December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Remailers and ecash (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:27:10 -0400 > From: ghio(a)temp0122.myriad.ml.org (Matthew Ghio) > Subject: Re: Remailers and ecash (fwd) > Jim Choate wrote: > > > What besides raising hell anonymously, laundering money, and defeating > > merchant purchase traffic analysis are commercial anonymous remailers good > > for? > > So what are remailers being used for? We are talking commercial remailers here right? <see the quote you used above>. As famous as you are, you don't get to change the rules in the middle of the game. > 1) Private communication in the form of anonymous message pools You don't need anonymous remailers for this since simple crypto will provide just as good private communications security than anonymous remailers will because there is no central choke point where traffic analysis occurs . Now if one of the parties is actualy under surveillance then the anonymous remailers won't help because they will be tapping at the source, if anything it would provide further evidence of the parties complicity in a conspiracy. If you want your communications to stay private (if I understand your use of the word) use encryption and use underground remailers which isn't open to commercial exploitation, or else simply purchase a different account on your current ISP. > 2) Test posts Irrelevant, people don't pay for test posts enough to keep a commercial remailer in business - unless we vastly increase the total traffic level by quite a few orders of magnitude. > 3) Discussion of Macintosh computers irrelevant, people won't pay for this either. > 4) Discussion of obscure religions irrelevant (and I'm a Pantheist, they don't get more obscure than that) since people ain't gonna pay for this unless they are persecuted in their country of residence. If so the easiest thing to do would be to outlaw anonymous remailers (with the same logic they use to oppress the religion). [see #6 for more details on this] > 5) Sharing erotic fantasy stories And you suspect they will actualy pay for this? This line of reasoning I would love to hear more on... > 6) Avoiding censorship in Singapore Let's look at this a moment. I believe we can take as a given that Singapore is a oppressive regime. Furthermore all traffic in Singapore goes through government operated and regulated POP's. In that environment you really want to send traffic to an anonymous remailer? Can you say 'man-in-the-middle', and not only that but all the outgoing traffic from Singapore won't be through an anonymous remailers making it trivial for Singapore officials to determine exactly who to go hassle. So it is clear that the only parties discussing Singapore safely will be outside Singapore which makes the supposition that Singapore is going to come after you a bit suspect. You're talking about a country that outlaws private satellite dishes - get real. Furthermore commercial enterprises are open to much closer scrutiny in areas like Singapore making it even harder to stay in business unless the operator happens to be a government stooly, hardly the stuff of security. My thesis would be that any remailer (commercial or not) in a country with an oppresive regime is the last place you want to consider secure. > 7) Avoiding censorship in Iran See #6. Applies to China, Korea, Iraq, etc. > 8) Discussion of remailers themselves I would also like to see your explanation of exactly why they would pay for this. > 9) Discussion of controvertial political topics (racism, guns, drugs) The only reason that anonymous remailers are useful here is that the originating party doesn't want to deal with the results of being known. The flip side to this is that the reputation of anonymous discussions in these sorts of areas would have little political impact. A person who won't discuss such issues under their own name certainly won't go out and become actively involved in some political movement. Now if your claim is that such activity might hold some weight with an elected official I would appreciate an explanation as well - especialy considering that the anonymity provides just enough 'cover' so that the politician can safely ignore any and all traffic made through this mechanism, "They aren't one of my constituents." If you have some reasoning outside this please share it. > 10) Discussion about a TV show Irrelevant because people won't pay for this. Free remailers are useful for all sorts of mental masturbation, for actual business there doesn't seem to be a lot of uses. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

3 2

Re: Remailers and ecash
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/1/97 5:03 AM, Robert A. Costner (pooh(a)efga.org) passed this wisdom: >At 09:59 AM 10/1/97 +0200, Anonymous (Monty Cantsin) wrote: >>It is my understanding that serious naval vessels like aircraft >>carriers use constant bandwidth channels to defeat traffic analysis. >>That is, to every place they might wish to communicate, they >>continuously broadcast encrypted information. Most of the time the >>channel is empty, of course, but nobody outside can tell when. >> >>If we had a remailer network in which each customer had a constant >>bandwidth connection to one or more remailers, you could have zero >>latency mail. > >Let me get this straight. You are suggesting that anyone who wishes to be >anonymous should send a continuous 24 hour stream of low bandwidth data to >a central point in an effort to help keep anyone from knowing that they >wish to be anonymous. > >While this may help correct the latency problem, how do you think this will >effect anonymity? Do you think that by sending a continuos stream of data >to the remailer, the sender will be less identifiable? No, but I see that someone with a fulltime connection or even a fulltime machine with an hourly or half hourly dialup would setup a program to send randomly generated "Null:" messages to the randomly selected remailers so that when he does have something to send that is meaningful it will not change the apparent flow ... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNDLjFMdZgC62U/gIEQI1wgCg22mCFVbWn77DwG1CUlIRJah7oooAnic0 e0J0D1IOLP85CNvadBh9cBVA =5UGm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "First say to your self what you would be; then do what you have to do." Epictetus (35-135 A.D.)

