December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RSA v. PGP Complaint Correction
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Due to a transmittal error the latter half of the RSA v. PGP complaint was omitted from our offering this morning. The full complaint is now available at: http://jya.com/rsavpgp.txt (21K)

1 0

Information request
by DataET Research 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, If you are interested in having a high-quality, but extensively inexpensive, Web site designed for you, your résumé, or your company, visit http://www.dataet.com or contact info(a)dataet.com immediately, and request for additional information and/or a free cost and time estimation. Thanks for your time. We hope to hear from you soon. Regards, DataET Research Data Engineering Technologies info(a)dataet.com http://www.dataet.com

3 2

DoJ on Bombmaking Info
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We offer: "Report on the Availability of Bombmaking Information, the Extent to Which Its Dissemination Is Controlled by Federal Law, and the Extent to Which Such Dissemination May Be Subject to Regulation Consistent with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution Prepared by the United States Department of Justice As Required by Section 709(a) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Submitted to the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate April 1997" ----- http://jya.com/abi.htm (193K) This relates to the proposed "Feinstein Amendment" of the AEPDA. It covers in detail what kind of speech is permissable now and what language for the amendment should be to close gaps. A fine distinction is traced between "teaching" the use of terrorist and mass destruction weapons and "advocating" them. Or something like that -- I am a jailhouse laugher.

1 0

DES challenge news (fwd)
by 3umoelle＠informatik.uni-hamburg.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Distributed key cracking efforts have been discussed in detail on cypherpunks and coderpunks for quite some time. A Swedish group trying to solve RSADSI's DES challenge chose to ignore the results. Here is what they got (from RISKS 19.14): >Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 17:56:54 +0200 (MET DST) >From: Thomas Koenig <ig25(a)mvmap66.ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de> >Subject: DES challenge news You may remember RISKS-19.09, in which I discussed the risks in a network-wide attack on the RSA DES challenge: The Swedish group at http://www.des.sollentuna.se/ didn't give out its source, so the client could, in fact, do anything, such as crack a master EC-card key. The reason given was client integrity. Well, a month after this, the promised source code release has not happened. Instead, it appears that somebody disassembled part of the client, made a version that reported fake "done" blocks, and then sent these to the servers. Moral? Don't ever think that nobody can read compiled code. Don't try to run a cooperative effort like this in a closed development model. Thomas Koenig, Thomas.Koenig(a)ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig25(a)dkauni2.bitnet. ------------------------------

1 0

Re: Spam IS Free Speech
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 14 May 97 at 14:57, Rick Osborne wrote: > Ross Wright wrote: > > >You can not retaliate against free speech, Rick. That's a bad > >thing, plain and simple, black and white. > > with him on this. I've got only a minor problem with Sanford > sending spam (it being unsolicited and all), I'm just saying that I > should not be denied the right to spam him right back. You can spam him back, but with just as many megs as he sends you. Match him meg for meg, not 10,000 megs for 1 meg. I have a unique way of dealing with spammers. I set up a list of the e-mail addresses of the spammers. Each time a new spammer spams me, I send him a copy of the addresses, telling him "I am not interested in your product or service, but my associates will be. Here's their addresses." Then I add him to the list, and so on. This way the spammers are spamming each other. Poetic Justice. And no harm done. > Do you see my point? It's all in > whether or not it's *solicited*. > Simply having an email address, to me, is *not* an invitation for > everyone > in the world to send me mail to it. Well, if you publish it on a website it *is* free game. > >What's your problem with your 'delete' key? > > Nothing. Like I said: I've got filters. I'm just saying that I > shouldn't have to use them (in a perfect world), as all "spam" I get > should be solicited. No perfect world here. Hell the deep dark secret that everyone glosses over is the fact that advertisers are using years of behavioral analysis to better market to us. That's the real conspiracy. > > >By now, everyone knows that any of those things are as good as > >giving away your e-mail address [...] it's an open invitation for > >me to send you advertisements, just like the yellow pages. > > Nope, you're getting confused here. Giving my email address is akin > to the *white* pages, while asking for spam is the *yellow* pages. I agree that the gathering of e-mail address from usenet and from mailing lists is a bad thing. *But* if you have a web page, you have a yellowpages ad. > If I were to put my phone number in the white pages of the local > phone book (which I don't), it would be so that someone who has a > *need* to contact me could. If I wanted people calling me for no > reason, I'd put an ad in the yellow pages. See what I'm saying? Right, but you see what I am saying about a web page being a yellow pages ad, right? > >You have the right to make some snotty reply, but no right > >to intentionally harm. > > Aha! There's the rub! If I'm paying for my connect time, then spam > *is* harmful. Please, a few megs between cyber-clients? No harm no foul. You get more megs of crap just from this list! I'd bet real money on that! > >Rick, what if someone decided they did not like an opinion > >you expressed on this list and did the same thing to you? > > Did what? Set up a robot to flame me? I'd hope they at least had > the guts to not do it anonymously, but I can't fault them for not > liking me. Set up a robot to send you megs and megs of crap, just for one e-mail, that's what I am saying. You wouldn't like that very much! > >You, nor anyone else, has a right to lash out at > >someone for something they say or some ad they send you. > > So why then do I not have the right to lash out at them in return? You do. One for one. Mano a mano. No more, no less. > >No one has a right to retaliate, get it? First Amendment? I > >didn't read in there the right to get back at some poor > >advertisers, did you? > > So you're saying that if I came along and dropped a few billion > pamphlets for a campaign of mine on your house. > *intentionally* cause the problems, I am in the clear? Give me a > break. But, you see, they send the pamphlets to a few billion addresses, not just to your house. Apples and oranges. > >Free Speech : Good Mail Bombs : Bad > > Spam = Mail Bomb = Arp attack. No essential difference. Why isn't > a mail bomb or arp attack proctected by your idealized free speech? Spam is not equal to an arp attack or a mail bomb. One letter to one address is quite different than 10,000 letters to one address. > >Are you a self centred ass, who's personal feelings are more > >important that the Constitution? > > Yes, I am a self-centered ass. Me too, by the way. An opinionated one, as well. > No, my feelings are not more > important than the Constitution, my feelings help *make* the > Constitution, remember? It's moot, anyway, as I'm not advocating > removing free speech. No you are advocating harming others who are speeking freely. > >You could be doing so much more with your time. > > True. And I could be doing *more* with my time if I didn't have to > spend it setting up spam filters! > > >No war, no battles, no skirmishes, no need for "Anti-Spam Laws". > > I agree. I'm not asking for any laws, just the right to annoy > spammers just as much as they annoy me. Why can't I do that? If I > decide to spam them, not our of retribution, but as an exercise of > my right to free speech, then how is it any different? Again, I say: One Meg Per One Meg. Equal and fair. > >Just be nice, and everything will work out for the best. > > You're more optimistic than I. Well, I just hope that this dosen't get carried away, that's all. Match them meg for meg that you personally receive, and everything really will be OK. And if we keep the government out of it. > It must be nice to not be cynical. It's just an act. I am pretty jaded. =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: (408) 259-2795

