July 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: A day in the life...NY Times today
by Tyler Durden 21 Jul '03

21 Jul '03

> > Hence the photo on the first page of today's NY Times. > > > > -TD > > And for us non-new yorkers, what was that? Well, I couldn't read the caption, but from across the aisle I saw a picture of a US soldier holding a gun on an unarmed Muslim man in a ditch, who was holding his hands up and looking not super happy. I assume the photo was not taken in Topeka, Kansas... -TD _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

1 0

NYT: Report on USA Patriot Act Alleges Civil Rights Violations
by Sunder 21 Jul '03

21 Jul '03

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/21/politics/21JUST.html?hp WASHINGTON, July 20 . A report by internal investigators at the Justice Department has identified dozens of recent cases in which department employees have been accused of serious civil rights and civil liberties violations involving enforcement of the sweeping federal antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act. The inspector general's report, which was presented to Congress last week and is awaiting public release, is likely to raise new concern among lawmakers about whether the Justice Department can police itself when its employees are accused of violating the rights of Muslim and Arab immigrants and others swept up in terrorism investigations under the 2001 law. The report said that in the six-month period that ended on June 15, the inspector general's office had received 34 complaints of civil rights and civil liberties violations by department employees that it considered credible, including accusations that Muslim and Arab immigrants in federal detention centers had been beaten. <SNIP> ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :25Kliters anthrax, 38K liters botulinum toxin, 500 tons of /|\ \|/ :sarin, mustard and VX gas, mobile bio-weapons labs, nukular /\|/\ <--*-->:weapons.. Reasons for war on Iraq - GWB 2003-01-28 speech. \/|\/ /|\ :Found to date: 0. Cost of war: $800,000,000,000 USD. \|/ + v + : The look on Sadam's face - priceless! --------_sunder_(a)_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------

1 0

Heathrow employees leap out of kettle
by Adam Shostack 21 Jul '03

21 Jul '03

http://silicon.com/news/164-500001/1/5237.html?rolling=1 > Staff were angered by the roll out of swipe cards which effectively > enable bosses to monitor their comings and goings and effectively > re-introduced the practice of clocking-on and clocking-off. [...] > Around 100,000 travellers and holidaymakers were left stranded at > the world's busiest international airport by the unofficial action > over the weekend. Of course, the rest of us are not so privledged. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

RE: A day in the life
by Trei, Peter 21 Jul '03

21 Jul '03

> Harry Bartholomew[SMTP:bart0@earthlink.net] > > My SS# begins 078- > Issued in NY in the 50's > > Harry Bartholomew > > 7/21/2003 12:25:35 AM, Bill Stewart <bill.stewart(a)pobox.com> wrote: > > > > > > >At 03:01 AM 07/21/2003 +0000, Justin wrote: > >>J.A. Terranson (2003-07-20 21:07Z) wrote: > >> > So I have seen two separate businesses today who are just shooting > >> themselves > >> > in the head over the acquisition of data in the face of obvious > refusal. > >>.... > >>I'm surprised they didn't ask for your SSN ... as an index for the > database... > >> > >>I've adopted a SSN I use for idiots like that. I don't know whether > >>it's assigned, but it's in the valid range. Isn't that just terrible. > > > >Please don't do that. You might pick a number belonging to some poor > >working guy > >and mess up his credit or yours. > > > >I read on the net that Richard Nixon's SSN is 567-68-0515, > >and then there's that usual 078-thing from fake SSN cards in wallets. > From: http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/privacy/ssn/SSN-addendum.html#FakeNumbers Making a 9-digit number up at random is a bad idea, as it may coincide with someone's real number and cause them some amount of grief. It's better to use a number like 078-05-1120, which was printed on "sample" cards inserted in thousands of new wallets sold in the 40's and 50's. It's been used so widely that both the IRS and SSA recognize it immediately as bogus, while most clerks haven't heard of it. There were at least 40 different people in the Selective Service database at one point who gave this number as their SSN. The Social Security Administration recommends that people showing Social Security cards in advertisements use numbers in the range 987-65-4320 through 987-65-4329. There are several patterns that have never been assigned, and which therefore don't conflict with anyone's real number. They include numbers with any field all zeroes, and numbers with a first digit of 8 or 9. - end quote - Peter Trei

1 0

Re: [IP] Gilmore bounced from plane; and Farber censors Gilmore's email
by Freematt357＠aol.com 21 Jul '03

