December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:00 PM 9/21/98 -0700, Kurt Buff wrote: >I (as a militant atheist) merely say that if you can define your God, I can >probably prove he doesn't exist. Unless, of course, your definition is so >broad as to have no meaning in the first place. As a thinker I find the term atheism dignifies the concept of theism, so I find it offensive. Theists are primitives and one needn't stoop. In my religion, saying unprovable things in public is a stonable offense. Joe Momma

3 2

Forwarded mail...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 06:15:33 +0200 > From: Anonymous <nobody(a)replay.com> > It is only rarely we get the sons of bitches on > tape, and then you'll have to pardon us for > exploiting it. Take what you can get and run like hell with it! > The only regret is that Frank Zappa was not alive > to put it all to music. I hadn't even thought of the potential for yellow snow rides... ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

new sci am articles on encryption
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

the new issue of scientific american features articles on encryption and hacking. one is by Phil Zimmermann, on public key cryptography. A policy article by Rivest (of RSA) argues against encryption restrictions in the US. a long article on internet hacking and breaking and entering describes the basic process that hackers use. Rivest uses the analogy of "gloves" for encryption, in the sense that we shouldn't outlaw gloves because the govt needs always to obtain fingerprints for identification. furthermore, "key escrow" is like gluing fingerprint copies to the bottoms of gloves, another waste of time.

1 0

Re: This is a listed crime?
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:50 PM 9/21/98 +0000, attila wrote: > "I dont know nuthin' 'bout it" Double negatives are your friend :-) > agreed, in theory. but how do you protect yourself when two or more > take the stand and swear under oath that you said: "......" or, even: Yeah. The times I've known the facts in cop-vs-citizen cases, the cops have often been lying; I have to assume that they're often lying in cases when I don't know the facts as well. Of course, getting somebody with that kind of attitude about cops onto a jury is somewhat unlikely, but occasionally you'll find neutrals. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

2 2

churches
by harvest1＠altavista.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Chruches, Pastors and Ministers: To those of you that are searching. I would like to invite you to view my web page. You just may find something in there that may help you in your search. www2.sosinet.net/~harvest1/communion.htm Since, this message is a one time post only. It is not necessary to respond. Prophet Leamon.

1 0

RE: ArcotSign
by William Whyte 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> For this to work, the public key has to be kept secret(!). >... > As Greg points out, much the same could be accomplished simply by having > the servers share secret 3DES keys with their users, each user having his > own private 3DES key. The users could encrypt messages using their 3DES > key and the server would decrypt using the appropriate key, which would > also serve to authenticate the user. The difference between this scheme and a shared-secret scheme (if I understand this scheme correctly) is that Arcot's infrastructure gives you non-repudiation -- the central server can't forge authenticated messages from you -- and so it's suitable for transactions of value in a way that a shared-secret scheme isn't. Cheers, William

