December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

SURVEY SHOWS COUNTIES ARE BEHIND ON Y2K FIX
by DOOM Anonymous Untraceable User 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A survey by the National Association of Counties shows that one-third of the nation's counties aren't even aware of the Y2K problem -- and about 75% of the 119 counties with populations below 10,000 haven't developed a plan for updating their computer systems to deal with the millennial data change. Total Y2K spending among counties is expected to reach $1.7 billion, according to the association. (Information Week 14 Dec 98) #!/usr/local/bin/perl -0777-- -export-a-crypto-system-sig -RC4-3-lines-PERL @k=unpack('C*',pack('H*',shift));for(@t=@s=0..255){$y=($k[$_%@k]+$s[$x=$_ ]+$y)%256;&S}$x=$y=0;for(unpack('C*',<>)){$x++;$y=($s[$x%=256]+$y)%256; &S;print pack(C,$_^=$s[($s[$x]+$s[$y])%256])}sub S{@s[$x,$y]=@s[$y,$x]}

1 0

repost(?): Why i am not truly pseudonymous yet (was: Re: keyword scanning and countering writing style analysis)
by Zooko 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cypherpunks: I tried to send this message to the cypherpunks in April 1998. I suspect that this, and many other messages that i sent, never reached the cypherpunks list. If any of you remember reading this, or have a copy of it in your archives, please let me know. Regards, Zooko ------- Forwarded Message Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 07:06:44 +0200 (MET DST) From: Zooko Journeyman <zooko(a)xs4all.nl> To: zooko(a)xs4all.nl Newsgroups: list.cypherpunks Subject: Why i am not truly pseudonymous yet (was: Re: keyword scanning and countering writing style analysis) References: <199803252037.UAA06168(a)server.eternity.org> Adam: I think that the state of the art on this is probably close to the boundaries of the science of machine learning. I recently saw a presentation by a researcher from Bell Labs. His machine learning system, which is being patented, had success rates better than competing systems (including better than a hand-scripted system!) at identifying into which categories a phone call or letter to AT&T fell: "Billing", "Subscription", "Complaint", "Delay", "Installation", etc. Presumably the NSA has similar systems with all of our favorite keywords. (Toto: insert funny jokes here.) Anyway, if _i_ were forced to bet on it, i would say that such systems are not yet good enough to reduce the cost of matching nyms to "insignificant", but that such systems probably _will_ be that good before too long (and our old articles will still be useful as data then...). Now the question about counter-measures, i don't know. (There is a trade-off between safety and expressiveness here. We could all buy a copy of AltaVista's translator software and language databases, and then run our missives through a couple of pidgin foreign languages before posting them. [Toto: insert funny joke about JYA here.]) <sigh> I think this issue is growing in importance. I currently use a very weak nym, which anyone with a little skill should be able to crack [Toto: bonus points if you _privately_ send e-mail to one of my eunymous accounts]. I'm starting to think that this is the worst of both worlds, as potentially malicious sorts are not significantly slowed down, while potentially beneficient people are kept a bit more distant from me and are thus less likely to be of use to me. (e.g., people who know me as Zooko wouldn't notice if "Anna Rosenbaum" (my real name) were to disappear one night, and vice versa.) By the way, the reason for my failure should be instructive: my nym is so crackable not because of any technical detail having to do with remailers or encryption-- it is that i foolishly posted articles containing both nyms in the distant past, and those articles are now a permanent part of the The Net instead of decaying and disappearing like articles from even earlier years did. Another issue for me is the onerous cost of starting a fresh nym. The benefits (true pseudonymity) are uncertain (the bad guys' techniques might crack my best effort using current technology (especially because of textual analysis as per the original topic of this message)), and the costs are that i lose the advantages of concentration of reputation into a single nym. (I've already observed this, a little, with my current set of weak nyms. Adding a strong one would only exaccerbate my woes.) A final problem i have with true pseudonymity is that i _like_ meeting people in Real Life, and not only to fight or fuck them. Okay, this has been long and rambling, but i hope useful to some of you. One more point before i go: There are two ideas of pseudonymity that i have considered. In one, you are truly the only person who knows that the nym maps to your body. This has obvious advantages, and obvious disadvantages. In the other (which is basically what "Zooko" is and was intended to be), there is a large, ill-defined group of people who also know of the mapping. This has its advantages too-- social advantages (which are very important!), but the disadvantage is that it is trivially cracked by a mole. [In fact, i think i recall that about the time "Zooko" appeared on the scene one "Adam Back" sent me e-mail saying, "Hey-- you write a lot like Anna Rosenbaum did... Are you her?".] [So if anyone wants to do me a favor, look about in your archives and dissociate "Zooko" with "Anna". Thanks! It might actually do me some good in the long run, although not, of course, against the likes of the NSA. Perhaps against others.] Regards, Zooko P.S. For an Nth reason that i don't have a strong pseudonym, i never bothered to learn how to use a remailer front-end. Now with Xemacs 20 and Mozilla out, i could probably handle it... P.P.S. Today i found the 3rd person, including myself, who has used the name "Zooko" on the net. .----, | mailto:zooko@xs4all.nl . / | http://www.xs4all.nl/~zooko/public.html . / | "Any technology which is distinguishable +____. | from magic is insufficiently advanced." ------- End of Forwarded Message

