December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Accounts payable
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy C[rook] May is just a poor excuse for an unschooled, retarded thug. (_) _____ (_) /O O\ Timmy C[rook] May ! I ! ! \___/ ! \_____/

2 1

Darwin's preface (a short history of evolution) [fwd]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Below is the 3rd preface to Darwin's 'Species', in it he clearly gives credit to Wallace as a co-discover of evolutionary theory. Even to the point of co-presenting the work to the Linnean Society on July 1, 1858. Oh, Erazmus Darwin was Charles' grandfather not uncle. Sorry for any confusion. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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 | |____________________________________________________________________| Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 00:46:47 -0600 > X-within-URL: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/preface.html > The Origin of Species > Preface to the Third Edition > by Charles Darwin > > I will here give a brief sketch of the progress of opinion on the > Origin of Species. Until recently the great majority of naturalists > believed that species were immutable productions, and had been > separately created. This view has been ably maintained by many > authors. Some few naturalists, on the other hand, have believed that > species undergo modification, and that the existing forms of life are > the descendants by true generation of pre-existing forms. Passing over > allusions to the subject in the classical writers,(1) the first author > who in modern times has treated it in a scientific spirit was Buffon. > But as his opinions fluctuated greatly at different periods, and as he > does not enter on the causes or means of the transformation of > species, I need not here enter on details. > > Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited > much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his > views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie > Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his > "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the > doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other > species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the > probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic > world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. > Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the > gradual change of species, by the difficulty of distinguishing species > and varieties, by the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain > groups, and by the analogy of domestic productions. With respect to > the means of modification, he attributed something to the direct > action of the physical conditions of life, something to the crossing > of already existing forms, and much to use and disuse, that is, to the > effects of habit. To this latter agency he seemed to attribute all the > beautiful adaptations in nature; -- such as the long neck of the > giraffe for browsing on the branches of trees. But he likewise > believed in a law of progressive development; and as all the forms of > life thus tend to progress, in order to account for the existence at > the present day of simple productions, he maintains that such forms > are now spontaneously generated.(2) > > Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, as is stated in his 'Life,' written by his > son, suspected, as early as 1795, that what we call species are > various degenerations of the same type. It was not until 1828 that he > published his conviction that the same forms have not been perpetuated > since the origin of all things. Geoffroy seems to have relied chiefly > on the conditions of life, or the 'monde ambiant' as the cause of > change. He was cautious in drawing conclusions, and did not believe > that existing species are now undergoing modification; and, as his son > adds, "C'est donc un problème à réserver entièrement à l'avenir, > supposé meme que l'avenir doive avoir prise sur lui.' > > In 1813, Dr W. C. Wells read before the Royal Society 'An Account of a > White female, part of whose skin resembled that of a Negro'; but his > paper was not published until his famous 'Two Essays upon Dew and > Single Vision' appeared in 1818. In this paper he distinctly > recognises the principle of natural selection, and this is the first > recognition which has been indicated; but he applies it only to the > races of man, and to certain characters alone. After remarking that > negroes and mulattoes enjoy an immunity from certain tropical > diseases, he observes, firstly, that all animals tend to vary in some > degree, and, secondly, that agriculturists improve their domesticated > animals by selection; and then, he adds, but what is done in this > latter case 'by art, seems to be done with equal efficacy, though more > slowly, by nature, in the formation of varieties of mankind, fitted > for the country which they inhabit. Of the accidental varieties of > man, which would occur among the first few and scattered inhabitants > of the middle regions of Africa, some one would be better fitted than > the others to bear the diseases of the country. This race would > consequently multiply, while the others would decrease; not only from > their inability to sustain the attacks of disease, but from their > incapacity of contending with their more vigorous neighbours. The > colour of this vigorous race I take for granted, from what has been > already said, would be dark. But the same disposition to form > varieties still existing, a darker and a darker race would in the > course of time occur: and as the darkest would be the best fitted for > the climate, this would at length become the most prevalent; if not > the only race, in the particular country in which it had originated.' > He then extends these same views to the white inhabitants of colder > climates. I am indebted to Mr Rowley, of the United States, for having > called my attention, through Mr Brace, to the above passage in Dr > Wells' work. > > The Hon. and Rev. W. Herbert, afterwards Dean of Manchester, in the > fourth volume of the 'Horticultural Transactions,' 1822, and in his > work on the 'Amaryllidaceae' (1837, pp. 19, 339), declares that > 'horticultural experiments have established, beyond the possibility of > refutation, that botanical species are only a higher and more > permanent class of varieties.' He extends