December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Rincin AP
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forward from Terrorism list: From: JCHV72A(a)prodigy.com (MR JAMES P DENNEY) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 19:45:44, -0500 To: TERRORISM(a)mediccom.org Subject: RICIN ALERT Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement Merced/Mariposa Narcotic Task Force RE: RICIN Alert The Sacramento Regional Office of the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement has offered this alert to all it's personnel: "The following alert has been confirmed and is being shared throughout the law enforcement and intelligence community. This alert advises that nationwide trend among drug traffickers is to "bait" law enforcement officers with a white powder called RICIN. RICIN is a derivative of Castor beans and looks like powder methamphetamine. It is highly toxic and if it contacts human skin, it is fatal. The death process takes several days, depending upon the dosage, and is almost impossible to detect during an autopsy. Forensic experts advise that if you field test RICIN in the Scott Reagent Kit, it will foam and bubble extensively. The test will also produce a gas that is very similar to mustard gas and can also be lethal if inhaled. RICIN is 6,000 times more lethal than cyanide and there is no antidote. Symptoms of contact exposure to RICIN are: Fever, cough, weakness, and hypothermia, progressing to dangerously low blood pressure, heart failure and death. Due to this situation, in the event of suspect drug seziures, do not come into direct skin contact with any powdered substances, and exhibit caution of field testing any powdered substances." We are forwarding this advisory to all California EMS Agencies and recommend that each agency contact the local hospitals in their area. We are unaware if RICIN can be detected on a toxicological exam. There is a potential for someone, other than law enforcement, to become contaminated with this substance. -----

1 0

Re: Ricin AP
by Eric Cordian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous writes: > This alert advises that nationwide trend among drug traffickers is to > "bait" law enforcement officers with a white powder called RICIN. > RICIN is a derivative of Castor beans and looks like powder > methamphetamine. It is highly toxic and if it contacts human skin, it > is fatal. The death process takes several days, depending upon the > dosage, and is almost impossible to detect during an autopsy. Ricin is a ribosome-inactivator, which inhibits protein synthesis at the cellular level by binding to and damaging the 50S ribosomal subunit. This is eventually and irreversibly fatal, although not immediately so, and the symptoms which occur in poisoned individuals are generally misdiagnosed by internists as a wide variety of other ailments. The most famous case of the use of ricin was when Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markow was assasinated by the KGB with an umbrella jab which left a microscopic porous metal sphere tainted with ricin in his leg. He died in agony a number of days later. The lethal dose of ricin in humans is microscopic, and it is a poison of choice in cancer therapy, since it destroys cells and patients are unlikely to have previous immunological exposure to it. It can be bound to monoclonal antibodies, or other carriers, to target only specific cells. > Due to this situation, in the event of suspect drug seziures, do not > come into direct skin contact with any powdered substances, and > exhibit caution of field testing any powdered substances." LOL! Like one should come in contact with ANY unknown chemical substance, powdered or not. Remember that researcher who just died after accidently getting a drop of Dimethyl Mercury on a gloved hand, not to mention the one who got a speck in her eye and succumbed to monkey herpes a couple of weeks later, despite intensive antiviral therapy. And that's not even mentioning other fun things like Thallium, and Organophosphate nerve agents, or the use of cellular penetrators like DMSO as carriers for contact poisons. Ricin isn't the only nasty substance one could use to keep jackbooted thugs out of the marijuana plants. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

1 0

TLS implementations
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Don't you know the place where there is anyone TLS implementations (source code)? Teach to me if it is here because it is known. Thank you very much.

2 1

Deregulation of US Electricity
by iNqwx6tuC＠vers1esv.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

DEREGULATION OF THE U.S ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY IS CREATING A $215 BILLION FINANCIAL OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU! Imagine Utility Savings of 20% - 40%! now imagine being a marketer of those savings and earning a recurring monthly commission on the Utility usage of consumers throughout the country... <<<<< Call 1-800-358-2754 for 24 hr, 1 min message >>>>> __________________________________________________ Effective Jan '98, Electric Utility Monopolies will be dissolved on a State-by-State basis opening a $215 "Billion Dollar" industry to free-market competition. We need independent "Electric Power Marketers" in all 50 States especially California and the Northeast. Build a leveraged, recurring income in as little as 10-15 hours/week. full training and support; minimal start-up; lucrative. New Ground- Floor Opportunity with established international networking giant. Capitalize now on projected $10 Billion in annual revenue. People made millions with deregulation of the Telecommunications Industry. The Electric Utility Industry will be three times the opportunity. <<< Call 1-800-358-2754 for 24 hr, 1 min message >>> (Please do not reply via e-mail. Call our Voicemail and leave your name, telephone number and the best time to call and we will contact you as soon as possible) To be removed, call the above number and SPELL your email address stating you would like to be removed from future mailings.

