December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Mobile phone tracking, pagers, etc
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Regarding the tracking of mobile phones, are all current types of phones susceptible? There was a recent post here regarding tracking of GSM phones. TDMA/CDMA, analog/digital, PCS-band, etc, are they all equally capable of being tracked? However pagers are not, correct? They just broadcast an entire area to page instead of the pager keeping the network informed of their location. One thing I have long wondered: Why don't they make phones that "wake-up" by a paging signal and then accept the call? It might increase the connect time significantly, but it would also increase the potential stand-by time indefinitely, and the location of the user is only exposed when calls are in progress, not while the phone is on stand-by. Are there any paging services (particularly alpha paging) that work on a global scale? You would think daily pager rental service (esp. at airports) would be popular. You could have an email address, even a static phone number, that could re-route messages to any pager that you happen to have at the time (PSTN-IP-PSTN, or even easier if the pager service gives SMTP addresses, which most do these days). Similarly a PSTN-IP-PSTN interface for voice could give you a static phone number that you could dynamically forward anywhere untraceably. BTW, why are most businesses so hostile to pseudonyms? I go to rent a mailbox, paid 1 yr. in advance with cash, and they still want two pieces of photo ID to copy. Matt

7 6

Cyberpunks Signal-to-Noise Ratio
by Jim Burnes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Far be it from me to complain about the content-free nature of others postings, but has anyone else noticed that the signal on cypherpunks is being lost in the noise? jim

3 2

RE: A personal response to your email to sixdegrees
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh [mailto:declan@well.com] wrote: > Better yet, give anyone on the mailing list a veto over their new > membership. Send a cookie to the address that was signed up, and an > anti-cookie. If anyone returns the anti-cookie, in effect > saying "we don't want to be part of your blasted service," put them > on a list of do-not-contact people for half a year or so. An anti-cookie, I like it. LISTSERV provides a cookie and makes you type "ok" in the body. Making that "ok" or "cancel" and keeping the cookie active for a day or so seems like it would be a really simple modification. One "cancel" of course is over-riding and final. Similarly for majordomo and other custom acknowledgement schemes. Matt -----Original Message----- From: Matthew James Gering [mailto:mgering@ecosystems.net] > ---Mark Salamon <mark(a)sixdegrees.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks for the reply. I have now received about 10 such > > replies. We will take them to heart, remove the cypherpunks > > and attempt to deal with the mailing list issue in an > > intelligent way. Most lists and services have dealt with the problem of someone accidentally subscribing or maliciously subscribing someone else in one of two ways: A) send and acknowledgement message with a randomly generated authorization code that requires the user to respond. B) send out a password and require the user to login before account is activated. This works only if you assume the malicious individual will not receive mail sent to that address. This therefore falls down when the address is a mailing list or other distribution point that the malicious individual has access to directly or via archives.

1 0

No Subject
by jkthomson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

makes you wonder what hell they were using for encryption? DES? ------------------------------ September 17, 1998 Web posted at: 11:16 AM EDT (1516 GMT) MIAMI (AP) -- The shadowy world of a low-budget Cuban spy ring came to light in a courtroom, where an FBI agent testified that a suspect's apartment yielded computer diskettes containing coded references to Fidel Castro and plans to sabotage an aircraft hangar. Sounding more and more like a spy novel, details of the group's workings were revealed in a hearing at which Luis Medina and Manuel Viramontez were ordered held without bail Wednesday. Thousands of pages of encrypted computer documents were seized from the men's apartments. The men were among 10 rounded up over the weekend and charged Monday with trying to penetrate U.S. military bases, infiltrate anti-Castro exile groups and manipulate U.S. media and political organizations. Prosecutors said it was the biggest Cuban spy ring uncovered in the United States since Castro took power in 1959. However, the Pentagon said none of the alleged spies obtained U.S. secrets. Evidence seized from Viramontez "analyzes the ability to sabotage or cause damage to airplanes" or a Florida hangar itself," FBI agent Mark de Almeida testified. But the network was a low-budget affair, with a Cuban military captain who lived under the alias Viramontez falling behind on his rent. The Cuban government "indicated they were supposed to suffer like the rest of the Cuban people," de Almeida testified in explaining their spartan lifestyle. He said diskettes seized from Viramontez' apartment were sprinkled with the word "comrade" and coded references to "commandante," taken by investigators to refer to Castro. Before Viramontez was caught, he had three sets of false identities and plans to escape to Mexico, Nicaragua or Canada, prosecutors allege. Medina, said to be a Cuban intelligence major, was ready to flee with a briefcase containing Puerto Rican identities, a fake birth certificate and $5,000 in cash. Eight defendants postponed their bail hearings Wednesday. All 10 were in solitary confinement at a federal jail. Viramontez's attorney Paul McKenna said the court, not public opinion, must decide the case. "You can't have a lynch mob mentality about this case," said McKenna. "We have to let our system of justice, our courts, deal with this." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- james 'keith' thomson <jkthomson(a)bigfoot.com> www.bigfoot.com/~ceildh jkthomson:C181 991A 405C EAFB 2C46 79B5 B1DC DB78 8196 122D [06.07.98] ceildh :1D79 59AF ED75 5945 6003 8240 DA34 ACCA 9DE4 6BC9 [05.14.98] ICQ:746241 <keys> at pgp.mit.edu ...and former sysop of tnbnog BBS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Murphy's Military Laws: 3. Friendly fire ain't. =======================================================================