the same view to animals. > The Dean believes that single species of each genus were created in an > originally highly plastic condition, and that these have produced, > chiefly by intercrossing, but likewise by variation, all our existing > species. > > In 1826 Professor Grant, in the concluding paragraph in his well-known > paper ('Edinburgh philosophical journal,' vol. xiv. p. 283) on the > Spongilla, clearly declares his belief that species are descended from > other species, and that they become improved in the course of > modification. This same view was given in his 55th Lecture, published > in the 'Lancet' in 1834. > > In 1831 Mr Patrick Matthew published his work on 'Naval Timber and > Arboriculture,' in which he gives precisely the same view on the > origin of species as that (presently to be alluded to) propounded by > Mr Wallace and myself in the 'Linnean journal,' and as that enlarged > in the present volume. Unfortunately the view was given by Mr Matthew > very briefly in scattered passages in an Appendix to a work on a > different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr Matthew > himself drew attention to it in the 'Gardener's Chronicle,' on April > 7th, 1860. The differences of Mr Matthew's view from mine are not of > much importance; he seems to consider that the world was nearly > depopulated at successive periods, and then re-stocked; and he gives > as an alternative, that new forms may be generated ' without the > presence of any mould or germ of former aggregates.' I am not sure > that I understand some passages; but it seems that he attributes much > influence to the direct action of the conditions of life. He clearly > saw, however, the full force of the principle of natural selection. > > The celebrated geologist and naturalist, Von Buch, in his excellent > 'Description physique des Isles Canaries' (1836, p. 147), clearly > expresses his belief that varieties slowly become changed into > permanent species, which are no longer capable of intercrossing. > > Rafinesque, in his 'New Flora of North America,' published in 1836, > wrote (p. 6) as follows:- 'All species might have been varieties once, > and many varieties are gradually becoming species by assuming constant > and peculiar characters'; but farther on (p. 18) he adds, 'except the > original types or ancestors of the genus.' > > In 1843-44 Professor Haldeman ('Boston journal of Nat. Hist. U. > States, vol. iv. p. 468) has ably given the arguments for and against > the hypothesis of the development and modification of species: he > seems to lean towards the side of change. > > The 'Vestiges of Creation' appeared in 1844. In the tenth and much > improved edition (1853) the anonymous author says (p. 155):- 'The > proposition determined on after much consideration is, that the > several series of animated beings, from the simplest and oldest up to > the highest and most recent, are, under the providence of God, the > results, first, of an impulse which has been imparted to the forms of > life, advancing them, in definite times, by generation, through grades > of organisation terminating in the highest dicotyledons- and > vertebrata, these grades being few in number, and generally marked by > intervals of organic character, which we find to be a practical > difficulty in ascertaining affinities; second, of another impulse > connected with the vital forces, tending, in the course of > generations, to modify organic structures in accordance with external > circumstances, as food, the nature of the habitat, and the meteoric > agencies, these being the ''adaptations'' of the natural theologian.' > The author apparently believes that organisation progresses by sudden > leaps, but that the effects produced by the conditions of life are > gradual. He argues with much force on general grounds that species are > not immutable productions. But I cannot see how the two supposed > 'impulses' account in a scientific sense for the numerous and > beautiful co-adaptations which we see throughout nature; I cannot see > that we thus gain any insight how, for instance, a woodpecker has > become adapted to its peculiar habits of Life. The work, from its > powerful and brilliant style, though displaying in the earlier > editions little accurate knowledge and a great want of scientific > caution, immediately had a very wide circulation. In my opinion it has > done excellent service in this country in calling attention to the > subject, in removing prejudice, and in thus preparing the ground for > the reception of analogous views. > > In 1846 the veteran geologist N. J. d'Omalius d'Halloy published in an > excellent though short paper ("Bulletins de l'Acad. Roy Bruxelles,' > tom. xiii. p. 581) his opinion that it is more probable that new > species have been produced by descent with modification than that they > have been separately created: the author first promulgated this > opinion in 1831. > > Professor Owen, in 1849 ('Nature of Limbs,' p. 86), wrote as follows:- > "The archetypal idea was manifested in the flesh under diverse such > modifications, upon this planet, long prior to the existence of those > animal species that actually exemplify it. To what natural laws or > secondary causes the orderly succession and progression of such > organic phenomena may have been committed, we, as yet, are ignorant.' > In his Address to the British Association, in 1858, he speaks (p. li.) > of "the axiom of the continuous operation of creative power, or of the > ordained becoming of living things.' Farther on (p. xc.), after > referring to geographical distribution, he adds, 'These phenomena > shake our confidence in the conclusion that the Apteryx of New Zealand > and the Red Grouse of England were distinct creations in and for those > islands respectively. Always, also, it may be well to bear in mind > that by the word ''creation'' the zoologist means '"a process he knows > not what.'' He amplifies this idea by adding that when such cases as > that of the Red Grouse are enumerated by the zoologists as evidence of > distinct creation of the bird in and for such islands, he chiefly > expresses that he knows not how the Red Grouse came to be there, and > there exclusively; signifying also, by this mode of expressing such > ignorance, his belief that both the bird and the islands owed their > origin to a great first Creative Cause.' If we interpret these > sentences given in the same Address, one by the other, it appears that > this eminent philosopher felt