December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: The killer app for encryption
by Tyler Durden 20 Dec '03

20 Dec '03

Uh...I assume you're quoting somebody here? The last point is actually a very good one, but getting there requires hacking through gobbledeegook. What's this "all businessmen" silliness? And using vpns WITHIN a company? As an employee of a major Wall Street firm, I can tell you that's completely wrong. But the interesting thing, which again is "obvious" is, "How will P2P Networks morph into something like blacknet?" I'm very interested in hearing about whether any P2P networks support encrypted transactions of any sort yet (ie, can one yet pay for some files via P2P)? Are there any P2P Networks being designed deliberately to support anything/everything, including peered IP Telephony? -TD >From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com >Subject: The killer app for encryption >Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:47:14 -0800 > > -- >Encryption is a defense against threats. For people to adopt >encryption, they need to be threatened. > >All businessmen are guilty of insider trading and destruction >of evidence. In consequence all businessmen use encrypted vpn >internally within companies, but not, however, in external >communications, rendering a public key infrastructure quite >useless. For widespread tax evasion to take off, we would like >widespread use of public keys. > >Now the entire population is guilty of file trading. Pretty >soon, therefore, the entire population will be using >encryption, but it is far from clear that this encryption will >enable all the potential uses of encryption that cypherpunks >foresaw. > > --digsig > James A. Donald > 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG > 5fFQJC040+P9QrkF8BhWR4nUBWhNmexs1EH0ej6o > 4a8EuzGFht8mQloFG16q2B76njPoWM/jVAzYAxKoQ _________________________________________________________________ Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx

3 2

(No Subject)
by Anonymous 20 Dec '03

20 Dec '03

Re saddam et all... http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EL19Ak01.html The war of words over Saddam & Bush is quite amusing. The blind faith in ones govt structure and the willingness to support force that is in such extreme measure overpowering and statist such as the dropping of tons of depleted uranium high explosives shows that some on this list have not broadened their news reading beyond fox news. What courage is required to fly at 40000 ft and drop the MOAB containing DU on essentially defenceless targets? How can people think that Bush would never harm civilians? It does not really matter if there are democrats in the whitehouse or "republican" kings appointed by courts. Just because you choose not to deeply examine the effects of the policies of your govt does not make them "reasonable". Successful policies and reasonable policies can be two different things. Its possible to be both successful and reasonable. Its also possible to be successful and un-reasonable... http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html http://www.robert-fisk.com/depleted_uranium_links.htm Saddam merely gassed a few thousand people maybe. Bush senior's gulf war and now Shrub's fine legacy will ensure the slow torturous death of many generations of Iraqis and those American soldiers involved. The awful horrors of Stalin, Hitler and Saddam will pass with a few generations... the half-life of DU is in billions of years.Re American soldiers: Bush has cut medical care for active duty personnel as well as veterans.(link via google search: http://www.veteransforpeace.org/bush_cuts_vet_benefits_041503.htm) The childish blind faith in US statist instituitions does not make their pronouncements right.This is no better than those that blindly followed their communist or nazi leaders. The USA is at the heights of its power because of a well defined strategy of monetary and military control of the world (the dollar as the currency of international trade and its consequences, see links below). Only the people of the USA can prevent the degeneration of their vaunted state into a hellhole that will make the Soviets blush. The seeds are in place - fine grained monetary oversight, 99.99% unsecured easily intercepted private conversation, the shredding of the "bill of rights", willing armies of police and other govt organized thugs, the impending death of the dollar as the only currency of international trade, the overvalued stock market with absurd PEs, the willingness to scam for a buck (Enrons, Halliburton etc), the lack of true capitalism and open competition in certain sectors [eg medical cos, microsoft]. Those on this list should know better. Note: I'm not suggesting that this is going to happen overnight, but as I said the seeds are in place... Some links to ponder: Why is the width of damage to the pentagon not as wide as a 757 (flt 77)? http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/index.html http://911research.wtc7.net/ http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/index.html Dollar: http://home.flash.net/~rhmjr/c1219.html http://home.flash.net/~rhmjr/index.html http://thoughts.editthispage.com/ http://www.justiceplus.org/bankers.htm Dollar and war: http://www.pressurepoint.org/pp_iraq_dollars_euro_war.html http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html USS liberty [or the lies the US govt will tell] http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/ http://www.ussliberty.org/ Former KGB head consults for US Dept of homeland security: http://www.impeach-bush-now.org/Articles/Americans/USSA.htm http://www.threadcity.com/cgi-local/social/config.pl?read=27 Of course there will be the chest pounders vouching for their wonderful state... about how all this is Internet garbage. Those unwilling to make a deep and wide investigation are unteachable. Bush needs you.