1 0

Re: "Show me an example of terrorists using the Internet or crypto" (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 19:16:22 +0100 > From: alexlh(a)yourchoice.nl (Alex Le Heux) > Subject: Re: "Show me an example of terrorists using the Internet or crypto" > You people just don't get it do you? A gun has one purpose: To kill. Just like > any other tool, a gun, if it is available _will_ be used at some point. Actualy I have never killed anything with my current .22, but a lot of tin cans and paper targets have been holed. And, no, I would NEVER consider a .22 anything close to a self-defence weapon since even a head shot doesn't guarantee anything other than pissing the target off. I might use it as a club but it is not nearly that stout, I'd go for my shovel or hoe or maybe my nunchakus (assuming they didn't have a gun -which most burglars and such don't have). > So making sure there are lots of guns around only serves to make a lot of > people very dead. This is a Bad Thing. Actualy it cuts down on crime because the criminal is afraid they might get shot. A perfect example of this is Florida or Texas where the vast majority of people have guns. If you catch a burglar in your house or car do they run? No. Why? In the vast majority of cases the perp states that they were afraid of being shot - in effect saving both lives. I can say this, I would never consider staying in a place for very long that prevented me from owning a gun legaly. Well, actualy there is one way, guarantee that I get my own personal police officer to go around with me (and they should be armed). Here in Texas we have a law that permits the owner of property to kill without warning any party stealing their property after dark. It's amazing that the vast majority of burglaries and such happen during the day. It's further interesting that in both Texas and Florida after legalizing handguns the number of robberies and such went down, as well as the number of violent crimes using guns. The only thing that went up was domestic violence where one spouse killed another in a fit of rage. Had the gun not been there they would have gone back to knives and frying pans which used to be the weapon of choice. Are you proposing that we outlaw knives and frying pans as well? > Gun control laws are not the issue. It's a matter of mentality. In Europe, > where we have rather strict guncontrol laws, and have had them for a long > time a decent human being will not even think of shooting someone else. Not mentality, maturity. I am shure they think about it all the time, they just can't find an underground gun dealer. Yeah, they not only blow up the individual target but a couple of dozen other bystanders in the process. If it's so damn safe how come the cops over there all carry machine pistols and such. Something you never see here in the states even during a bank robbery. > In the > US, where guns are tradition and part of the American way, many people would > not think twice before shooting someone. The result of this is that the > number of people getting killed by guns is enourmous, be they criminals, > little kids, old grannies, or presidents. First, not that many little kids are killed by guns. Most die many other ways much more horrible. Two presidents and if Illinois is any show the Grandma's can take care of themselves. Secondly, in this country more people are killed each year by hands, feet, and clubs than guns. Thirdly, the vast majority of gun owners would no more shoot somebody without thinking than they would run over them in their car. Beside, it takes a moment of reflection to get the sites lined up. > We are not trying to export our stupidity, we're just trying to explain to > you how we live. We live in a place where we don't even have to think about > getting a gun, because the chances of us encountering a gun in the hands > of an adversary are negligible. You have accepted your over-bearing invasive jackbooted police with a equinimaty that would never occur here - we'd shoot the SOB's. Sounds like when it comes to sheeple the US has a long way to go when compared to Europe. > Wake up and smell the coffee, dude. If you have lots of guns around, you're > gonna end up with lots of people getting shot. And if some of those aren't shot we'd have a lot of people running around with other peoples property against their will. Shooting a person is in and of itself not bad, if you believe it is then I take it you support disarming the police and military as well. Do you support capital punishment? Apparently it's you and your ilk that haven't gotten the clue: It isn't that a gun was used but under what circumstances. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ 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: Remailers and ecash (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: Remailers and ecash > Date: Wed, 1 Oct 97 19:56:26 -0400 > From: "Brian B. Riley" <brianbr(a)together.net> > No, but I see that someone with a fulltime connection or even a > fulltime machine with an hourly or half hourly dialup would setup a > program to send randomly generated "Null:" messages to the randomly > selected remailers so that when he does have something to send that is > meaningful it will not change the apparent flow ... And why does this by any security when it's the header info and contents that Mallet looks at, not the frequency. The only thing such approaches do is impliment security by obscurity, and that ain't security. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ 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: "Show me an example of terrorists using the Internet or crypto" (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:20:11 -0400 (EDT) > From: Cynthia Brown <cynthb(a)sonetis.com> > Subject: Re: "Show me an example of terrorists using the Internet or crypto" > I agree wholeheartedly. Uncontrolled guns do not solve problems, they > create them. If most households have at least one firearm, it makes it > that much easier for a criminal to obtain one by stealing yours while you > are at work. Most households in the US do have firearms, most criminals don't steal guns they buy them from the underground. If they do steal them they sell them pretty quickly afterward. Very few gun crimes in the US are committed with stolen guns, or guns stolen by the possessor at the time of the shooting. > Canada may be regulated to death according to most libertarians, but I for > one like it that way. I can walk alone and unarmed at night in Ottawa, > Toronto, etc. without fearing for my life. Can a female resident of > Washington or New York say the same? Our schools do not have metal detectors > at the entrances because they are not needed. Bullshit, they have muggings and such there just like everywhere else. Are you seriously claiming that sort of stuff doesn't happen? The schools here in Austin don't either. Most schools in the US don't have this sort of stuff. > IMNSHO the best way to fight crime is not with bigger guns than the "bad > guys", but with better social programs such as universal health care, and > improved day care so single parents can show their kids what a productive > lifestyle looks like. This takes longer than blowing the brains out of some > teenager that feels his only path to a better life is through crime, and it > doesn't give the same adrenalin rush. However, it works at the source of > crime, and not the consequences. The way to fight crime is to stop putting 1st time offenders, drug offenses, non-violent crimes, etc. in jails AND to make consensual crimes non-crimes like they ethicaly should be. We have over a million people in jail in the US, more than any other country, the vast majority of whom shouldn't be in jail because what they did shouldn't be a crime. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:42:39 +0200 (MET DST) > From: nobody(a)REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) > Subject: Re: "Show me an example of terrorists using the Internet or crypto" > You are also not considering the case where one person has a gun and > another does not. The situation is more stable if both people are > armed. (And don't claim you are talking about disarming a whole > society. You aren't, just part of it.) Why is the situation more stable if both parties are armed? If I were confronted by a armed burglar and we were facing off I would pull the trigger as soon as I got a lock. If their gun wasn't in a ready position I would warn them and if they so much as flinched I'd drop them. If they were unarmed I might beat them senseless with the gun but I would not shoot them unless they made a motion to rush me, then I would go for a non-lethal shot unless the distance was less than a dozen feet (rushing distance) or so in which case I prefer head shots followed by center-torso (heart) shots. I'd also train to fire 3 shot groups. The one exception would be center-torso shots if they were wearing heavy or bulky clothing that might hide a vest. In that situation (assuming it wasn't a rush) I would shoot for the inside of the thigh at the hip-joint. Hit that artery and your dead without immediate medical attention (which I am not likely to give after just shooting the SOB). If it was a rush situation I would dump the clip into their chest moving upward, hoping the KE would slow them down enough to get a clear head shot (this would be what I practiced the most as well). No, despite your claim the most stable situation is to not have the invasion in the first place, followed by the victim being the only one armed. Anything else is a gun-battle waiting for a twitch. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ 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: None (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: None > From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) > Date: Wed, 01 Oct 97 16:15:50 EDT > > Those who are newcomers to the list should know that Vulis has never > > presented any evidence substantiating his vague claims that Stronghold > > is insecure or has backdoors (or whatever the claims were). Vulis is > > conducting a personal vendetta against one of C2Net's staff members and > > anyone who happened to be or become associated with him. > > Nor do I have to present any evidence. I'm not the one selling StrongHold. Exactly, StrongHold is the one making the claims of security, it behooves them to address any and all criticisms of their product. > I have received several threatening communications from C2Net's lawyers, > which were discussed at length on this list. To avoid unpleasant disputes > I agreed not to disseminate my opinions about StrongHold. > Please keep this in mind if you consider buying it. Which is sufficient reason not to use the StrongHold product or anything else put out by them. Any company which desires to suppress opinions or discussion over their product clearly has something to hide. This is what I tell my customers and they seem to understand the utility of such an approach. Never support strong-arm tactics, honest people don't need them. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Traffic Analysis and Cover Traffic (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:33:13 -0700 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Traffic Analysis and Cover Traffic > As I understand your example above, the sender becomes less identifiable > because he can always be counted on to send some packets; an attacker > cannot see a message after a long period of no messages and correlate it to > a similar sudden increase of activity at a possible recipient machine. > > Traffic analysis is something you should look at. And think about. This holds if it is a one-time occurance. If Mallet is looking at the traffic over a very long time it is completely reasonable to expect some correlation to become clear. To address the example another presented about some book example of burst analysis. Look at real-world examples such as the underground in France in WWII. They would generate a single message on a known frequency at a specific time. Thus interested parties could dial-in and get the info but would not provide the Nazi's with sufficient traffic or time to get a bearing. The revolutionaries in the book are amateurs and deserve what they get since it is clear they are incompentent and by extension not fit to run a country. Anyone with a clue will use times single instance transmissions and if available burst or SS transmitters to reduce the transmission time even more. With current technology like full-time satellite surveillance and transmitter characteristic analysis anything more than a single burst transmission with the radio from a random location will provide sufficient traffic to get a fix. You should also throw the transmitter away or change the drivers in the finals after each use as characteristic analysis will provide Mallet with the means to track the transmitter and thereby apply traffic analysis (just like they use in some cell systems). ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

money laundering book review
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

some new books that might be of interest to some cpunks ------- Forwarded Message Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 11:59:12 -0400 From: Kris Millegan RoadsEnd <RoadsEnd(a)AOL.COM> Subject: Fwd: piml] Free Life Commentary - The New World Order To: CTRL(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM - --------------------- Forwarded message: From: ke4yqz(a)mindspring.com (Roger Cravens) To: c-news(a)world.std.com, piml(a)mars.galstar.com Date: 97-09-30 16:54:38 EDT >From: "Chris R. Tame" <Chris(a)rand.demon.co.uk> >Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:45:58 +0100 >Subject: Free Life Commentary - The New World Order >To: libnw(a)circuit.com (Multiple recipients of Liberty_NW) > >I hope the third issue of my colleague Sean's Free Life Commentary will >prove of interest. > >Chris R. Tame >Director >Libertarian Alliance > > ------- Forwarded message follows ------- > >Free Life Commentary >Editor: Sean Gabb >Issue Number Three >29th September 1997 > >========================== >"Over himself, over his own mind and body, >the individual is sovereign" >(J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859) >========================== > >Free Life Commentary is an independent journal of comment, >published on the Internet. To recieve regular issues, send >e-mail to Sean Gabb at old.whig(a)virgin.net > >Issues are archived at http://freespace.virgin.net/old.whig/ > >Contact Address: 25 Chapter Chambers, Esterbrooke Street, >London, SW1P 4NN; Telephone: 0181 858 0841 > >========================== > > On the New World Order: > Two Book Reviews > by Sean Gabb > > > > International Efforts to Combat Money Laundering > William C. Gilmore (ed.) > Grotius Publications Limited, > Cambridge, 1992, 335pp, 48 (pbk) > (ISBN 0 521 46305 X) > > Money Laundering: A Practical Guide to the New >Legislation > Rowan Bosworth-Davies and Graham Saltmarsh > Chapman & Hall, London, 1994, > xii and 304pp, 49.50 (hbk) > (ISBN 0 412 57530 2) > > >The first of these books is a collection of treaties, plus other >documents, concerned with the international fight against >money laundering. The second explains how these treaties >have been enacted into, and are enforced under, the laws of >the United Kingdom. Both works will repay the closest >study. In clear detail, they show the growth of what must >be called a New World Order, and how, without some >interposing cause, this may produce a universal slide into >despotism. > >The fight against money laundering begins with realising >that the "War on Drugs" has been lost. When goods are >portable and easily concealed, and when demand for them is >strong enough to bear almost any cost of bringing them to >market, the main effect of prohibition will be to put a >bounty on crime. For all the efforts of the past three >generations, illegal drugs are available in most high security >prisons. In much of the West, street prices have been >stable or even falling since 1980. > >The official response, however, has not been to give in and >legalise the trade, but to expand the War to a front where >previously there had been few hostilities. While keeping up >their efforts against the trade itself, the authorities have >turned increasingly to confiscating its proceeds. This new >approach has three alleged benefits: > >First, it will deprive criminals of their incentive to enter >and remain in the trade; > >Second, it will allow the punishing of those in charge of the >trade - people who never touch or see illegal drugs, but to >whom the main profits ultimately flow; > >Third, it can make the War on Drugs self-supporting, and >perhaps yield a surplus for other public spending. > >There is, however, one practical difficulty. Before the >authorities can confiscate the money, they must find it. To >do this, they must keep it from being merged beyond recall >into the general flow of investment. This involves ending >bank secrecy and imposing a mass of financial regulation. >Now, most people - especially the rich - dislike having their >lives pried into. Nor do banks like higher costs and >limitations on what business they can do. And so, given >the present freedom of capital markets, no government >acting alone can afford a strict policy of confiscation. It >would, sooner or later, cause a flight of transactions to >more liberal places. > >The solution has been to try making everywhere in the >world equally illiberal. Such was the purpose of the >United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in >Narcotic Drugs and Narcotic Substances, signed in Vienna >in December 1988 [full text in Gilmore, pp.75-97]. This is >one of the most important international treaties of the past >50 years. It not merely requires its signatory states to >criminalise the laundering of drug money, and to confiscate >it where found, but lays down so far as possible a common >wording for the criminal statutes, and a common mode of >enforcement. It also requires full and prompt cooperation >between the signatory states for the enforcement of these >laws anywhere in the world. > >The Convention had little direct or immediate effect on >British law. Many of its requirements, indeed, had already >been met in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. Most >others were only met in the Criminal Justice Act 1993, >which enacts the European Community Directive of 1991 >on the Prevention of the Use of the Financial System for the >Purpose of Money Laundering [full text in Gilmore, >pp.250-67]. This itself derives from the Vienna Convention >only through the Council of Europe Convention on >Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the >Proceeds from Crime 1990 [full text in Gilmore, pp.177- >91]. Even so, this country is fast becoming a financial >police state of the kind agreed at Vienna - and where the >process cannot be traced to the Convention, it can be traced >to the same international pressures of which the Convention >is itself a result. > >Let me explain. When I talk about a New World Order, I >do not mean some grand conspiracy of bankers, or Jews, or >Illuminati, or even - with far more probability - the >American Government. There are countries where policy is >largely dictated from outside. But for rich and powerful >countries, the truth is more complex. Most international >obligations imposed on this country, for example, were not >only consented to by our rulers, but were usually proposed >by them, and are enforced by agencies in which our own >countrymen often occupy senior positions. > >Where others see conspiracies, I see public choice >economics. Whenever a government tries to do something >dangerous