December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Blind signal demodulation
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The October 1993 Proceedings of the IEEE contain a number of rather interesting articles on blind signal identification and demodulation, which may be described roughly as "demodulation without the cooperation of the transmitter (or intended receiver where this might be necessary)". The first article in particular goes into some detail on how to acquire QAM signals used in modems, including a neat diagram on p.1919 of a 64-QAM constellation through the various stages of acquisition by a blind demodulator. The blind demodulation comletely bypasses the need for an initial training stage, acquiring the necessary signal-processing details on the fly. The article finishes with overviews of typical hardware used for blind demodulation of QAM signals, including a multi-protocol DSP card with with 8 320C50's capable of blind demodulation of anything from 24 2400bps signals up through 8 V.34 ones, as well as an ASIC for blind demodulation of digital cable TV signals. They also comment that blind decoders for typical voiceband signals can be implemented on Pentium MMX/UltraSparc-grade hardware. This is interesting reading, and should lay to rest the UL that high-speed modems have some sort of magic immunity to interception which the lower-speed ones don't. Oh yes, the introduction makes the observation that this sort of stuff is "rarely mentioned in the open literature". It's not hard to see why. Peter.

1 0

Re: A question about the new ISP ruling and email... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 18:25:34 -0800 (PST) > From: David Watts <davidwatts_98(a)yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: A question about the new ISP ruling and email... > `(1) SERVICE PROVIDER- (A) As used in subsection (a), the term > `service provider' means an entity offering the transmission, > routing, or providing of connections for digital online > communications, between or among points specified by a user, of > material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content > of the material as sent or received. > > `(B) As used in this section, other than subsection (a), the term > `service provider' means a provider of online services or network > access, or the operator of facilities therefor, and includes an entity > described in subparagraph (A). That pretty much covers anyone other than a end-user/subscriber. This means anonymous remailers, mailing list hosting services, email services, etc. > Subsection (a) deals with limiting ISP liability for transmitting > infringing material. Other subsections deal with caching, hosting, > linking, taking down infringing material, liability for those who > knowingly misrepresent that material is infringing, and rights of > copyright owners to subpoena ISPs for identification information of > alleged infringers. The requirement to register with the Copyright > Office and designate a contact person applies only as to liability for > hosted material. Does 'hosted material' mean material that is put up by the ISP itself or does it also include material made available by subscribers? > However, in order to be eligible for any of the > liability limitations, ISPs must meet the following conditions: Ah, so there's more than simple registration... > `(i) CONDITIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY- > > `(1) ACCOMMODATION OF TECHNOLOGY- The limitations on > liability established by this section shall apply to a service > provider only if the service provider-- > > `(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs > subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or > network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate > circumstances of > subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or > network who are repeat infringers; and Wait a second, I'm no cop. If somebody places copyrighted material on SSZ for example I can see bringing suite against that party, but forcing me to punish them by removing their account is over the line. Do I get restitution for lost services from the copyright holder since I'm acting as their agent? > `(B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard > technical measures. > > `(2) DEFINITION- As used in this subsection, the term > `standard technical measures' means technical measures that are used > by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works and-- > > `(A) have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus of > copyright owners and service providers in an open, fair, voluntary, > multi-industry standards process; So this is voluntary? > `(B) are available to any person on reasonable and > nondiscriminatory terms; and Meaning they themselves aren't copyrighted? > `(C) do not impose substantial costs on service providers or > substantial burdens on their systems or > networks. Imposition of *any* cost is a substantial burden. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Grounding (fwd)
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It seems so pointless to correct Choate. The guy is almost totally impervious to enlightenment. But a couple of whoppers have to be pointed out... > Secondly, you're considering an electron carrying a photon as a > single wavicle, it ain't. It's a superposition of several wavicles (3 quarks > and a lepton to be exact under the standard model). Electrons don't "carry" photons. An atom can absorb a photon, raising an electron to a higher energy level, but the photon is then gone. And a single moving electron certainly doesn't carry a photon. Photons move at the speed of light, always. Quarks are constituents only of baryons. There are no quarks in electrons or photons. Choate's bizarre description of a "spark gap" inside a conductive globe culminates with this: > Unlike charges attract. Therefore the gas of electrons are attracted to the > inside surface. Now since the globe is neutral it must follow by > conservation of charge that there is a negative charge equal to the charge > held in the gas on the *OUTSIDE* of the ball. The net charge within the sphere will not change. If the box in the middle with the "spark gap" is spraying out electrons, this can only mean that the box is itself becoming positively charged. The sphere sees a constant charge within itself; at best, the charge can be redistributed. There are no net changes of charge within the sphere and so there will be no changes in any charge appearing on the outside of the sphere. Choate's whole model of how a spark gap transmitter works, and why it emits electromagnetic radiation, is so bizarre that it is hard to believe. Someone else can bang their head against the brick wall of his ignorance on that topic. Choate is, by far, the worst poster on the cypherpunks list today. He posts off-topic material, he is argumentative, and 90% of the time, he is simply wrong.