in 1858 his confidence shaken that the > Apteryx and the Red Grouse first appeared in their respective homes, > 'he knew not how,' or by some process 'he knew not what.' > > This Address was delivered after the papers by Mr Wallace and myself > on the Origin of Species, presently to be referred to, had been read > before the Linnean Society. When the first edition of this work was > published, I was so completely deceived, as were many others, by such > expressions as 'the continuous operation of creative power,' that I > included Professor Owen with other palaeontologists as being firmly > convinced of the immutability of species; but it appears ('Anat. of > Vertebrates,' vol. iii. p. 796) that this was on my part a > preposterous error. In the last edition of this work I inferred, and > the inference still seems to me perfectly just, from a passage > beginning with the words 'no doubt the type-form,' &c. (Ibid. vol. i. > p. xxxv.), that Professor Owen admitted that natural selection may > have done something in the formation of a new species; but this it > appears (Ibid. vol. nl. p. 798) is inaccurate and without evidence. I > also gave some extracts from a correspondence between Professor Owen > and the Editor of the 'London Review,' from which it appeared manifest > to the Editor as well as to myself, that Professor Owen claimed to > have promulgated the theory of natural selection before I had done so; > and I expressed my surprise and satisfaction at this announcement; but > as far as it is possible to understand certain recently published > passages (Ibid. vol. iii. p. 798) I have either partially or wholly > again fallen into error. It is consolatory to me that others find > Professor Owen's controversial writings as difficult to understand and > to reconcile with each other, as I do. As far as the mere enunciation > of the principle of natural selection is concerned, it is quite > immaterial whether or not Professor Owen preceded me, for both of us, > as shown in this historical sketch, were long ago preceded by Dr Wells > and Mr Matthews. > > M. Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, in his lectures delivered in 1850 > (of which a Résumé appeared in the 'Revue et Nag. de Zoolog.,' Jan. > 1851), briefly gives his reason for believing that specific characters > "sont fixés, pour chaque espèce, tant qu'elle se perpétue au milieu > des mèmes circonstances: ils se modifient, si les circonstances > ambiantes viennent à changer.' 'En résumé, l'observation des animaux > sauvages démontre déjà la variabilité limité des espèces. Les > expériences sur les animaux sauvages devenus domestiques, et sur les > animaux domestiques redevenus sauvages, la démontrent plus clairement > encore. Ces memes expériences prouvent, de plus, que les différences > produites peuvent etre de valeur générique.' In his 'Hist. Nat. > Généralé (tom. ii. p. 430, 1859) he amplifies analogous conclusions. > > From a circular lately issued it appears that Dr Freke, in 1851 > ("Dublin Medical Press,' p. 322), propounded the doctrine that all > organic beings have descended from one primordial form. His grounds of > belief and treatment of the subject are wholly different from mine; > but as Dr Freke has now (1861) published his Essay on the 'Origin of > Species by means of Organic Affinity,' the difficult attempt to give > any idea of his views would be superfluous on my part. > > Mr Herbert Spencer, in an Essay (originally published in the 'Leader,' > March, 1852, and republished in his 'Essays,' in 1858), has contrasted > the theories of the Creation and the Development of organic beings > with remarkable skill and force. He argues from the analogy of > domestic productions, from the changes which the embryos of many > species undergo, from the difficulty of distinguishing species and > varieties, and from the principle of general gradation, that species > have been modified; and he attributes the modification to the change > of circumstances. The author (1855) has also treated psychology on the > principle of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and > capacity by gradation. > > In 1852 M. Naudin, a distinguished botanist, expressly stated, in an > admirable paper on the Origin of Species ('Revue Horticole, p. 102; > since partly republished in the 'Nouvelles Archives du Muséum,' tom. > i. p. 171), his belief that species are formed in an analogous manner > as varieties are under cultivation; and the latter process he > attributes to man's power of selection. But he does not show how > selection acts under nature. He believes, like Dean Herbert, that > species, when nascent, were more plastic than at present. He lays > weight on what he calls the principle of finality, 'puissance > mystérieuse, indéterminée; fatalité pour les uns; pour les autres > volonté providentielle, dont l'action incessante sur les ètres vivants > détermine, à toutes les époques de l'existence du monde, la forme, le > volume, et la durée de chacun d'eux, en raison de sa destinée dans > l'ordre de choses dont il fait partie. C'est cette puissance qui > harmonise chaque membre à l'ensemble, en l'appropriant à la fonction > qu'il doit remplir dans l'organisme général de la nature, fonction qui > est pour lui sa raison d'ètre.'(3) > > In 1853 a celebrated geologist, Count Keyserling ("Bulletin de la Soc. > Gèolog.,' 2nd Ser., tom. x. p. 357), suggested that as new diseases, > supposed to have been caused by some miasma, have arisen and spread > over the world, so at certain periods the germs of existing species > may have been chemically affected by circumambient molecules of a > particular nature, and thus have given rise to new forms. > > In this same year, 1853, Dr Schaaffhausen published an excellent > pamphlet ('Verhand. des Naturhist. Vereins der preuss. Rheinlands,' > &c.), in which he maintains the development of organic forms on the > earth. He infers that many species have kept true for long periods, > whereas a few have become modified. The distinction of species he > explains by the destruction of intermediate graduated forms. 