or unnecessary, like banning drugs or educating >the poor, it must set up an agency through which to spend >the allocated funds. Once employed, the agents will - as if >directed by an invisible hand - start to find more and more >justifications for expanding their status and numbers. They >collect the statistics. They know which ones to publish and >which to hold back. They are the politicians' first and >favoured source of advice. They have their pet journalists. >They trade favours with the relevant interest groups. They >know exactly how to give themselves a pleasing life, and >how to see off threats to it. Unless the money runs out, or >the public turns really nasty, they can write their own >budget cheques. > >By natural extension, the same is now happening at the >international level - though with potentially far worse >consequences. In the first place, there is limitless money: >budgets would need to swell unimaginably large to reach >even one per cent of gross planetary product. In the >second, public anger seldom crosses borders; and, if all else >fails, the politicians and bureaucrats in one country can >shelter behind the excuse of treaty obligations that cannot be >unilaterally be cast off - not, at least, without consequences >more horrible than words exist to describe. Third, the >enforcement of international treaties means the growth of >what is in effect an international bureaucracy. The local >enforcers of a treaty may be citizens of the signatory states, >who will live and work in their home countries, and may >even occupy positions in the domestic administration. Yet >these are people who, by virtue of the agreements they >enforce, and the contacts they make and maintain in other >countries, are members of an international order. And, in >at least the case of money laundering, they will share an >agenda that is often deeply hostile to their native >institutions. > >This can be seen - expressed with almost naive honesty - in >the book by Messrs Bosworth-Davies and Saltmarsh. Both >are British police officers: the latter is a departmental head >at the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Both take it >for granted that the world needs an international police >force. Both are unable to believe that anyone can >disinterestedly object to the necessary harmonisations of >law, and the corresponding abolition of Common Law >protections. They "know one senior clearing banker who >has described this [money laundering] legislation as the >nearest thing he has experienced to >'McCarthyism'...".[p.172] Of course, they see things >differently. The legislation > > discloses, on mature reflection, a set of carefully > structured laws which, with good will, due > diligence and a modicum of responsible attention > from the industry as a whole, should not prove > too burdensome. Indeed, the authors believe that > some of the regulatory requirements have been > diluted too much already, in a misguided attempt > to placate the sensibilities of certain sectors of the > industry....[Ibid.] > >With people like this advising the politicians and lecturing >the rest of us, little wonder the Drug Trafficking Offences >Act predates the Vienna Convention by two years! Though >they will hotly disagree - and even perhaps consider a libel >writ - Messrs Bosworth-Davies and Saltmarsh cannot be >regarded as our countrymen. More at home in a gathering >of Bulgarian or Filipino police chiefs than with any of us, >they are foreigners with British passports. > >Somewhat less honest, though still interesting, is the >Explanatory Report of the Committee of Experts who >drafted the Council of Europe Convention [full text in >Gilmore, pp.192-237]. Though formally subordinate to a >committee of the various European Ministers of Justice, >these experts plainly saw their first duty as lying elsewhere. >Call it "the international community" or their own order, >their duty was collective and not to any single country. > >Look at their dislike of the narrow focus of the Vienna >Convention. They wanted something that would also allow >confiscation for > > terrorist offences, organised crime, violent crimes, > offences involving the sexual exploitation of > children and young persons, extortion, > kidnapping, environmental offences, economic > fraud, insider trading and other serious offences. > [Gilmore, p.204] > >But they had to concede that not every European country >might like its own laws against these acts to be written by >an international committee. And so they allowed each >signatory state to reserve whatever of these acts to its own >legislative process. > > The experts agreed, however, that such states > should review their legislation periodically and > expand the applicability of confiscation measures, > in order to be able to restrict the reservations > subsequently as much as possible. [Ibid.] > >And this is only the beginning. As yet, the shape of world >government exists barely in