2 1

I76wQeB9zDPUp2NfsZqfInyfQ1A4ojlu
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Re: Forwarded mail....
by Richard.Bragg＠ssa.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Comrades, comrades, please. What makes "The Revolution" so powerful is the way it transends such petty consideration as "National Boundaries". When our day comes there will be no treachery as there will be no "THEM" to be treasonous to. We will be in total control. There will be complete freedom of speech as long as it doesn't cover topics not suitable for public discorse (these will be desided as we need to). Anyone can use encryption, as strong as they like. Of course the only computers will be centrally controlled and plain text backups will be maintained for your peace of mind. We will do all that tedious backing up for you. Anyone can own and carry any firearm. Ammunition will naturally be rationed. We don't want the wealthy, bourgious <sp> to gain an advantage over the brothers and sisters in the masses. Be patient comrades, our day will come. Missouri FreeNet Administration <measl(a)mfn.org> on 19/12/98 05:41:51 To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com cc: (bcc: Richard Bragg/UK/SSA_EUROPE) Subject: Forwarded mail.... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ::Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 05:21:34 +0100 ::From: Anonymous <nobody(a)replay.com> ::To: sysadmin(a)mfn.org ::You should be expecting a visit from the boys in the suits very soon. ::Have fun. I hope your cellmate is a big guy they call "The Bull." ::Traitorous scum. ---------- Message Ends ---------- What I *really* love about these "patriots" is how they are not _afraid_ to stand by their words! Awwww, c'mon! You're on the "Side Of Right(tm)", so why hide? You afraid I'm gonna piss on your white picket fence? Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin(a)mfn.org -- If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Anthrax Theatre
by Albert P. Franco, II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Eric Cordian <emc(a)wire.insync.net> > >Now we have the latest incarnation of adjusting sheeple motivational >inperatives, Anthrax Theatre. Genuine Anthrax not required, of >course. Yes children, see what happens because of Saddam Hussein? >There'll be a test later, to see if further attitudinal adjustment is >required. > And if that doesn't work we all know that the MIB wouldn't hesitate to unleash a real "small scale" release just to prove that the threat really exists! APF

1 0

hi
by fjd8＠giulietta.logikos.it 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Do you know what the number one fact is, that will determine whether your business is a success or not? ADVERTISING! Effective conventional advertising is quite expensive. So what do you do? Direct email is one of, if not thee most effective method of advertising in the 90's. You can get your ad out to hundreds of thousands, even millions, for only a fraction of the cost of traditional advertising. The wave of future advertising is here, don't miss it We will send your advert for you. We have gone through painstaking methods to insure that we have the cleanest and most up to date mailing list on the Internet. All you have to do is write your ad, we do the rest. 250,000 addresses - $265 (Holiday Special - $199) 350,000 addresses - $315 (Holiday Special - $250) 500,000 addresses - $450 (Holiday Special - $350) 1 million addresses - $800 (Holiday Special - $700) 3 million addresses - $1800 (Holiday Special -$1200) Holiday specials end on December 31st and normal pricing will resume. Specials are based on when you make payment not when your ad is sent. Ad can be sent at anytime as long as payment is made by December 31st, 1998. For more information or to place an ad call IMC Marketing at (909) 627-3557