'Thus > living plants and animals are not separated from the extinct by new > creations, but are to be regarded as their descendants through > continued reproduction.' > > A well-known French botanist, M. Lecoq, writes in 1854 ('Etudes sur > Géograph. Bot.,' tom. i. p. 250), 'On voit que nos recherches sur la > fixité ou la variation de l'espèce, nous conduisent directement aux > idées émises, par deux hommes justement célèbres, Geoffroy > Saint-Hilaire et Goethe.' Some other passages scattered through M. > Lecoq's large work, make it a little doubtful how far he extends his > views on the modification of species. > > The 'Philosophy of Creation' has been treated in a masterly manner by > the Rev. Baden Powell, in his "Essays on the Unity of Worlds,' 1855. > Nothing can be more striking than the manner in which he shows that > the introduction of new species is "a regular, not a casual > phenomenon,' or, as Sir John Herschel expresses it, 'a natural in > contradistinction to a miraculous, process.' > > The third volume of the "Journal of the Linnean Society' contains > papers, read July 1st, 1858, by Mr Wallace and myself, in which, as > stated in the introductory remarks to this volume, the theory of > Natural Selection is promulgated by Mr Wallace with admirable force > and clearness. > > Von Baer, towards whom all zoologists feel so profound a respect, > expressed about the year 1859 (see Prof. Rudolph Wagner, a > "Zoologisch-Anthropologische Untersuchungen,' 1861, s. 51) his > conviction, chiefly grounded on the laws of geographical distribution, > that forms now perfectly distinct have descended from a single > parent-form. > > In June, 1859, Professor Huxley gave a lecture before the Royal > Institution on the 'Persistent Types of Animal Life.' Referring to > such cases, he remarks, "It is difficult to comprehend the meaning of > such facts as these, if we suppose that each species of animal and > plant, or each great type of organisation, was formed and placed upon > the surface of the globe at long intervals by a distinct act of > creative power; and it is well to recollect that such an assumption is > as unsupported by tradition or revelation as it is opposed to the > general analogy of nature. If, on the other hand, we view 'Persistent > Types' in relation to that hypothesis which supposes the species > living at any time to be the result of the gradual modification of > pre-existing species a hypothesis which, though unproven, and sadly > damaged by some of its supporters, is yet the only one to which > physiology lends any countenance; their existence would seem to show > that the amount of modification which living beings have undergone > during geological time is but very small in relation to the whole > series of changes which they have suffered.' > > In December, 1859, Dr Hooker published his 'Introduction to the > Australian Flora.' In the first part of this great work he admits the > truth of the descent and modification of species, and supports this > doctrine by many original observations. > > The first edition of this work was published on November 24th, 1859, > and the second edition on January 7th, 1860. > > Footnotes > > (1) Aristotle, in his 'Physicae Auscultationes' (lib. 2, cap. 8, s. > 2), after remarking that rain does not fall in order to make the corn > grow, any more than it falls to spoil the farmer's corn when threshed > out of doors, applies the same argument to organization: and adds (as > translated by Mr Clair Grece, who first pointed out the passage to > me), 'So what hinders the different parts [of the body] from having > this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth, for example, > grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for dividing, and the > grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating the food; since they > were not made for the sake of this, but it was the result of accident. > And in like manner as to the other parts in which there appears to > exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever, therefore, all things > together (that is all the parts of one whole) happened like as if they > were made for the sake of something, these were preserved, having been > appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity, and whatsoever > things were not thus constituted, perished, and still perish. We here > see the principle of natural selection shadowed forth, but how little > Aristotle fully comprehended the principle, is shown by his remarks on > the formation of the teeth. > > (2) I have taken the date of the first publication of Lamarck from > Isid. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire's ('Hist. Nat. Générale,' tom. ii. p. > 405, 1859) excellent history of opinion on this subject. In this work > a full account is given of Buffon's conclusions on the same subject. > It is curious how largely my grandfather, Dr Erasmus Darwin, > anticipated the views and erroneous grounds of opinion of Lamarck in > his 'Zoonomia' (vol. i. pp. 500-510), published in 1794. According to > Isid. Geoffroy there is no doubt that Goethe was an extreme partisan > of similar views, as shown in the Introduction to a work written in > 1794 and 1795, but not published till long afterwards: he has > pointedly remarked ('Goethe als Naturforscher,' von Dr Karl Medinge s. > 34) that the future question for naturalists will be how, for > instance, cattle got their horns, and not for what they are used. It > is rather a singular instance of the manner in which similar views > arise at about the same time, that Goethe in Germany, Dr Darwin in > England, and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (as we shall immediately see) in > France; came to the same conclusion on the origin of species, in the > years 1794-5. > > (3) From references in Bronn's 'Untersuchungen über die > Entwickenlungs-Gesetze,' it appears that the celebrated botanist and > palaeontologist Unger published, in 1852, his belief that species > undergo development and modification. Dalton, likewise, in Pander and > Dalton's work on Fossil Sloths, expressed, in 1821 a similar belief. > Similar views have, as is well known, been maintained by Oken in his > mystical 'Natur-philosophie.' From other references in Godron's work > 'Sur l'Espéce,' it seems that Bory St Vincent, Burdach, Poiret, and > Fries, have all admitted that new species are continually being > produced. > > I may add, that of the thirty-four authors named in this Historical > Sketch, who believe in the modification of species, or at least > disbelieve in separate acts of creation, twenty-seven have written on > special branches of natural history or geology. > > > Contents > Introduction > > > > > > > Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links > The FAQ | Must-Read Files | Index | Creationism | Evolution | Age of > the Earth | Flood Geology | Catastrophism | Debates >