1 0

RE: The killer app for encryption
by Tyler Durden 20 Dec '03

20 Dec '03

"I'm not certain, but I think there are some MS certified modems which have a generalized A/D-D/A capability sufficient to handle voice." They do. And I'm not so sure POTS is going to be where things will be the most interesting...cable modem telephony might be where things get interesting. As for the Telcos allowing a call to be terminated on their copper, they'll never let this happen without going through the 5ESS, and recent legislation means they probablyt won't have to let you use some higher frequency band either. I've heard of some P2P startups that leverage the discovery mechanisms in P2P networks in order to setup a SIP session for telephony. It's interesting to consider the possibility that, depending on the P2P system, it's conceivable that one could call another user without having any way to "trace" that call, or payment for that matter. So if bin Laden were feelin' lonely one day and signed onto the network, you could give him a call, without him worrying about the missles falling within a few minutes. -TD >From: Steve Schear <s.schear(a)comcast.net> >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Subject: RE: The killer app for encryption >Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:42:01 -0800 > >At 03:47 PM 12/18/2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote: >>At 08:16 PM 12/18/03 +0000, Jim Dixon wrote: >> >> >What exactly do you mean by "peered IP telephony"? > >What I'd like to see is a P2P telephony that also supports end-user >gateways to the POTS. I'm not certain, but I think there are some MS >certified modems which have a generalized A/D-D/A capability sufficient to >handle voice. Although it opens up the possibility of end-user >eavesdropping some of this might be thwarted by randomizing user node >selection and detecting/reporting line impedance changes (indicating an >extension going off-hook) to the 'client' wising to use the POTS. I >suggested this idea to Jeff Pulver, now a VoIP champion, in 1999 but he >thought it was too out of the mainstream to be interesting. Now that P2P >is beginning to branch out from file sharing maybe this is no longer a far >out idea. > >steve _________________________________________________________________ Tired of slow downloads? Compare online deals from your local high-speed providers now. https://broadband.msn.com

1 0

Release Saddam now
by proclus＠gnu-darwin.org 20 Dec '03

20 Dec '03

Saddam is being wrongly held by illegal invaders and occupiers. He should be immediately released or turned over to legitimate authorities, such as the international courts. Advocate for the release of Saddam Hussein, and the withdrawal of the USurpers. Pass the word. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C++++ UBOULI++++$ P+ L+++(++++) E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e++++ h--- r+++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type APPLICATION/pgp-signature]

3 6

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by privacy.at Anonymous Remailer 20 Dec '03

20 Dec '03

Greetings Has Saddam recieved a lawyer yet? Will Saddam be judged by a court having jurisdiction and being recognized internationally?

5 6

Re: Release Saddam now
by Anatoly Vorobey 20 Dec '03

20 Dec '03

[taken from private exchange back to the list with mutual agreement] > >> > Why? > >> > >> If there is no one with legitimate authority to try Saddam, then they > >> cannot rightly hold him, and he must be released. > > > > What was different about Saddam's regime from the current US-installed > > regime, that made Saddam's regime legitimate authority and this one not > > a legitimate authority? > > Care to take this back to the list? I'm answering a parallel thread > there. > > Clearly Saddam has more authority than the US to rule Iraq, because he > was a sitting head of state, and the US aggressed in an illegal > invasion. But Saddam's regime itself stemmed from illegal takeover of a previous regime -- doesn't that make all of his regime illegitimate and his authority void? > Thus, Saddam has a plausible claim to authority, but the US > does not. The only reason Saddam has a plausible claim to authority is because he has taken gotten it by force. By the same reasoning, US or US-installed regime, which is being put into power by the use of force, has a plausible claim to authority as well. > By extension, the US puppet government in Iraq also has no > plausible claim to authority. Why not? -- avva