1 0

IP: US Easing Bank Rules on Big Cash Transactions
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com X-Sender: believer(a)telepath.com Date: Mon, 05 May 1997 15:44:45 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: US Easing Bank Rules on Big Cash Transactions Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/financial/cash-transactions-reuters.h… September 22, 1998 U.S. Is Easing Bank Rules on Big Cash Transactions By REUTERS WASHINGTON -- The Treasury Department announced Monday that it was trimming its requirements for reporting large cash transactions. The measures had been introduced to try to curb money laundering. Banks had criticized the requirements, the Treasury said, "because they mandated repetitive paperwork" for routine transactions. The changes will lighten the banks' paperwork load but will make bankers responsible for acting as monitors and reporting anything to the authorities that they think is out of the ordinary and that might indicate criminal activity. The new rules will permit banks to conduct most transactions with "cash intensive businesses" without having to report to the Government under the 1970 Bank Secrecy Act. But banks will still have to file reports on transactions of $10,000 or more with individuals and with certain types of businesses. "This rule does not exempt banks from reporting suspicious activity involving those exempted activities," the Treasury said. "In addition, certain categories of businesses, such as real estate brokers, automobile dealers and money transmitters, may not be exempted." The reporting requirements were originally established to help law enforcement officials combat money-laundering by drug dealers and other criminals who pass large amounts through businesses and banks to give an appearance of legality. The new rules, published today in The Federal Register, will permit a bank to exempt a domestic business that routinely needs large amounts of cash simply by filing a form stating that the business is exempt. The business must have been a customer of the bank for at least a year. Banks, savings institutions and credit unions can begin using the new rules on Oct. 21. The Treasury said businesses exempted from reporting rules by a bank must have their exemptions reviewed every two years. But it said it was dropping a requirement that banks include details about all of a customer's transactions on the renewal form. In 1997, the Treasury said, more than 12 million currency transaction reports were filed. It said that as a result of the latest rules changes, as well as an earlier streamlining of reporting requirements for transactions between banks, financial institutions should be able to reduce such filings by about 30 percent. Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ********************************************** --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Re: Stego-empty hard drives...
by Alexander Oelzant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Stewart wrote: > >Robert Hettinga wrote: > >> Stegoing an encrypted partition as "blank" hard drive space without > >> actually writing over it unless you wanted to? > >> > >A freshly formatted partition has a fill value. Noise would indicate > >that is is not fresh. This would not be proof that it contained > >encrypted data but it would indicate some sort of use. > > It's really a shame how often MSMail files get corrupted, > and how quickly the things can grow to 100-200MB if people from > Marketing keep sending you mail with attached Powerpoint files. > Does anybody know a compressed disk driver that lets you start > at an arbitrary offset in a file so the headers look fine? just installed the cryptfs patch for linux (from ftp://ftp.csua.berkeley.edu/ pub/cypherpunks/filesystems/linux/) which works nicely on 2.0.35 if you mangle along the .rej files. it can use any offset you want and also stego your fs if you like ... oh! wrong os for you? then again you could certainly astonish your average customs officer with it ... them probably not expecting your linux to use a ms file for storage :-) hth. alexander -- aoe(a)oeh.net

1 0

Re: Jury duty considered harmful, or at least rare
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Tim May wrote: > > At 11:11 PM -0700 9/22/98, Bill Stewart wrote: > > >Yeah. The times I've known the facts in cop-vs-citizen cases, > >the cops have often been lying; I have to assume that they're often lying > >in cases when I don't know the facts as well. Of course, getting > >somebody with that kind of attitude about cops onto a jury > >is somewhat unlikely, but occasionally you'll find neutrals. > > I last served on a jury in 1973, 25 years ago, no doubt before many readers > of Cypherpunks were born. > > And I've only received a single _possible_ summons since, in the 25 years > since that one jury appearance. > > Yet some of the apolitical numbskulls I know about have served on several > juries in the same time. The Poisson, as expected, or something more human? > > Jury nullifying minds want to know. That is almost enough to make the more paranoid among us think that maybe they have a "do not summon" list. They basically have this anyway with the prosecution vetoing possible jurors. If you're on it, you just aren't summoned. People on that list would be people of libertarian mindsets, politically outspoken people, Cypherpunks, professional people, etc. If they do have a list, I'd kind of like to be on it. I'm a college student, and I _can't_ serve on a jury for more than a day or so. The same goes for doctors, corporate executives, and others. There is an inherent flaw in the jury system. You get summoned and are legally required to blow the entire day down at the courthouse. If you're a student you miss classes, and if you have a job you miss that too. You have to pay for transportation, parking, food, and whatever else you need. In return, you get paid something like $3, which often isn't even enough to cover the parking and get told every five minutes that this or that will get you, as a juror or potential juror, thrown in jail. Meanwhile, if you're a doctor, scientist, college student, lawyer, or hold any other professional position you're thrown off most of the time. If you have a decent job or if you're in school, forget about it, because if you're tied up for more than a day or so you _just can't do it_. They don't want people who know that juries are capable of nullification. They don't want people who can determine that the evidence of one side or the other is suspect. They don't want people who will actually look at the facts rather than the emotion of the opening and closing arguments. The prosecution sure as hell doesn't want anybody who will look at whether a law should exist in the first place. "Hey, Doctor! Um, I have to serve on a jury. Can you take all my patients for the next six months while I'm locked in a hotel room? Oh, and I need to still get my full salary to pay my bills. Thanks, buddy." Um, no. So you basically wind up with juries which are stacked with welfare recipients, stupid people, and retirees. A jury of retirees may work, but the others surely don't. When the trial actually starts, the average juror, regardless of what council may tell them about due process, is usually biased in favor of the prosecution, especially if the government is claiming that the defendant is an evil child molestor. If it's a case involving technology, you get a bunch of bogus "experts" up there which say what council wants to be said, because real "experts" refuse to dumb down their testimony to a kindergarden level. "Mr. May, will you please explain -- in layman's terms -- exactly how the microchip fabrication process works?" "Well, we start with..." "I'm sorry to stop you, sir. Can you please explain to the jury -- in layman's terms -- what a transistor is?" "Well, in this context it often acts as a switch for an electronic circuit, but it can also--" "Would you please explain in layman's terms what a circuit is?" Argh. Can you imagine trying to be a defense expert in a cryptography case with a bunch of jurors who can barely read, are unemployed, hate "nerds," and beat the "geeks" up in high school, while the prosecution is constantly screaming that the defendant is a kiddy porn trader and you're expected to dumb your expert testimony down to kindergarden level?