1 0

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 22:06:38 -0800 > From: Blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> > Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality > BTW, you should consider that when Einstein proposed the creation of a > bomb, it was within the context of a war being advanced globally by an evil > madman who was gathering every resource to subdue and decimate everything > in his way, and that the rest of the world was desperate for a solution. Um, actualy Einstein didn't propose a bomb. I believe Leo Szilard approached Einstein with a letter asking the President to begin an initiative. The motivation was because most of the really worthwhile German physicists working on the Nazi programs left the Nazi sphere. The fear was that since Germany had the *only* supply of heavy water in the world and the only state backed program in the field that if the US didn't do something they would loose the bomb in a series of bright flashes. I also, don't believe the war had actualy started when Einstein was approaced by Leo on Aug. 2, 1939. > Also you should remember that some brilliant people, like Newton, who was a > shy man and didn't necessarily see himself as others did/do, did not care > if anyone else saw the results of his work. He certainly went to great pains to publish it, even anonymously in some cases and out of his own pocket. > Once he had solved the > problems in his own mind, he was not exceptionally concerned that others > were also struggling with the same, nor whether "the community" needed the > answer. He was pursuing knowledge for reasons of his own. He pursued knowledge for deep religous reasons, according to his notes. Newton was also the Exchequer of England and had 3 peopled hanged for stealing gold from the government mint. He took the job because he had pissed so many people off at the time because of his attitude that he couldn't find work. It was prior to him becoming know as the 'Lion of England' and gaining life tenure. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd)
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >The same guy informed me later that he discovered a closed-form solution to >some very interesting problems 9related to Black-Scholes) which according to >the open literature either can't be done accurately at all, or require >incredible amounts of cpu time for monte carlo simulations. he doesn't >wish tio publish it (although it would make him quite a celebrity) and >now he's going crazy trying to figure out a way to sell it in such a way >that he can't get screwed again. How would crypto help if at all? ........................................................... I don't know about crypto, but I just attended a very informative financial forum on protecting intellectual property, presented by two representatives from Arthur Andersen and Preston Gates & Ellis, LLP. I picked up a little brochure which the attorney firm had available for attendees: We counsel and represent inventors, authors, publishers, visual artists, and musicians as they face a host of new and important issues. Preston Gates attorneys negotiate the use of creative expression in the full range of media, from CD-Roms and on-line services to interactive television and video games. We monitor and advise clients on developments in consumer protection, defamation, infringement, and other legal areas that affect their ability to develop and market creative properties. {etc} web site: www.prestongates.com, email: infotech(a)prestongates.com .. Blanc

1 0

Silly Shrinkwrapped Encryption
by Eric Cordian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Could someone poke through Lotus Notes with a debugger and see exactly how this "giving 24 bits to the government" is implemented? Most commercial software simply introduces redundancy in order to limit the keyspace to 40 bits, regardless of the advertised length of the key. This claim that they deliver 64 bits of key to the customer seems a bit bogus. Of course, they could have done something clever, like generating a completely random 64 bit key, and then encrypting 24 bits of it with a giant government-owned RSA public key, and including this additional information with each message. However, it seems unlikely that they would employ such strong encryption for message recovery, while offering only 64 bits for message encryption. Is Lotus Notes encryption documented anywhere? Are the differences between the export and domestic versions disclosed to overseas customers? -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