1 0

Neat quote from Ron Rivest
by Peter trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At the RSA Data Security Conference: "There are probably more people in this room working on crime *prevention* than in the entire Federal Government." -- Ron Rivest quoted (hopefully correctly) by Peter Trei ptrei(a)hotmail.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

Jailhouse Rock
by Sacramento Nutly News 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[SACRAMENTO NUTLY NEWS--byline Chainsaw McCullagh]IN AN EXCLUSIVE interview at the Sacramento County Jail, former UC-Bezerkeley math professor, Theodore "Don't Call Me Teddy" Kaczynski, spoke (on the condition that his anonymity would be preserved) to a Nutly News reportwhore, a drug-smuggling prison guard, and a few inmates sharing a crack pipe in an adjoining cell. "Selective prosecution...", Kaczynski said, pausing to let the Nutly News reportwhore pass the pipe back to the far side of the cell bars, and turn on his tape recorder. "Selective prosecution," TK continued, "will be the basis of the defense I plan to raise." "A defense," he added, "which I expect will help to swing public support over to my side during my trial and subsequent execution." Seeing the skeptical glances exchanged between the reportwhore, the guard, and the crackheads in the adjoining cell, Kaczynski proceeded to explain that the American public was growing increasingly tired of sacrificial lambs being thrown to the prosecutorial wolves on the basis of patently illegal discrimanitory prejudices. "Allowing Bad BillyC in WashDC, To walk free around town, Despite Foster and Brown..." Kaczynski rapped, until noticing the icy glares from the pigmentation criminals in the next cell, then continuing in a normal cadence, "...is one thing, but prosecuting the mother of the fat broad for child abuse, while allowing Karen Carpenter's mother to walk..." The reportwhore and the jail guard, passing the crack pipe back and forth, also passed a glance that confirmed they were beginning to see the true danger involved in allowing TeddyK a legitimate trial. The whole American justice system was based on the outcome of the case being pretty well set in stone by the time it reached a jury, if a trial became unavoidable. The jury rigging process and the pretrial motions were comparable to the bidding in a bridge game, with the actual playing of the cards during the trial being mostly for show. Of course, in high-profile cases that are a must-win for government prosecutors and their behind-the-scenes handlers, the bidding process is mostly to decide how much the defendant's lawyers will be compensated for selling their client quietly down the river. McVeigh's lawyers got $15 million and a guarantee of future government largess, in return for making certain that their client got a defense that most people wouldn't find acceptable if it were their dog that was facing being 'put down' by the Feds. Legal rulings by the judge were geared toward allowing the defense team the freedom to use any tactic or evidence which would not help their client's case, or hurt the government's case. Nichol's trial was geared toward actually allowing the defense team to present a moderately legitimate defense, to preserve the pretense of justice, while risking little chance of justice ultimately triumphing. Kaczynski's trial was slated to be another quick and easy slam-dunk, with the legal eagles moving their playing pieces around in a grand game designed to ensure everyone's future reputation and earning power while maintaining the charade that Truth and Justice still play some minor part in the whole process. The key to the House of Cards known as the American Judicial System, however, is convincing the defendant and/or the public, that the game is not totally rigged from beginning to end. When either the defendant or the jury cannot be controlled, the House of Cards begins tumbling rather rapidly. The key to controlling the defendant is to convince him/her that their legal representatives are sincerely acting in their client's best interest, and are not selling him/her out, in the slightest way, in order to further their career and guarantee not missing their tee-time for their afternoon golf game with the prosecutor. The key to controlling the jury is to make certain that they are not allowed to view any evidence, or hear any point of view, which runs contradictory to the outcome which has been preordained by following 'established legal procedure.' The danger is not in Theodore Kaczynski claiming innocence...the danger is in him questioning why he, McVeigh and Bell are being prosecuted, while Clinton, Nixon and Bush were/are not. The danger is in him asking why the mother of the girl who died of Chatelaine-Incorrect obesiety is a criminal worthy of prosecution, while the mother of the girl who died of BarbieDoll-Approved anorexia is guilty of NoCrime. The danger is in asking why a teenage foreigner was prosecuted for not recognizing the signs of a broken wrist and a cracked skull in a child, while the parents, trained adult physicians, were not. The danger is in TK asking why tobacco executives, known to have participated in the deaths of millions are allowed to buy their way out of prosecution, while TimmyM and TeddyK are not. The danger is in Terrible TeddyK exercising his freedom of speech and raising socially inacceptable questions during defense of his actions. There is not a day that goes by that someone in America does not kill more people than TK ever dreamed of--individuals, government bureaucrats or corporate executives. The danger is not in Kaczynski proclaiming his innocence, the danger is in him saying, "So the fuck what? It's a predatorial universe. I'm a small fry with a large mouth. The average citizen has killed more people than me just by keeping their mouth shut and enjoying their share of the booty from the murders committed by the government and corporations that the sheeple count on to do their stealing for them." The danger is in arch-demon, Terrible TeddyK, being allowed a free voice to demand being tried alongside the US government soldier who fired a burst of taxpayer-supported bullets into the body of a Somalian mother with her baby in her arms, defending her home against assault by armed forces of foreign governments. The danger that Theodore Kaczynski presents is the same danger which James Dalton Bell represented--unfettered free-speech--uncontolled sound-bytes--a non-approved view of reality. The plain fact is that the world-view sold to us by those who control the mainstream media is so far out of whack with reality that it cannot even withstand verbal assault by StinkBombers, let alone UnaBombers. Who is Theodore Kaczynski? He is a man who has murdered fewer people than Winnie Mandela and countless other 'world leaders'. He is a man who has murdered fewer people than your average street gang leader. He is a man who has murdered fewer people than me--and, quite possibly, you. He is a dangerous man--a man who can't be bought. He is a man whom the government portrayed as someone who must--and who would--be justifiably put to death, after a 'fair' trial. A man who is now being offered a 'plea bargain' for the simple reason that he has demanded his right to speak in his own defense. That cannot be allowed in a judicial system that is built on a House of Cards that depends on its survival for all of the players to tread lightly around the thin walls of reality on which Justice in America is built. The final irony, of course, is that Terrible TeddyK, who only killed a couple of people, was parlayed into a major threat to world peace and individual security by the very people who now wish that they could dismiss him as mentally unstable, for the purpose of allowing him free speech, but mentally responsible, for the purpose of holding responsible for his actions. The final irony is that, in declaring Terrible TeddyK sane enough to execute, their is a danger in portraying him as sane enough to listen to. And the true danger of free speech is that someone may be listening. The final irony is that we, as a society, have deemed that we cannot execute those who are mad, but only those who are sane. We can only hold them responsible if their speech and actions are sane. Snell, Kaczynski, Jesus, TruthMonger...all present the same problem. We can confine them in the rubber-room, or hang them on the cross, but in doing so, we risk validating the truths they claim to speak. The danger is not in the warning contained in their speech--"Don't look back, something might be gaining on you." The danger is that someone--McVeigh, Gus-Peter, Saint Peter, A Cypher- Punk To Be Named Later--might be listening. The danger is that it does not matter if it is McVeigh, with a ton of fertilizer, saying "Something 'big' is going to happen.", or Bell, with a bottle of mercetan, saying, "Something 'small' is going to happen." What matters is that those who have heard and acted on the admonition, "Lock and Load!", are in a position to hear and act on the proclamation that "The Revolution is NOW!" The problem of Theodore Kaczynski will have to be resolved through execution, suicide, or dismissal as a madman. The problem of Clinton, Reno, Mandella, you and I...that will have to be resolved through the denial represented by selective prosecution.