5 4

From Spyking: DNA Technology
by Sunder 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

**************************************************************** 5) From: "Timothy Robarts" <t.robarts(a)btinternet.com> Subject: DNA Technology London 16/09/98 September 16 1998 Police Superintendents' Conference: Stewart Tendler on how science is catching up with the criminal. DNA detectives will fit a face to a flake of skin A SINGLE flake of dandruff will soon be enough for scientists to build up a criminal's photofit, police commanders were told yesterday. Experts believe they will be able to create "genetic e-fits", using information gleaned from a DNA sample to build a picture of a suspect's race, build, eye and hair colour, and even behavioural characteristics. Within a year, forensic scientists will be able to take DNA samples from minute scraps of skin left at the scene of a burglary and from such surfaces as the steering wheel of a stolen car, the keyboard of a computer and the outside of a drink can. They will be able to identify DNA from the wrappings round illegal drugs that dealers and couriers had hidden in their bodies. The photofit will be available within a decade. It will include the height of the suspect and other details including the shape of the ears and chin and inherited physical defects. The DNA advances were forecast yesterday by Kevin Sullivan, DNA research and development manager for the Forensic Science Service, speaking to the annual conference of the Police Superintendents' Association in Bristol. He said that genetic profiling was the "Holy Grail" for scientists but would be achieved within ten years, aided by international work on gene identification. Dr Sullivan, who worked on the identification of the remains of the last Tsar, Nicholas II, said that the breakthrough in taking DNA samples from dandruff would allow investigators to take material from the tiny particles of human skin that are found at every scene. He said: "People are constantly shedding skin cells. The majority of household dust is made up of dead skin and we know we can get DNA from an individual skin cell." He said that an armed robber could be tracked down by DNA evidence taken within 12 months from flakes of dandruff left behind in a discarded balaclava. It is a person's DNA, contained in every cell in the body, which predicts an enormous range of characteristics including skin, hair and eye colour, bone structure and even propensity to some illnesses and personality traits. He told the conference that DNA testing had become "1,000 times more sensitive" in the past decade. Whereas ten years ago scientists needed a bloodstain the size of a 10p piece to conduct a test, they now required just a pin-prick invisible to the naked eye. DNA samples would soon be used to re-examine unsolved sex cases and could even be used in miscarriage-of-justice cases. Scientists were working on ways of extracting DNA from sperm samples taken many years ago and still being stored. New developments meant it was possible to identify bodies that had been hidden for some time. DNA can be taken from hair shafts in the skull, from bone and faeces and matched with the mothers of possible victims. Work was developing on portable DNA testing facilities which could be used at the scenes of crimes to speed up investigations. Dr Sullivan said mass screening in major inquiries had grown. Since the first screening in 1987, in a double murder case in Leicestershire, there had been 91 screening operations in Britain involving 26,000 samples. Offenders were identified in 30 cases and in one case a suspect walked into a police station and gave himself up when DNA screening was announced by police. Dr Sullivan said that in the next five years scientists would improve the collection of DNA samples from blood and saliva left on surfaces such as cigarettes. Further work on identifying DNA in animals would begin next year. He said this could be used to solve crimes against humans. Children who were assaulted sometimes left hairs from their pets on the clothing of their attackers, which could be used to identify suspects. Tim Robarts - <mailto:t.robarts@btinternet.com>t.robarts(a)btinternet.com - http://www.robarts.com **************************************************************** 6) From: Will Smith <the-mib(a)rocketmail.com> Subject: Anonymous Net? Hi there. Do you know of any stealth program's the will stop my movement being tracked on the net i.e.: where in surfing, what sites i'm going to, what OS i'm running ect, my e-mail address ect... like a real-time netshield or fire-wall? to keep the $pooks from trackin me online? The-MIB ****************************************************************

1 0