7 9

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality > Date: Thu, 08 Jan 98 16:42:43 -0800 > From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri(a)netcom.com> > every respondent to my post has missed the key points. Not quite. Of course I don't agree with all of them either. There are two rules you should consider: - It's ok to have an open mind, just don't let it slosh out on the ground. - Understanding a view is not equivalent to supporting a view. You might also want to consider that two opposing views might very well *both* be right...it depends on where you sit on the fence as to what the tree looks like. > >Scientists even in schools and foundations are often secretive, too. > > > >The notion that "science" is about blabbing one's latest discoveries or > >theories is overly simplistic. Many scholars and scientists choose not to > >publicize their work for years, or decades, or, even, never. > > if so, they are not SCIENTISTS. a key aspect of SCIENCE is publishing > results. science cannot advance without it. name me one scientist > who did not publish an important result, or is considered a good > scientists for doing so! I must agree here. If a technologist (ie one who studies science for profit, hence creating a technology) chooses not to publish their results that is fine. However, a scientist is one who studies nature and its interactions, profit is not and should not be a motive. Simplistic or not; in fact some things are better understood when simplified (ala the scientific principle). A scientist has an obligation to discuss and publish their results for other scientists (and even technologist) when they are reasonably sure their results will stand up to indipendant verification (a critical issue in science, not in technology however). Don't be confused by Timy's claim to be a scientist, he is a technologist at heart. Many of his views and beliefs are motivated by issues of control *not* curiosity. > >Consider Andrew Wiles, Princeton math professor, and the prover of Fermat's > >Last Theorem. He labored in secrecy for many years, only going public when > >he felt his results were complete. (As it turned out, they were not, and he > >needed another year or two to fill in some gaps.) > > but he PUBLISHED his results, he gave a LECTURE on his findings. I am > not saying that secrecy and science are mutually exclusive in this way. > secrecy is a useful tool, I am not in general against secrecy. but > secrecy can be ABUSED, and our government is ABUSING it. Further, the *reason* he was so secretive was because of the history of failed attempts and early 'proofs' that later failed. He was motivated by getting it right and ruining his reputation; not because he thought proving Fermat's Last Theorem would provide him riches and laurels for the remainder of his mortal coil. > have you > been following that Clinton was just fined $286,00 for lying to > a judge? Which means, per the Constitution, that he should be removed from office. He broke a public trust and that means he looses any public station he currently has and is barred from future office. > I could give > >dozens of examples of where the open literature either did not exist or was > >not used...and science still advanced. Of course, this is a specious argument. If it was already in the literature it wouldn't be science advancing (learning something that wasn't known before). The whole point to science is to understand and explain what we see and don't see that creates the cosmos we inhabit. Now if your point is that Intel taking some trade secret only they are aware of and using this to make quicker chips is science then you don't know a damn thing about science. > but science eventually published the results. It is *required* for doing 'science', it isn't for doing 'technology'. As a matter of fact a little perusal of history demonstrates that science requires open and unhindered dialog while technology requires closed channels of communcication and mechanisms of control. A perfect current example is the move to cloan humans. The guy, Creed?, is right "you can't stop science"; you can however stop technology and businesses do every day. Until that oocyte goes viable it's science, from that point on it's technology. > human endeavor. how can you argue with something so obvious? You don't know Timmy very well do you... > all this is uninteresting to me-- I was making a moral point in an > essay that is obviously unintelligable to most people here. its my > big mistake in this world, to pretent that morality plays a role. Actualy your mistake is assuming that there is *one* morality. Don't fret though. Just about everyone wants to jam everyone else into their nice little easily understood molds. It makes it much easier to justify their actions to themselves and potentialy to others if they get them to swallow even once. > of how things should be? things ARE, PERIOD. good lord, no wonder > Ayn Rand is so uninfluential. Reasonable men don't change the world. If we aren't motivated by our ethics and belief that our actions can change the world into the way it 'should be' then what is the motive? Money? Even that is a veiled mechanism to make the world the way we think it should be (ie we have more money or social station than currently endowed with). Changing the world is what *makes* life worth living. The question *is* why do you want to change the world and *who* gets to profit by it? ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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 | |____________________________________________________________________|

5 5

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

17 Dec '03

At 5:09 AM -0800 1/8/98, Jim Gillogly wrote: >Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >> scientists who agree to government secrecy to develop >> their inventions are agreeing to a lot more than >> mere secrecy. they are committing to a paradigm that >> is at odds with science itself, which only advances through >> the open literature. > >Why limit your annoyance to government scientists? Scientists >in private industry are in the same position, developing (e.g.) >algorithms and analytical methods protected by trade secrets. >Society recognizes this tendency and tries to advance science >anyway by offering patent protection. You don't make money by >giving away your intellectual capital. Seems to me that schools >and independently wealthy scientists/foundations are the only >ones who don't merit your censure on this count. Scientists even in schools and foundations are often secretive, too. The notion that "science" is about blabbing one's latest discoveries or theories is overly simplistic. Many scholars and scientists choose not to publicize their work for years, or decades, or, even, never. Consider Andrew Wiles, Princeton math professor, and the prover of Fermat's Last Theorem. He labored in secrecy for many years, only going public when he felt his results were complete. (As it turned out, they were not, and he needed another year or two to fill in some gaps.) Corporate scientists now outnumber academic or foundation scientists, and they are quite understandably under various restrictions to keep results secret, at least for a while. Science does not "only advance through the open literature." There are many other checks and balances which accomplish the same effect. I could give dozens of examples of where the open literature either did not exist or was not used...and science still advanced. --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 7