1 0

Milton Friedmann get's pied....
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Seems the Mayor of San Fran and Milton have something in commen.... ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ps I didn't forward anything from this so that nobody'd get upset they missed their meal-train.

1 0

Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 00:18:26 -0500 > From: Michael Hohensee <mah248(a)nyu.edu> > Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd) > You missed my point. What I'm trying to point out is that no government > (or any other body, for that matter) can prevent someone from doing > something. Of that we agree. Which is why I will continue to believe the issues we deal with are not government problems but people problems. > All the state can do (and does, if you look closely) is > offer to punish anyone who disobeys it. It doesn't matter whether that > state is protecting individual rights or not --it can only punish, not > prevent. Well to be even more exact, they offer a guarantee of retribution if they can catch or prove somebody broke a law. Of course we could posit a government that pairs everyone up in groups of two (a perpetual no-lone zone), the ultimate police state. > I'm explaining why it is impossible for the state to protect individual > rights. I suspect we're playing word games here with 'protect'. I am not refering to what my neighbor does to me when he gets pissed off that my stereo is too loud. That obviously the government (local, state, or federal) can do nothing about a priori. Where the governemnt (at all levels) *CAN* in fact protect individual rights is the way they create the laws they enforce on all citizens (eg tax laws or dope-smoking laws). Those most certainly can be crafted to prevent abuse of civil liberties. Our own Constitution is a perfect example. The problem is the *people* who we elect believe they are above it and instead of asking "Do the laws we pass conform to the letter and intent of the Constitution?" instead state "It's a flexible document that is hard to interpet because of wording and changes in society". They want an out to not have to play by the rules. Nothing more and nothing less. > I offer two mechanisms by which the state *could* _protect_ > individual rights, and then point out why they are impossible. It is > something of a strawman argument, but if you disagree, I'm willing to > tear down any mechanism you might propose. :) See above. It isn't the rules that matter, it's the respect the arbiters of the rules have *for* the rules that matter. With that clearly in mind *any* mechanism is doomed to fail from the beginning. > > > All any state can do is threaten to "retaliate" against (why not just > > > say "attack") people who disobey its edicts. In order for this threat > > > to be credible, the state must wield sufficient power to kill any > > > individual (or group of individuals) who would stand against it. If it > > > does not have this power, it cannot govern. > > > > This is a quaint and completely artificial distinction. > > Is it really? Then could you please explain to me exactly why I would > have to pay taxes (or otherwise make submission) to a state which did > *not* have the power to kill me? So you wouldn't have to stand there and watch your house burn to the slab. So you would have help finding the perpetrator who raped your daughter last night. So when you drive down the street it isn't a whole filled muddy tract through a economicaly impoverished wasteland. So when you write a check you know there is something behind it that is trustworthy. So when you have that wrech late some rainy night there is an ambulance and a hospital to take you to. As to your (and others) particular focus on taxes, all it would take to resolve that issue is a single law: No citizen may have their home, personal property, or their liberty infringed or removed because of tardy taxes. Of course I'd add a section in there that would direct the tax accessor of the appropriate local to send a note to all relevant services to refuse to provide services to you. I'd even them impound vehicles that were operated on public streets without the appropriate licenses. Don't want to let your house burn down, fine. Let the fucker burn to the slab. Your daughter gets raped, fine. You figure out who did it on your own. Don't want to pay vehicle and related taxes, fine don't drive your vehicle on public streets. Just face it. It isn't the threat of violence that pisses you off. It's that you have social responsibilities to those around you. Taxes represent a responsibility that you don't want and to hell with the consequences. > this in a physical sense, not a legal one-- then what is to stop me or > anyone else from telling it to fuck off? Such a state cannot govern > those who do not wish to be governed, and so would not be a government. No state can govern those who don't wish to be governed, violence or no. [I've deleted a great gob of this since it's the same just rehashed in different sentences.] And to answer a specific question, I'm familiar with Dawkins work. > When two bears approach the same berry bush, they do not immediately > start fighting over it. What time of year is it? If we're talking in the spring when they're just out of hibernation they will begin to attack immediately. If it is two males in rut in the fall they will attack immediately. If you examine the way Alaskan Browns share the Salmon runs in the spring you will find ample evidence why Dawkins example isn't worth the paper it's writ on. > Instead, they each stick to one side of the > bush, and do not disturb one another. Malarcky. I'm familiar with the way bears and other mammals work and this is gibberish. Unless the bears are related one of them will be finding another bush pronto. > pretty good at attacking things. It would be pretty easy for a > exceptional bear to break this rule, and become dominant over the other > bears, if what you say is true. Except your forgetting the nature of bears. Except in heat bears are solitary animals. They don't like groups and avoid them. They defend their territory to whatever level of force is required. In most cases (Alaskan Brown are a well studied example you can find tons of literature on) they will not even approach each other closer than several hundred feet. So the question of them sharing a berry bush is a contrived example that is irrelevant and doesn't occur in nature outside of family groups that are transient and only last 1-2 years depending on the type of bear and the food supply. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