1 0

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Stewart wrote, in reference to "immoral science" vs immoral *scientists*: >Depends. [#invoke Godwin's Law] >Consider the Nazi studies done on human susceptibility to freezing, >poisons, torture, etc., and the followon work done by various >evil empires. Some of it was just done for fun, >but some of it _was_ real science, with hypotheses and experiments, [..etc...] ............................................................. I was being picky/particular. Because consider that science does not conduct itself: it is a method developed by scientists, and it is *conducted by* them. They determine what is the right manner in which to conduct their experiments, they figure out how to determine what is valid in terms of proofs. Their findings, to be valid, must relate to the actual nature of things, to reality. But then, being humans, scientists must consider what all of this "means" to us, or about us, upon reflection. If after a time, scientists have come to depend on the "scientific method" (as established by other scientists in the past) to determine what they shall do, how they should proceed, and have given up on doing some of their own current reasoning on methodologies; if they are not sensitive to the meaning or validity of what they do, then this would be to say that it is "science" which is at fault when they inflict torture, for example, rather than those individuals who engage in those experiments. But this is like the tail wagging the dog, or like the typical Nazi excuse that "the State made me do it": "Science determined that the experiment had to be conducted this way, in order to achieve true knowledge; I had no choice." I say it is the scientist who makes the science immoral, if it be judged to be so, not vice-versa. As for the concept of morality, which I'm sure will be the next controversy brought up by someone: It is a difficult thing to pin down what morality/immorality is, because because it is an abstract concept which requires a comprehensive view on humanity, conscience, and concepts of "goodness", and because it is so mixed up with notions from religion and associations with any number of unrelated ideas and concepts. Generally it can be agreed that someone who liberally and insensitively creates pain and destruction upon humans is not "one of us", psychologically. An educator (Montessori) explained it thus: "Good is life; evil is death; the real distinction is as clear as the words." Anything which goes of the direction of life is good (and moral) while anything which goes in the other direction is of the opposite character. "The 'moral sense' ... is to a great extent the sense of sympathy with our fellows, the comprehension of their sorrows, the sentiment of justice; the lack of these sentiments convulses normal life. We cannot become moral by committing codes and their application to memory, for memory might fail us a thousand times, and the slightest passion might overcome us; criminals, in fact, even when they are most astute and wary students of codes, often violate them; while normal persons, although entirely ignorant of the laws, never transgress them, owing to 'an internal sense which guides them'. " Those who have become insensitive to this internal guidance system are generally dangerous, and risky to be around, even if you don't want to identify their inclinations as "immoral". .. Blanc