British Ministers Adopt Unbreakable Crypto
by Eric Cordian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The UK is replacing the traditional "red boxes" used by ministers to carry their work home with them with high tech laptops. They will use a signet ring and fingerprints to control access to the computer. There will be a "Duress Finger." :) ----- LONDON (AP) -- It's a briefcase even James Bond could love. Britain's more adventurous Cabinet ministers soon will be spiriting laptop computers inside their signature ``Red Box'' briefcases, complete with fingerprint recognition systems and silent alarms. The stacks of papers, briefing documents and constituency correspondence that now go home with each minister in lead-lined red briefcases will be replaced in a few months by a specially designed super-secure laptop -- capable of carrying infinitely more homework. At $4,000 each, the prototypes unveiled Tuesday are seen as a symbol of the modern Britain so often touted by the Labor Party and are being billed as a way to make government work more efficiently. They will not, however, be foisted on ministers who prefer the old-fashioned paper route -- but those holdouts will miss an electronic voice that chirps ``Good morning, minister'' each time the computer is turned on. Each computer, built into the briefcase, will come with a security system that uses a signet ring and fingerprints to control access to the computer. Ministers who eschew jewelry can have the signet ring's smart-card incorporated into another device, such as a keychain or pen. The fingerprint function also requires an alternate finger to be programmed in case the minister cuts the one designated, thereby corrupting the fingerprint. ``It has certainly been billed as very James Bond-ish and I suppose we are 'Q,' '' said Alan Rushworth, managing director of Rhea International, the company that designed the security system, likening himself to the 007 character who outfits James Bond with all his gadgets. ``There is even a duress finger,'' Rushworth said. ``That is for if a terrorist or gunman has a gun to the minister's head forcing him to open the computer. It will appear to function normally but doesn't, and sends a silent alarm to the Cabinet Office.'' No ``top secret'' documents will be loaded on the computers because such material is seldom transmitted electronically for security reasons, a government spokeswoman said. Even American security experts could not breach the computer's security system, Rushworth boasted. ``The Cabinet office has used its best government hackers for extensive penetration testing and they couldn't break it,'' he said. ``It has also been tried by our cousins on the other side of the Atlantic -- and they couldn't get in either.'' -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