6 5

Re: verisign digital id's for outlook <shudder>
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>A quick question for all you security-savvy people. Our IT instructor has >asked the class to sign up for verisigns' 60-day trial of a class 1 digital >id. > >I also understand that a well (poorly?) written activeX applet can grab my >key basically without my knowledge (to speak nothing of the other myriad >holes in win98/95) > >My question is, where the hell is the private key kept on the users box? >How is it protected against attack? It's protected by Microsoft asserting that it's protected. There's also some sort of attempt at encryption (easily broken, see http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/breakms.txt) but in any case there are enough security holes there that anything which manages to run on your system (ActiveX, as you've mentioned) can grab your keys without a lot of trouble. Peter.

1 0

Re: Response to Anonymous re: Zero-Knowledge Freedom
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous, [..] : >FREEDOM servers in their home country (example: if terrible laws are : >passed like in the Netherlands requiring logging and storage of all : >packet info., etc.). In this manner, a local user in a restrictive I'm not aware of any law that requires "logging and storage of all packet info". (I presume you mean 'Wet Computercriminaliteit II' ?) There is a part that makes ISP liable if they cannot point to a 'user' but the law explicitly states that you have to be in the business of being an ISP, running a remailer is not my business, it is a 'not for profit' hobby, so it will be fun to see how "they" will 'manouvre' to bring that also under the law ... Anyways could you please sent me the relevant parts of this law that lead you think this way ? bEST Regards, -- Alex de Joode | International CryptoRunners | http://www.replay.com 'A little paranoia can lengthen your life'

1 0

100S OF FREE PICS'N'LINKS EVERY DAY!
by STUFFED TUE NOV 10 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

+ 30 SUPERB, HI-RES, HOT PHOTOS + 5 SUPER SEXY STORIES + FAST LOADING XXX HARDCORE + WHITE CHOCOLATE + BLOW BABY BLOW + NYMPHO9 + ASIAN SLUTS + SAVING RYAN'S PRIVATES + PLAYSX + BLONDES WITH BIG TITS + BITCHES IN HEAT + MIDNIGHT PASSION + BONUS PIC 1 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/13204.htm + BONUS PIC 2 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/18769.htm + BONUS PIC 3 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/10668.htm + BONUS PIC 4 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/19144.htm + BONUS PIC 5 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/24117.htm + MUCH, MUCH MORE! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <---- This email is never sent unsolicited. Stuffed is the supplement for the Eureka newsletter you subscribed to. Full instructions on unsubscribing are in every issue of Eureka! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <----

1 0

100S OF FREE PICS'N'LINKS EVERY DAY!
by STUFFED MON NOV 9 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

+ 30 SUPERB, HI-RES, HOT PHOTOS + 5 SUPER SEXY STORIES + LESBIAN FRIENDS + TECHNOPORN + SOUTHERN BELLE BLOWJOBS + HOT PICS II + NAKED 4 U + ORGASM 4 ALL + JACK IN THE BOX PORNO + SAVING RYAN'S PRIVATES + STIFF ONE EYE + CHAPO'S SEX PAGES + BONUS PIC 1 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/20001.htm + BONUS PIC 2 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/3051.htm + BONUS PIC 3 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/15393.htm + BONUS PIC 4 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/16985.htm + BONUS PIC 5 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/24093.htm + MUCH, MUCH MORE! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <---- This email is never sent unsolicited. Stuffed is the supplement for the Eureka newsletter you subscribed to. Full instructions on unsubscribing are in every issue of Eureka! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <----

1 0

Re: IP: Crunch Time for Y2K Suppliers (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 00:35:04 -0500 > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> > Subject: Re: IP: Crunch Time for Y2K Suppliers > Seems to me that it would have been just as easy for "believer" to send the > URL to the story as the whole thing. Same with ol'VZ. > > Not only is it in poor taste, but it means less people will read the > article on wired.com, which is what pays the rent. True, but since when is freedom of speech, association, and press related to wired (or you) making a profit? I feel zero social responsibility to tell people to go there and read it when I can send a snippet of it to them directly and save them the time, effort, and bandwidth. I personaly absolutely *HATE* to recieve a piece of email that contains nothing but a URL, it's worthless - lacks all context. Don't like folks sending partial or whole articles to foster discussion, learn to love it or live with it. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0