K[i-1] ^ p[i-1] or maybe K[i] = e(K[i-1], K[i-2]) c[i] = e(K[i], p[i]) p[i] = d(K[i], c[i]) Caution: bizarre modes may not be well analyzed... although I think some key feedback modes have merit when you are trying to slow an attacker down. They might really mess up specialized cracking hardware. :-)

5 4

Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendment
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tuesday I stopped by the Freedom Forum's conference, where they released a report on the state of the First Amendment. It's worth checking out: http://www.freedomforum.org/newsstand/reports/sofa/intro.asp Each day of this nation's life, in meetings of school boards, library boards, city councils, state legislatures, and Congress itself, figures of respect and renown rise on behalf of a supportive public and proclaim, "I believe in the First Amendment, but" Each such announcement precedes a proposal to regulate our speech in order to elevate our lives. And so we have one of the more equisite ironies of a freedom-loving society: Americans truly believe they believe in free speech. Still, there is always that "but," that qualification of their commitment to the rights and values embedded in those 45 words of the First Amendment. In survey after survey, Americans stand steadfast in support of the general notion of free speech. In the particulars, however, we waver. When asked to countenance the very speech the First Amendment was drawn to protectthe speech of the radical, the rascal, even the revoltingwe become unsure. We do believe in free speech for ourselves, but for the most part we are not so sure about others, especially those whose words offend our taste, threaten our children, or challenge our convictions. Also at the conference: http://www.freedomforum.org/first/1997/12/16sofa.asp Keynote speaker Keen Umbehr told the audience that he lost his job, his community and even family and friends during his First Amendment battle with the county commission in Wabaunsee County, Kansas. Umbehr, who had a contract to haul the county's trash, also wrote editorials for the local newspaper, often alleging violations of law and other misconduct by the county commission. "What I wrote was true, and I could back it up," Umbehr said. "I believed that my constitutional rights were live and real, waiting to be activated. I felt that writing articles and speaking out about the government not only was my right, it was my duty to speak the truth, regardless of the fact that my whole livelihood was based on that county contract." The county terminated his contract in retaliation for his articles. Umbehr sued, and the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 1996 the court upheld Umbehr's free-speech rights. "The troops on the front lines of the First Amendment fight desperately need some help," Umbehr told the audience of attorneys, scholars and experts. "You have the knowledge in here, and they need it out there." -Declan

12 29

Re: Frank Olson
by Bruce Balden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At that time, snail mail was pretty safe even from the spooks (with certain precautions). So what's your point? If the military-industrial complex wants to ruin your life, it's the guns and fences and dogs that ultimately tell the story, cause your unbreakable cipher to be compromised yourself under truth drugs, etc. The bureaucractic mess surrounding key recovery would probably make most spooks look for much more low-tech methods of compromising your security. -----Original Message----- From: Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> Date: Saturday, December 20, 1997 3:15 PM Subject: Frank Olson >I just saw a very interesting story on the Discovery Channel. > >In 1953 the US was actively pursuing bio warfare (a subject of current >interest to me). Frank Olson was a good bacteriologist working for the gubmint >(NIH?), in close contact with the CIA. One night he attended a work-related >party, where everyone acted strangely; the next day, he a) decided to resign >his job, b) discussed his classified bio warfare work with people on his car >pool. But the gubmint didn't accept his resignation and instead sent him to >NYC for a psychiatric evaluation. He was sharing a hotel room with a CIA >employee, who claims that he was woken up the sound of breaking glass: Frank >Olson supposedly jumped out the window. > >In 1975 it was revealed that at the party the attendees were given LSD without >their concent as part of a CIA experiment, which is why everyone was acting >strangely. Pres Ford issued an official apology to Olson's family and gave >them $750,000 in compensation. > >Now there's a new twist. In 1953, the gubmint insisted that Olson be buried in >a closed casket, claiming he had cuts and bruises on his face. The family >never saw him. In 1994 his son has the body exhumed and re-examined. There >were no cuts and bruises, but forensic evidence suggests very strongly that he >was hit with something over the head and then thrown out the window. The NYC >DA has now started a murder investigation. > >This has little crypto relevance, except for the bio warfare angle, and the >question: do you want these guys to have access to your cryptographic keys? > >--- > >Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM >Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

3 2

Sue Congress?...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. [Clearly congressmen are responsible for their actions while in office since they are civil officers. It looks like all it should take to remove a civil officer is a misdemeanor such as speeding.] Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; -- to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; -- to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; -- to Controversies between two or more States; -- between a State and Citizens of another State; -- between Citizens of different States; -- between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States; -- and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. [Note that there is no federal jurisdiction for sueing your own representatives at the federal level since they are citizens of your own state, however you *can* sue the representatives of the *other* 49 states for their actions and that *is* a federal level case] In all Cases, affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. [Clearly any such claims *must* be at the level of the Supreme Court since they hold original jurisdiction, further there doesn't seem to be any mechanism they can refuse to handle the case] The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. [Since the breaking of the oath to uphold the Constitution while a representative is a impeachable offence no jury is required. Once the case is before the Supreme Court then the Congress is required to set the time and date] The question of the day is: How does one go about submitting a case directly to the Supreme Court? The Constitution apparently leaves this up to the Supreme Court to decide in its rules of operation. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Sue Congress?... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 23:54:15 -0500 > From: David Miller <dm0(a)avana.net> > Subject: Re: Sue Congress?... > > The question of the day is: > > > > How does one go about submitting a case directly to the Supreme Court? The > > Constitution apparently leaves this up to the Supreme Court to decide in its > > rules of operation. > > In large part, yes. It is up to the Court's sole discretion whether or > not they > will hear a case. I believe that all cases they hear are appeals. I'm > pretty > sure you can't just go to the Supreme Court, but must follow due > process... The quotes from the Constitution, which you apparently didn't read, clearly indicate that the role of the Supreme Court is more than a simple appeals court. Further, while they may refuse to hear appeals, hence confirming the lower courts ruling with a supreme stamp of approval, there is *nothing* in the Constitution and hence their rules that allows them to refuse to accept cases where they are the only Constitutional jurisdiction, such as impeachment proceedings of Congressmen relating to un-constitutional actions that may result in their impeachment. Once the case is submitted to the Supreme Court then Congress, not the SC, chooses the place and time. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0