1 0

plan 9 features (Re: autonomous agents (fwd)) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 00:33:14 GMT > From: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> > Subject: plan 9 features (Re: autonomous agents (fwd)) > Sounds interesting. I am not familiar with plan 9 besides the > enthusings of a colleague reminiscing about the work done at York > Univ, UK with plan 9. > > Java has a lot going for it as a candidate due to portability and code > distribution support. I think the only thing missing from java is the > bidding and scheduling mechanisms. Your other forwarded message on > plan 9 looks interesting also. I have been working on a potential distributed data haven model using the Plan 9 architecture. I have finaly amassed enough machines where I can actualy dedicate the i/o, process, and file servers on seperate machines. The problem that I see for the immediate future is getting nodes that don't happen to reside on my premises for additional testing in about a year. I don't have a clue to how to get people to spend $400 bucks for the software (which the ATT license prohibits from commercial use) *and* dedicate several machines to the enterprise. But I'm not going to give up, maybe some folks will volunteer just to do it...:) I took the liberty of forwarding the man page for the auth() function to the cpunks list. It describes the 56-bit DES based authentication mechanism. I personaly don't care for DES so at some point I will be looking to replace that mechanism with an alternative. I also need to take some time and look at porting the Plan 9 file server adapter for Unix to Win95/NT. Either that or I mount the file systems to a suitably enhanced Linux box and then export from there. This would imply that the Win95/NT boxes need to be on the physical network of the Linux box or else excessive opportunities for MITM attacks are present. Not that simply being on the same network provides complete protection either. I hope that OpenNT will provide enough Unix-like features to minimize the port effort. The Plan 9 mechanism also needs to be enhanced in such a way that besides the access token involving encryption the actual transfer of packets are also content encrypted. This has potential compatibility problems with un-enhanced Plan 9 servers that I haven't had a chance to look at. Once I have a system up and running it will allow non-Plan 9 systems to access the resources by using what is called 'hand-held DES encryptors'. Unfortunately, there is not a real description of how this is to be accomplished in a real-world manner. My hope is to have something available sometime this summer that will allow folks to play with it at least in a limited way. If you get the chance and have the resources you should look into at least getting the Plan 9 documents. They're like $150 but call and verify that price since I didn't this morning. Also note, there are now two releases of Plan 9 floating around out there. The only distinction I am aware of is one is the 'old' release and the current is the 'new' release. Don't have a clue as to how to tell them apart or what compatibility problems will exist. My best estimate is that in about a month I will have the resources to install and begin developing the model. I am currently between employers (I don't work at Tivoli-IBM anymore) so I'm job hunting in the Austin area over the next few weeks. I'll make reports to the list on the results as I manage to get results. I don't know about Java on Plan 9, I'll look into it. Take care. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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: (eternity) Automating BlackNet Services
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Scratch Monkey writes: > Here's a way to do an automated "high risk" server, using many of the > same methods as the eternity implementation but with longer delays and > more security for the server. This design ties in pretty well with what I understood Tim May's suggestion to be of using BlackNet to provide eternity services. I notice that you are assuming that all document delivery would be via digital dead-drop (alt.anonymous.messages). Depending on the usage pattern of this service it has the potential to be higher bandwidth than by Eternity USENET design. The BlackNet with dead-drop only scheme you propose will become more expensive in bandwidth than Eternity USENET at the point at which the volume of satisfied document requests being posted to USENET for different recipients exceeds the volume required to repost the traffic at the desired update rate. This is because you may have multiple requests for the same document, all of which must be posted to alt.anonymous.messages. One thing you could do to reduce this overhead would be to combine requests for the same document. To do this you could add an extra delay to satisfying requests to increase the chances of accumulating more requests for the same document. Alternatively, documents which were sent out within the last 24 hours or so could have just the bulk symmetric key encrypted for the subsequent recipients sent together with a message-id. (A separated multiple crypto recipient block). A more subtle problem you would probably want to address with this design is that you don't really want anonymous requested documents to be linkable, so you would need to do stealth encoding of the messages. This tends to be more complex for multiple recipients, but it is doable, and is made easier by standardising on public key size. In general I think I consider my Eternity USENET design more secure than your design and of similar overhead depending on whether the usage pattern results in lower bandwidth. I make this claim because users are offered better security with E-USENET because they are completely anonymous, and don't need to submit requests. They can passively read E-USENET, perhaps on a university campus, or with a satellite USENET feed. The readers are much harder to detect. This is significant because remailers are complex to use, and the users should be assumed to be less technically able (ie more likely to screw up remailer usage). Publisher anonymity is of basically the same security. A lower bandwidth alternative, to either E-USENET or what you have termed Automated BlackNet alternative is therefore to send messages via use-once mixmaster remailer reply blocks of the sort used by some nymservers. Clearly this is also lower security because the user must creating reply blocks which ultimately point back to himself. However the performance win is big. With this architecture BlackNet can win significantly over E-USENET because the volume is reduced to just indexes of available documents. Also I consider indexes are probably low enough risk for people to mirror on the web or cache on the web or whatever. My E-USENET prototype design has a separate index mechanism. (I understand there is some magic inside mixmaster which prevents packet replay, which helps avoid message flood attacks, though didn't locate the code fragment responsible for this functionality when I examined the sources.) Also I found your use of hashes and passwords so that the server does not necessarily know what it is serving interesting. I have similar functionality in my prototype E-USENET implementation. I mainly included the functionality because the prototype is also being used as an publically accessible eternity USENET proxy, to allow the operator to marginally reduce risks. I think this approach is of marginal value, in that the attacker will be easily able to compile an index from the same information as users. This is really a form of secret splitting: the key is one part, and the data the other part. The key can be considered to be part of the URL. > Both the client and server software should be trivial to write, and in > fact I am working on that now. The server is partially written, but I am > at a handicap because I do not have access to usenet at this time. If > anyone knows of some canned code (preferably sh or c, but perl would work) > that will perform functions such as "Retrieve list of articles in > newsgroup x" and "Retrieve article number y", a pointer would be nice. http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/eternity/ I have done most of the work already I think. What you are trying to do is so similar that you should be able to acheive what you want with some light hacking of my perl code. For testing purposes I am in the same position as you; dialup ppp connection and linux machine. What I did was to implement both newspool access code, and NNTP access code. For local testing I just create a dummy news-spool. The eternity distribution comes with a few documents in this dummy news spool. A real local news spool would work also. Then you can simulate everything you want offline. You can change the config file to switch to an open access NNTP news-server at any time for a live test. All the code to read USENET is there, and to scan chosen NNTP headers, etc. I would highly recommend perl as a rapid prototyping language. What you see took 3 days (long days, mind, motivation was at an all time high around then). Adam

1 0