- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Netscape
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:27 PM 7/20/96 -0700, Tom Weinstein wrote: >> Do you Seriously Believe that Netscape would prefer foreigners >> to develop and use competing products? Of course not. They are >> probably secretly applauding the brave exporters. > >You are wrong. We are worried that our permission to provide these >products will be withdrawn. As far as I can tell, you need no "permission" to "provide these products", at least domestically. The only restrictions that have been implied have been over the delivery of encryption over the 'net, and even that is questionable. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

ITAR's 40 bit limit
by David F. Ogren 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Sat Jul 20 19:41:41 1996 Another paradox of the US export regulations. The NSA is allowing 40 bit crypto exports. So as a hypothetical example assume that I write a crypto program that uses 40 bit RC4 to encode data (licensing from RSA). I then get an export license using the accelerated process for 40 bit RC4. I then export my program to Alice who wants to use it to transmit messages to Bob. If she uses my program to encrypt messages to Bob, any reasonably powerful attacker can decrypt her messages. However, what if she runs the program three times with three different passwords. (Ignore the problems of Inner-CBC and Outer-CBC for now.) Now the file is triple RC4 encoded with the equivalent of 80 bit security. Alice and Bob now have strong crypto. And if they run the program five times they have 120 bits of effective protection. The problem of using Inner-CBC is a little tricky, but if we assume that I can export in a DLL format, a Windows program could be written that calls the DLL repeatedly to layer it into triple or pentuple CBC RC4. The entire above discussion is entirely theoretical. I realize that it's a moot point since strong crypto is already perfectly accessible outside of the US. And that strong crypto algorithms can be exported in non-machine readable format (another paradox). (And that running 5-layer RC4 is a really inefficient block cipher.) I just wanted to point out yet another reason why ITAR regulations over crypto are not effectively preventing strong crypto. They are merely making it difficult for American business. - -- David F. Ogren | ogren(a)concentric.net | "A man without religion is like a fish PGP Key ID: 0x6458EB29 | without a bicycle" - ------------------------------|---------------------------------------- Don't know what PGP is? | Need my public key? It's available Send a message to me with the | by server or by sending me a message subject GETPGPINFO | with the subject GETPGPKEY -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMfFutuSLhCBkWOspAQFH7gf9GDjh1tcktyx3Lo4iSxDFTFoB7fuuJO0l SNlkYH1Akchl02b/CWc6CDSAZ8hxoUfoZpqTD7U0xTs1QqOM7y45r1/RvAet870s mkWL7gS5RmiiGN1bgtm844RPAtAhaE0uzT6wJsPQSfAv94CvZGNJEtF2p5lASs2F fK50gmlSbjhhHoh85s/7Ugl7XzTmRGoZzdKQCGpkc6yTJu/aKDyWU3HVSEY9F4Y3 AaHkardJehv/9xqoxks5eqnwjTSJ8+cAptT1iBo6hW+CKv89wQKK/F8RbQb2FWL2 z4GqFfQHdbxVbnspDNtIRUP5qhJuFRhmuS/ARfTYgTN50Gm5g/Cz2w== =2k+F -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Apple people on the list
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'd like to hear Tim, too, in this Big Apple. RealAudio, perhaps. Tim's views are far more substantial and worthwhile than those play-it-safe Pro-Code dronings. And his pith should go out far and wide, around the world, not only out there on its edge. Vinnie, Robert, All Appledom, do your global duty, don't miss this chance to leapfrog the small-beans promoters of the crypto industry. What would you offer to set off Tim's simmering crypto-anarcho-volcano, make it heard round the planet?

1 0

Re: Netscape
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:10 PM 7/20/96 -0400, "Mark M." <markm(a)voicenet.com> wrote: >On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote: >> Why not consider what the consequences will be? Do you seriously >> believe that this will make the government stop enforcing ITAR? > >The government has yet to enforce ITAR. The only thing they have been doing >is threatening companies who make products with strong crypto. If anyone was >ever actually put on trial for a violation of ITAR, it would almost certainly >be found to be unconstitutional. First of all, the goverrnment _has_ enforced ITAR; I've seen references (ummm, on the net...) to a few cases of things like exporting TV decryptors, as well as all the enforcement about illegal trafficking in guns and such. But second, if you're threatened with jail and large fines, and have to pay your lawyers lots of money to avoid being railroaded, that's enforcement even if it's not the full-scale due process type. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs # Confuse Authority!