21 Jul '03

In a message dated 7/21/2003 2:56:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, john(a)kozubik.com writes: It is difficult to imagine how "blah blah employee number four Sun Microsystems blah blah" is capable of this kind of cognitive dissonance. (John) helped to build and launch one of the most exciting and innovative education programs ever developed. Clearly, (he is) extraordinary. --William J. Bennett, Former Secretary of Education Gambling buddy of Bill? Regards, Matt-

1 0

RE: A day in the life
by Trei, Peter 21 Jul '03

21 Jul '03

> Bill Stewart[SMTP:bill.stewart@pobox.com] wrote: > > At 03:01 AM 07/21/2003 +0000, Justin wrote: > >J.A. Terranson (2003-07-20 21:07Z) wrote: > > > So I have seen two separate businesses today who are just shooting > > themselves > > > in the head over the acquisition of data in the face of obvious > refusal. > >.... > >I'm surprised they didn't ask for your SSN ... as an index for the > database... > > > >I've adopted a SSN I use for idiots like that. I don't know whether > >it's assigned, but it's in the valid range. Isn't that just terrible. > > Please don't do that. You might pick a number belonging to some poor > working guy > and mess up his credit or yours. > > I read on the net that Richard Nixon's SSN is 567-68-0515, > and then there's that usual 078-thing from fake SSN cards in wallets. > No real SSN starts with the digit 9. Choose a random string, but make the first digit '9'. Peter

1 0

unsubscribe
by John 21 Jul '03

21 Jul '03

unsubscribe cypherpunks

1 0

Fwd: [IP] Gilmore bounced from plane; and Farber censors Gilmore's email
by Steve Schear 21 Jul '03

21 Jul '03

>To: dave(a)farber.net, gnu >Subject: "Suspected Terrorist" button gets Gilmore ejected from airplane >Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:46:43 -0700 >From: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> > >[For IP.] > >Dave, you already know about my opposition to useless airport >security crap. I'm suing John Ashcroft, two airlines, and various >other agencies over making people show IDs to fly -- an intrusive >measure that provides no security. (See http://freetotravel.org) >But I would be hard pressed to come up with a security measure more >useless and intrusive than turning a plane around because of a >political button on someone's lapel. > >My sweetheart Annie and I tried to fly to London today (Friday) on >British Airways. We started at SFO, showed our passports and got >through all the rigamarole, and were seated on the plane while it >taxied out toward takeoff. Suddenly a flight steward, Cabin Service >Director Khaleel Miyan, loomed in front of me and demanded that I >remove a small 1" button pinned to my left lapel. I declined, saying >that it was a political statement and that he had no right to censor >passengers' political speech. The button, which was created by >political activist Emi Koyama, says "Suspected Terrorist". Large >images of the button and I appear in the cover story of Reason >Magazine this month, and the story is entitled "Suspected Terrorist". >You can see the button at: > > http://eminism.org/store/button-racism.html > >(Reason hasn't put the current issue online yet, for some reason.) > >The steward returned with Capt. Peter Hughes. The captain requested, >and then demanded, that I remove the button (they called it a >"badge"). He said that I would endanger the aircraft and commit a >federal crime if I did not take it off. I told him that it was a >political statement and declined to remove it. > >They turned the plane around and brought it back to the gate, delaying >300 passengers on a full flight. > >We were met at the jetway by Carol Spear, Station Manager for BA at >SFO. She stated that since the captain had told her he was refusing >to transport me as a passenger, she had no other course but to take me >off the plane. I offered no resistance. I reminded her of the court >case that United lost when their captain removed a Middle Eastern man >who had done nothing wrong, merely because "he made me uncomfortable". >She said that she had no choice but to uphold the captain and that we >could sort it out in court later, if necessary. She said that my >button was in "poor taste". > >Later, after consulting with (unspecified) security people, Carol said >that if we wanted to fly on the second and last flight of the day, we >would be required to remove the button and put it into our checked >luggage (or give it to her). And also, our hand-carried baggage would >have to be searched to make sure that we didn't carry any more of >these terrorist buttons onto the flight and put them on, endangering >the mental states of the passengers and crew. > >I said that I understood that she had refused me passage on the first >flight because the captain had refused to carry me, but I didn't >understand why I was being refused passage on the second one. I >suggested that BA might have captains with different opinions about >free speech, and that I'd be happy to talk with the second captain to >see if he would carry me. She said that the captain was too busy to >talk with me, and that speaking broadly, she didn't think BA had any >captains who would allow someone on a flight wearing a button that >said "Suspected Terrorist". She said that BA has discretion to >decline to fly anyone. (And here I had thought they were a common >carrier, obliged to carry anyone who'll pay the fare, without >discrimination.) She said that passengers and crew are nervous about >terrorism and that mentioning it bothers them, and that is grounds to >exclude me. I suggested that if they wanted to exclude mentions of >terrorists from the airplane, then they should remove all the >newspapers from it too. > >I asked whether I would be permitted to fly if I wore other buttons, >perhaps one saying "Hooray for Tony Blair". She said she thought that >would be OK. I said, how about "Terrorism is Evil". She said that I >probably wouldn't get on. I started to discuss other possible >buttons, like "Oppose Terrorism", trying to figure out what kinds of >political speech I would be permitted to express in a BA plane, but >she said that we could stand there making hypotheticals all night and >she wasn't interested. Ultimately, I was refused passage because >I would not censor myself at her command. > >After the whole interaction was over, I offered to tell her, just for >her own information, what the button means and why I wear it. She was >curious. I told her that it refers to all of us, everyone, being >suspected of being terrorists, being searched without cause, being >queued in lines and pens, forced to take our shoes off, to identify >ourselves, to be x-rayed and chemically sniffed, to drink our own >breast milk, to submit to indignities. Everyone is a suspected >terrorist in today's America, including all the innocent people, and >that's wrong. That's what it means. The terrorists have won if we >turn our country into an authoritarian theocracy "to defeat >terrorism". I suggested that British Airways had demonstrated that >trend brilliantly today. She understood but wasn't sympathetic -- >like most of the people whose individual actions are turning the >country into a police state. > >Annie asked why she, Annie, was not allowed to fly. She wasn't >wearing or carrying any objectionable buttons. Carol said it's >because of her association with me. I couldn't have put it better >myself -- guilt by association. I asked whether Annie would have been >able to fly if she had checked in separately, and got no answer. >(Indeed it was I who pointed out to the crew that Annie and I were >traveling together, since we were seated about ten rows apart due to >the full flight. I was afraid that they'd take me off the plane >without her even knowing.) > >Annie later told me that the stewardess who had gone to fetch her said >that she thought the button was something that the security people had >made me wear to warn the flight crew that I was a suspected >terrorist(!). Now that would be really secure. > >I spoke with the passengers around me before being removed from the >plane, and none of them seemed to have any problem with sitting next >to me for 10 hours going to London. None of them had even noticed the >button before the crew pointed it out, and none of them objected to it >after seeing it. It was just the crew that had problems, as far as I >could tell. > > John Gilmore > >PS: For those who know I don't fly in the US because of the ID demand: >I'm willing to show a passport to travel to another country. I'm not >willing to show ID -- an "internal passport" -- to fly within my own >country. "There is no protection or safety in anticipatory servility." Craig Spencer