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ACLU: Bombing in Iraq Violates Constitution and War Powers Act FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, December 17, 1998 WASHINGTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union said today that the bombing of Iraq ordered by President Clinton violates the Constitution and the War Powers Act because it was not authorized by Congress. Congress adopted the War Powers Act in 1973 to ensure that U.S. troops are not sent into hostilities without Congressional authorization, except in cases where a national emergency is created by attack upon the United States. "Launching a massive, sustained military assault is an action that no one person in our democracy -- including the President -- can authorize," said ACLU Legislative Counsel Gregory T. Nojeim, adding that the ACLU takes no position on the use in force in Iraq. "It is a power that the framers contemplated would be shared by Congress and the President," Nojeim added, noting that Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution grants to Congress "the power to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal." Under the Constitution, Congress is given the ultimate decision as to whether to use force; the President's power is limited to decisions on how to use the military after Congress has authorized the President to act. Section 2(c) of the War Powers Act states that the President has constitutional authority to "introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, ... only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States. ..." "A debate and vote on the use of force is especially important here, since many members of Congress have publicly expressed reservations about the timing of the attack, and Congressional resolutions have been introduced about the use of force in Iraq," Nojeim said. One of those resolutions expressed the sense of Congress that the United States should not take military action against Iraq unless that action was first authorized by Congress. That resolution, H. Con. Res. 226, was introduced in February 1998, gathered 108 co-sponsors, but was never voted on by the full House. The ACLU said that the resolution that was adopted by the House today, H. Res. 612, does not meet the requirements of the War Powers Act, and that the Iraq Liberation Act, which was adopted by Congress and signed by the President in October, did not authorize the use of U.S. forces in Iraq. "A debate would help ensure that all viewpoints on this important issue are considered," Nojeim said, "and a vote ensures that such an important decision has been endorsed by the people through their representatives in Congress."

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Ministry of Information announces the following: In order to ensure domestic tranquility and the maximum protection of human rights by reducing crimes against humanity, be it enacted that - There shall be no whispering in public; you should have nothing to hide unless you are a criminal - You may not walk or gather in groups of two or more; such gathering is an indication that you may be conspiring to commit some illegal act - You may not have locks on your house; you should have nothing that you are keeping from the collective - You are not to draw the blinds or curtains in your house; law-abiding citizens have nothing to hide - All future voting will be by voice vote before the General Assembly; you will also proclaim your support for the Party before casting your vote - You will not think. Free thought is for those that conspire against the righteous government - You will not associate with the Cypherpunks; they are enemies of those that would oppress you <UNSUB>

1 0

No Subject
by D.STARR 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

sounds to me like they want to create chaos where none exists or is likely to exist! "Defence officials called for "aggressive and preventive actions" now to reduce the Year 2000 risk to a more manageable level. The military will have about 32,000 of its personnel dedicated to Operation Abacus, with thousands more available if needed." darkstarr cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com wrote: > LOCAL > Saturday 12 December 1998 > > 'Martial law' rushed for Y2K chaos Report warns government to be ready to > invoke federal Emergencies Act > > By David Pugliese The Ottawa Citizen <snipped> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 "The human animal needs a freedom seldom mentioned; freedom from intrusion. He needs a little privacy." --Phyllis McGinley -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNXlDlmzbxbzh8ktOEQIS9wCfX0vXT5Txyn7LTiiTHSbEw+fBOycAnA6C fc2bGY8gGslVN/Kn4M7rPx13 =BKC6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

1 0

bugs and gas
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>>This is not how anthrax spreads. Communicability between humans is nearly >>>nonexistent. This is basically an advertizement for anthrax: http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/Anthrax/anth.htm#medically An index of CBW sites: http://www.cbiac.apgea.army.mil/ Chemical defense: http://chemdef.apgea.army.mil/fm8-9/part_iii/index.htm

1 0