2 1

microstock market
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ultimately what cyberspace does in many ways is decrease the "granularity" of economic transactions. you can imagine that an economic transaction has an overhead cost associatd with it needed to manage the bureacracy of the cash transfer. the army of people that have to support check passing, such as the mailman, bankers, etc., the people in the company that have to open envelopes and punch keys, etc. ad infinitum. these vast teams/roles of people are going to vaporize to move into other aspects of the economy. increasingly, the overhead of an economic transaction will move toward the infinitesmal. this radically changes many business models. consider the stock market for example. you have a situation where it doesn' t make sense for a company to be traded on the stock market except after some threshhold has been reached. I suspect this threshhold is due directly to economics that could radically change in the near future (say a decade). what I suspect this might mean is not merely new kinds of stock markets, but a massive plethora of new forums in which business can be transacted in cyberspace. I think we are going to see many new stock exchanges as the capital moves towards the ones that most efficiently handle it. and increasingly, I think you will see very small companies have stocks. you will also see a much better means by which an investor can judge the value of a company. the assets will be more open and thoroughly revealed on public web sites of the company. increasingly the outsider will be able to "peer into" a company for investment or business purposes. the companies with the most open policies are going to be those most favored by their customers. what would be neat is if one could invest in very small companies or ideas. I suspect our economy is moving in exactly this direction. also in addition to this, I suspect that regulations governing stock transactions are going to be challenged and increasingly melt away in the long run. the open market will find its own ways of guaranteeing the safety of its transactions that will make government interference only draining or damaging. so you can imagine that our economy of today is like moving around big boulders-- you need a lot of people and organization to create economic transactions. in the future, transactions are going to decrease in granularity and you will have a system more like the flow of electricity throughout an entire system. the revolutionary implications of cyberspace have barely begun to be uncovered. ultimately it will radically change the nature of our economics and government systems just as the introduction of the printing press did in its time.

2 2

OTP
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy May's reheated, refurbished, and regurgitated cud is completely inappropriate for the mailing lists into which it is cross-ruminated. \|/ /~~~~~~~\ | O O | -ooo-----U-----ooo- Timmy May

2 1

The E-Bomb
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dave Emery has pointed to an article, "The E-Bomb - a Weapon of Electrical Mass Destruction," which describes the work being done on EMP weapons. The piece is at Infowar.com, but we've borrowed a copy to put at: http://jya.com/ebomb.htm (93K + excellent diagrams) It may help explain that unearthly blast in the Aussie Outback discussed here a few weeks ago. Someone suggested HAARP as an explanation, and another hinted at other godawful research being done that similar to what the genius Tesla was doing early in the century to shatter the planet and fry the sky, and now, it seems, coming true.

1 0

BXA Docs
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

BXA has published two short crypto-related docs, both dated May 8, 1997. William Reinsch's testimony on Goodlatte's bill: http://jya.com/bxa050897.htm Press release on Reinsch's ABA talk about the new regulations for financial transactions: http://jya.com/bxa050897-2.htm

1 0

Re: Rwanda and "anarchy"
by jimbell＠pacifier.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 14:48 5/14/97 -0700, Rich Graves wrote: >Kent Crispin wrote: >> In fact, the correlation between anarchy and war is very strong, for >> obvious reasons. Perhaps that is why most intelligent people don't >> consider anarchy a desirable state of affairs. > >There is no such thing as anarchy, and there never will be. I think it's at least a little tacky for you to ignore recent work which may have already shown your claim to be false. For the rest of you out there, I suggest that you check out AP part 9. There are excellent reasons that people considered true anarchy to be unattainable, because it was considered fundamentally unstable. Even I believed that, before 1995. Now, I've changed my opinion, and for good reason. Anarchy becomes stable if the population can anonymously target those who threaten danger to the rest. AP will do exactly this, so anarchy will become stable. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0