1 0

Covert Superhighway - the missing component?
by Ross Anderson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Scratch Monkey proposes building an Eternity service using the Stego File System, provided an anonymous broadcast channel exists - it's assumed that alt.anonymous.messages will do the job. I suspect that wide deployment of Eternity would lead to this group being closed down. We need a more robust anonymous broadcast channel. Let's call it the `Covert Superhighway'. How do we build it? Ross

5 4

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy May's 16Kb brain's single convolution is directly wired to his rectum for input and his T1 mouth for output. That's 16K bits, not bytes. Anal intercourse has caused extensive brain damage. \ o/\_ Timmy May <\__,\ '\, |

1 0

how to release code if the programmer is a target for coercion
by Ryan Lackey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May brought this issue up recently -- if someone develops a greatest- thing-since-sliced-bread Eternity package, then releases it. it's pretty likely that they will eventually be approached by (mi6/mossad/CIA/KCIA/etc.). What's likely to happen? Certainly they could kill you. They could make it look like random street crime, or an accident, or kill you with #16 000 in your pocket just to make it clear what their reasons were (Gerald Bull, Mossad, London, .32acp). At best, you could force them to make it very obvious it was murder, by having paranoid levels of security, but they could still kill you. If they kill the programmer (s/programmer/programmers, or just enough that the project becomes disorganized, etc.), that at worst will keep new releases of the software from coming out. At least until another group starts working on things, assuming protocols and/or source are public. Perhaps that new group would be a front for the NSA, though. A risk. More likely, they'd try to coerce you. This could include threats of death, which are best responded to by ignoring them, since they don't gain anything if they kill you. Or torture, which is equally ineffective if they kill you. Or slander/etc. to try to discredit you. (unlikely to work at least among cypherpunks, in the absence of technical attacks as well). Most likely, they would try to buy you. This could be by outright offering money for back doors, which would be great if it worked, but is unlikely to happen in the first place. If offered a bribe, you could go public with that fact (preferably after taking the money :), and worst case publically distance yourself from the project. More likely, they could try to infiltrate the technical team covertly, or ask for features which happen to be non-public security compromises, perhaps under the guise of security improvements (this presumes they are beyond the state of the art). WOrst case, one can say that if the intelligence community is far beyond the state of the art, you have no chance at protecting against covertly modified source code, modified to break in a subtle way which is not known to the general community. However, the world is already in this position -- if they solved the DLP, or even knew of subtle bugs in a processor, or whatever, tools would already be weak. Assuming the intelligence community is not so advanced that thorough inspection by the world at large won't reveal back doors or weaknesses, the solution is code review by the public. It was brought up that verifying PGP was just about at the limit of the world's capability. I agree that it is certainly beyond the level of one person, or even a small group, to verify -- plus, you want code verified by enough non-interacting entities that it is unlikely they can all be bought. I was looking around for a solution to this -- Lenny Foner at the MIT Media lab has something for his agents project which might be a solution. A system by which sections of source code are verified by individuals, signed, other sections are verified by others, etc. Then, during compilation, you could say something like "all of the security critical code must be verified by at least one of these 12 people, everything else by at least 5 people per section in this list of distinct people". It would then show where the "threadbare" sections are, and you could optionally verify them yourself, have someone else verify them for money, or post to cypherpunks asking for help. Security critical code should be encapsulated fairly well anyway -- I'd feel a lot worse about having a bug in such a part of my code than a screen refresh bug. One could potentially limit unintended side effects by running security code on its own processor, in its own sandbox, or just use a different instance of the JVM to run it. I think technical means can solve the problem of source code review and intelligence community rubber hose tactics. (preferably they'll still be handing out free money anyway, though) -- Ryan Lackey rdl(a)mit.edu http://mit.edu/rdl/

1 0