4 3

Defeating Optical Tempest will be easy...
by Tyler Durden 21 Jul '03

21 Jul '03

Well, from what I'm understanding of so-called optical tempest, I'm not sure most of the usual thinking will apply. First of all, anyone know what the most energetic wavelengths are in the CRT's output? (I have no idea.) Is it in the visible range? It may not be. Thus contrast in the visible range may not equal contrast in the freqency range that 'OT' will be using. Also, and I'm not sure what this implies yet, but the screen-emitted beam has lowest energy after hitting a letter, which is black. Thus this tempest device must be particularly sensitive to the "white" background in order to makeout the letters as the sweep comes through (and is blocked by the letters). And now that I think of it, I'm still not convinced that this does not amount to specular reflection, even though we are now talking about the "ballistic" beam...remember in order to determine what a letter is detecting a -decrease- in the beam's reflected energy will be the key in reading a letter. Oh wait...the answer to defeating optical tempest is simple: have white letters on a black background. And after they've caught up with that trick, alternate the background colors at random intervals (white on black, black on white, etc...). Optical Tempest will only work under VERY ideal circumstances. I wouldn't worry about it. -TD _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

2 1

Jude Milhon has passed away
by Bill Stewart 21 Jul '03

21 Jul '03

Forwarded from another list.... >Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:35:28 -0700 (PDT) >From: Linda Hull >Subject: Jude Milhon has passed away > >To those who knew her...I thought I would mention >that Jude has passed away. > >To those who did not know her, she was the woman >who coined the phrase cypherpunk. Jude was also an >editor at Mondo 2000, among many other things. >http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/WiredWomen/wiredwomen000223.html > >She had been fighting cancer and was losing her >battle; last night she embraced the inevitable >by taking her own life. > >In all honesty, I never met her, though I had >often heard of her. It strikes me that she >finished her life the way she had always seemed >to live it - an empowered woman. > >Condolences to her friends and family. > >__________________________________

1 0