2 1

President of Flies
by Nomen Nescio 20 Dec '03

20 Dec '03

US is currently run by thugs supported by the cheering consumer crowds that have been bred and conditioned to be infantile. So the situation is best evaluated in the "Lord of Flies" context. As long as masters are winning and have stronger army than anyone else, nothing will change. You will notice that they never engage army unless they have several orders of magnitude strength advantage. Which means that only small countries are in danger. There are two consequences of this: (a) there is no likely grouping of bigger entities to strike back - and that is the only response that will change US behavior. Until US is beaten and have suffered occupation and complete military defeat nothing much will change. This will eventually happen as history demonstrates that empires are not capable of sustained supremacy (due to the negative selection within among other factors - incidentally, the brain drain in the last 3-4 years have changed direction - this is the most significant metric.) But not any time soon. (b) smaller countries will strive to arm themselves with effective weaponry. The window for this is closing and in few years there will be two clearly defined clubs: untouchables and fair game. It looks that most of the arab world is heading for the fair game status and they are understandably unhappy with it. The main question is - will the income from newly and soon to be acquired colonies be sufficient to prevent confrontation between US and the rest of developed and armed world?

2 1

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Anatoly Vorobey 20 Dec '03

20 Dec '03

On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:11:32AM -0500, Sunder wrote: > That all depends on your definition of sovereign. After all, "we" put, or > at least helped, that monster into power. Not really, no. > So, while he was our puppet, He was never out puppet. > he was the good guy, He was never the good guy, and was never called a good guy by "us". Well, except for the idiots who are now calling for his release, I guess. > and > no matter how many > he murdered, he was a benevolent leader. Not really, no. > Now, we'll put a different "democratic" government in place. Of course, > it won't be as free as the USA, nor have the same kind of constitution - > that would be a problem since we couldn't control it's oil. If all we wanted was to control its oil we wouldn't try to put a democratic government in place, with or without the quote. Gosh, the oil-conspiracy nutcases are so dumb, it's tiring. > Nothing new, nothing to be surprised about. Exactly, a bunch of lies from the usual quarters. A stream of revisionist history from useful idiots hell-bent on making it ALL OUR FAULT, ever and ever again. It's a movable feast. > The war on terror itself will go on for as long as the voters will > tolerate it, or until it's true goals succeede and it becomes impossible > for the voters to do anything but accept it - or be disappeared in the > middle of the night... Not much different than in Stalin or Hitler's > days. You don't know much about Stalin's or Hitler's times, do you? -- avva

1 0

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by James A. Donald 20 Dec '03

20 Dec '03

-- On 19 Dec 2003 at 10:11, Sunder wrote: > That all depends on your definition of sovereign. After all, > "we" put, or at least helped, that monster into power. No we did not. in 1958 pro soviet socialists gained ascendency in Iraq, but a power struggle proceeded between the communist and baathist wings of the socialist movement. In 1963, the baathists launched a coup, intended to be launched simultaneously in all arab countries, to establish a united supranational arab state based on the arab race and socialism. The coup succeeded in Syria, succeeded only temporarily in Iraq. Allegedly this coup was supported by the CIA, but there is no evidence for this, nor does it seem very believable that the CIA would wish to see the arabs united under a pan arab socialist regime. Shortly thereafter there was a counter coup against the baathists in iraq, which established a conventional military regime, whch was eventually overthrown by Baathists in 1967. If the CIA gave support to either coup, which one do you think it more likely to support? > No different an > action than we the many times before putting tyrants into > control of small, but important nations under the guise of > "protecting democracy." The trouble with your account of events is that the baathists were then as they are today socialist, pan arabist, anti american and anti colonialist, hence improbable as beneficiaries of CIA benevolence. > So, while he was our puppet, he was the good guy, and no > matter how many he murdered, he was a benevolent leader. Saddam was no more "our puppet" than Stalin or Pol Pot was, nor was he ever deemed a good guy, any more than they were. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG vBqQagnGXwPK05ONAmls2anbapINr8iAonZNkXey 4iqeeJi9vST/28skvcS3MLX6xe/UAtn9L94MWRoIS

1 0

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by privacy.at Anonymous Remailer 20 Dec '03

20 Dec '03

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, BillyGOTO wrote: >> Nice, but the problem still remains: At this point it doesn't matter >> what he has done (or we say he has done). This is not a punishment. >> "Innocent until proofen guilty" anyone? This is the basis for the >> "enlightened" western society, no? >This isn't a ski mask burglary. We KNOW Saddam ruled Iraq. >We KNOW what crimes were committed. Simple syllogism. I think you might have forgotten about the other half the system, due process. Even if you "KNOW" something, you've got to go through the motions.

3 5