outline. But the tendency ought >to be plain. Power is moving from national - and mostly >democratic - governments to unaccountable and even >invisible bureaucracies. Liberal institutions that are often >the work of ages are being hammered into the transmitters >of unlimited power. We are beginning to known how >people in the Greek city states felt after absorption into the >Roman Empire. > >When the American militiamen cry out that the United >Nations is about to invade in black helicopters and plant >microcomputers in their bottoms, I am at least sceptical. >This is not the New World Order that I see. What I do see >is actually worse. We can shoot the helicopters down, and >dig out the microcomputers, and put the ringleaders on >trial. We can go about playing the hero of our choice from >Star Wars. But in the real world, there is no Death Star to >blow up - no Darth Vadar to push into the void. There is >just a huge, elastic network of people, all acting in what >they believe is the public good, most with some degree of >public support. > >How this kind of despotism can be resisted is another >question, and I have said enough already. But I will repeat >- the books here reviewed do repay a very close study. At >the very least, it is useful to see the enemy's future plan >laid out in such detail. > >Sean Gabb > >========================== >If you like Free Life Commentary, you may also care to >subscribe to my longer, hard copy journal: > >Free Life >The Libertarian Alliance >25 Chapter Chambers >London SW1P 4NN > >A 10 Pound subscription buys you four issues. > >========================== >Legal Notice: Though using the name Free Life, this >journal is owned by me and not by the Libertarian Alliance, >which in consequence bears no liability of whatever kind >for the contents. >-- >Sean Gabb | "Over himself, over his own | >E-mail: old.whig(a)virgin.net | mind and body, the individual| >Web Page: | is sovereign" | >http://freespace.virgin.net/old.whig/ | J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859 | > >-- >Chris R. Tame, Director >Libertarian Alliance | "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, | >25 Chapter Chambers | and the secret of Freedom is Courage" | >Esterbrooke Street | Thucydides, Pericles' Funeral Oration | >London SW1P 4NN >England >Tel: 0171 821 5502 >Fax: 0171 834 2031 >Email: chris(a)rand.demon.co.uk >LA Web Site: http://www.digiweb.com/igeldard/LA/ >Free Life Web Site: http://freespace.virgin.net/old.whig > > >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE Fidonet 1:346/16 (208) 267-9851 >"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on >the Fidonet Backbone..." SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW >Visit Liberty Northwest on the Web: http://www.saldivar.com/lib_nw/ >Subscribe: libnw-on(a)circuit.com -- Unsubscribe: libnw-off(a)circuit.com > >...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ******************************************************************** * Liberty is NEVER an option ... only a condition to be lost! * * http://www.jbs.org * ******************************************************************** * Roger Cravens, SYSOP * * South East Signals Intelligence Group BBS: (770-) 942-1089 * * Atlanta, GA * ******************************************************************** * Signals Intelligence: "... and the truth will set you free"! * ******************************************************************** ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Re: Encrypting Pagers is Easy! [Overview, technical tradeoffs, crypto]
by Gold Dot 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Y'all: Since I design pagers for a living, I thought I might comment on encryption in pagers. I've been thinking about encryption in pagers for several years now. RC4 was suggested, and it is probably a good choice for the low end microcontrollers used in pagers. The problem with encryption in pagers is not algorithms, hardware, software or even technology. The problem is getting awareness that there is a problem transmitting pages in the clear. Most people have no clue and I've seen not one request from a customer (meaning large paging companies) for encrypted pagers. A few more well-publisized hacks will help, though. Code space is at a premium in a pager, so widespread awareness of the inherent insecurity of paging protocols will be necessary to get encryption into the products. So, here's a project for any hacker with time on their hands. Input the audio signal from a garden variety scanner into your sound card (just about any variety will do) and decode the signal. It's just 4 level FM. I'd do it myself, but I value my job. :-) Or, if you're lazy and have money, buy yourself a SignalPro and decode two channels simulaneously. Then, scan paging systems in strategic locations and post the juicy tidbits to the 'net. TTFN, Gold Dot golddot(a)nym.alias.net "Gold is money, and nothing else is." -- some dead guy

1 0