3 2

Encryption and Terrorists
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Wake up America! Encryption doesn't kill people! Terrorists do. Would you give the keys to your house to the government? Just in case they have to break in? NO! How about your ATM PIN #, just in case you don't pay your taxes? NO! So don't give out your keys that you use for encrpytion and don't let the government have a way to get them either! Just say NO to the UNCONSTITUTIONAL idea of Limited Privacy! After all, we are not COMMUNISTS.

2 1

The DES Analytic Crack Project
by Eric Cordian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We are pleased to report that we have obtained our first sponsor. Two more, and if everyone is agreeable, we have decided to launch the project, and get through as much of the early stuff in the FAQ as possible. Numerous comments on our sponsorship model have indicated that people want the project results to be widely disseminated, and that exclusive access is not an incentive for people to sponsor. So - unless we get a lot of people saying that this is not the case, we will probably just release stuff on the Web site as it becomes available, along with emailing it to sponsors, and posting summaries of interesting results to Cypherpunks. -- Sponsor the DES Analytic Crack Project http://www.cyberspace.org/~enoch/crakfaq.html

1 0

House panel OKs son-of-CDA (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:48:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: politech(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: House panel OKs son-of-CDA http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/daily/0,2960,14791-101980917,00. Time Daily Son of CDA September 17, 1998 By Jonathan Gregg Who should decide what's fit for kids to see online? If Rep. Mike Oxley has his way, says TIME correspondent Declan McCullagh, it will be "any Bible Belt prosecutor who's itching to make a name for himself." Oxley is the sponsor of the Internet decency act that was approved by a House Commerce subcommittee Thursday -- a bill that bears a striking resemblance to the 1996 Communications Decency Act that got the bum's rush from the Supreme Court, 9-0, for being unconstitutional. [...snip...]

1 0

Re: Larry Gilbert, AOLers, and the Hyper-real flamer
by AIMSX＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hmm, well, you were wrong about many things. The ISP runs RH5.1 I don't use the passwd file for anything, as it is shadowed. I don't work there. I use 100 accounts because it is so easy to get all the new users, and the changed passwords with the way they are set up, so why stop at one, and if that one is disabled, I would like something to fall back on. You just don't understand anything about why I do what I do. If you were illegally using an account, would you want to ONLY have 1? Why wouldn't you want to know you had something to fall back on if that one is disabled?

3 2

No Subject
by Mixmaster 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Wednesday, September 16, 1998 - 20:16:25 I'm trying not to be paranoid or anything, but the thing is, ... where the heck is everybody??!! Nomad

1 0

RE: Democracy... (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Forget about the origination of the word, > > There's your first problem, your argument won't stand in the No, there is a strict difference between the defining a word and defining a philosophy coined after that word. Certainly Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism all claimed to be Communism, regardless of how much or little resemblance they bear to a strict definition of the word communism. > A personal philosophy is a religion, different words > but same idea. > Religion and by extension faith are not > constrained by reason or logic. How do you account for this contradiction. I hold a personal philosophy that is strictly and absolutely constrained by reason and logic. > > There is no reason to think that a god does exist, so why > > would one even need to think about or believe in the negative. > > There is no reason to believe one doesn't either. Do you believe in THE FORCE, as described by the great prophet George Lucas? If you say "Yes," am I to claim that is your *religious* belief, not subject to reason, logic or empirical evidence? If you say "No," am I to assume that is your *religious* belief, not subject to reason, logic or empirical evidence? I hold no *religious* beliefs, PERIOD. You seem to be unable to grasp that concept. If thinking that everyone holds a religion, even religiously not holding one(?!), is a way for you to escape rational judgement on your own ideas, then so be it, discussion on the topic is no longer useful as this is obviously part of your religious beliefs. Matt

1 0