1 0

RE: ABC news on Internet Telephony
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:37 AM 7/21/96 +0200, Remo Pini wrote: >>A single central office has many times the bandwidth of the widest >>part of the internet, and the average state has hundreds of CO's. >>If even a small portion of the Internets current users tried >>placing a call things would grind to a halt. A huge increase in the >>number of backbones and their bandwidth would solve this, but who >>will pay the bill? > >I guess Internet-telephony is one of the bandwidth killers. Potentially. However, there has been some mention of a new standard for voice compression that puts voice into 2400 bits per second, a factor of about 25 lower than the phone company normally uses. (They use 8,000 samples per second at 8 bits per sample, companded.) At that rate, a pair of modern, 2.4 Gb/s fibers could handle 1 million simultaneous phone calls. Since some of the newer fiber systems put 8 or more separate channels down a single fiber, that would work out to 8 million conversations. I have to conclude that we shouldn't even be close to running out of Internet capacity, _IF_ it were driven by state-of-the-art fiber and similar-speed switches. But it probably isn't. At best, Internet probably only gets a fraction of the capacity of a given fiber wherever it flows. This will have to change. >>TANSTAAFL >> >>Sometime ago the discussion was on the cost of laying new fiber, >>may I suggest the realworld heuristic of "a million dollars a >>mile." > >There are of course a lot of alternatives: In most cases, "new fiber" isn't needed, and will probably only be rarely needed on long-distance links. As I understand it, most cableways are laid with extra tubes, into which new fiber cables can be blown in (using compressed air) long after the trench is filled. The specific example I saw, there were three 2" diameter tubes in a larger tube, and according to the contractor (I asked...) only one of the tubes would be filled at that time. In addition, while he wasn't sure, he thought that at least some of the 36-fiber cable in that one tube would remain "dark," or unused until it was later needed. I don't know how expensive it is to add that extra fiber cable into an existing tube, but it would be VASTLY cheaper than the original trenching operation. Further, much of the improved transmission technology can be used on the older fibers to increase their capacity: A fiber now used to transmit a single 2.4 gigabit signal can be upgraded, simply using new channelized transmitters and receivers to increase the data rate to 8 or 16 times the previous rate. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
by mpd＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David Sternlight (david(a)SternBot.com) writes: > There are many others who have come to similar conclusions > about the formation of independent judgement in children, > and lots of non-Piaget experiments. Your comments are > diversionary and in fact by the end of your post you come to > agree with my basic point. Every doctrine has its followers, and I will admit "Piaget-Speak" is still quite popular in certain circles, and its buzzwords are often heard in arguments promoting child inferiority and dismissing childrens' concerns. That hardly means I agree with your basic point, which is that parents should be able to do whatever they want in controlling their childrens' information sources without their children having any recourse against them. > That is also false in its implications. Librarians are in > loco parentis, This, of course, varies with local statutes, as does the legal definition of "In Loco Parentis." Generally it applies to teachers, people hired to care for children, and some relatives, such as grandparents. I am not familar with any locale where librarians are specifically mentioned, and most librarians will be more than happy to explain to you that a library is not a free babysitting service, and that they are not caregivers. > and most libraries are VERY careful about what materials > young children are exposed to and what is more, are > responsive to community pressure in the matter since most > libraries are community-based. Most libraries let "young adults" (read anyone who has hit their teenage years) read pretty much anything they want. "Parents on the warpath" have managed to apply pressure in recent years, and libraries are a bit less free than they used to be, but I think the American Library Association has done a pretty good job in standing its ground against agitators and pressure groups. > So after trying to refute my point, you come to agree with > it and want to shift the issue to the question of at what > age.... No - I stated in my original message that young children do need some reasonable constraints to guard them from exposure to material which might cause them emotional pain. This is far different from your assertion that minors (everyone under 18) should have no access to any information that their parents do not pre-approve. > I'm not competent to assess that nor, I assert, are you; I > suggest it varies with the child and it's up to the > individual parent to make those subtle distinctions, issue > by issue, child by child. Nothing subtle about it David. Once young people have passed through early childhood, the burden of proof is on anyone who suggests that they should be insulated from social and political reality to provide a convincing reason why. Parental capriciousness doesn't qualify. > As I parse the above sentence it says limiting is often > justified but it might not be. Parse the sentence again. What it says is that although "protecting children" is often the excuse used to limit older childrens' access to controversial material, the reality is that it is usually an effort to control their thinking on certain issues by making sure they have only one viewpoint, that of their parents. > If so, it's up to the parents to figure ou where THEIR kid > is on the scale--nobody else has as much time, motivation, > or opportunity to observe. As is usual with Statists, the argument is seen as a debate over who should be doing the controlling, the notion that everyone needs to be controlled being a foregone conclusion. Perhaps it's time to take Perry's pledge. :) -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

4 5

New Cypherpunks, New Danger
by Simon Spero 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

paranoid rants have their place; however, if they keep bursting into cypherpunks without knocking first, there could be an accident. Lithium.... it's not just for watch batteries anymore.

1 0

Re: Game Theory and its Relevance to Cypherpunks
by Arun Mehta 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 21:57 20/07/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: > >Fortunately, the goal of MAD was to >not have to be used, and it appears now to have worked quite well (albeit >at high cost). My problem with applying game theory to complex situations like the competition between powerful nations is that it is too simplistic. IANAE, of course, though I have done some control theory, and know how complex the modelling of any system becomes if it contains non-linearities, delays, etc. In a closed-loop system, i.e. with feedback, trying to predict behaviour without the foggiest notion of how to quantify the impact of Kennedy's grandstanding on the Kruschev mind (for instance) is questionable. To suggest that MAD worked well on the basis of the limited tryout we gave it has little validity. If it hadn't, we wouldn't be here, would we? We are trying to draw general conclusions based on a biased sample of one. Reminds me of this committee of the British Royal Air Force, trying to find ways to protect its planes better against German anti-aircraft guns. Someone proposed putting an extra layer of armour on those areas that received the most shelling, and most people seemed to like the idea. One upstart suggested the exact opposite: putting extra armour on those areas which had received the least shelling. "Remember," he said, "we can only examine the planes that came back." I also have a problem with the cost you mention. What is "winning" in the context of nations? The arms race wiped out the Soviet Union, and arguably seriously hampered the competitiveness of American industry (which was No.1 at the end of the war), allowing countries like Japan and Germany, with far smaller defence budgets, to overtake industrially. >Useful sources: Thank you for the tips: I will check them out. Game theory is fascinating -- I'm just not sure how applicable it is in formulating policy. Didn't work too well in Vietnam... Arun Mehta Phone +91-11-6841172, 6849103 amehta(a)cpsr.org http://www.cerfnet.com/~amehta/ finger amehta(a)cerfnet.com for public key

2 1

Re: Game Theory and its Relevance to Cypherpunks
by Llywarch Hen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy May wrote: >Game theory is terribly important to Cypherpunks. Definite agreement here. Wait ... it gets better. > . . . Creating a terrifying image, >an image of crazed indifference, is a useful thing. Certainly the S.S. >understood the power of their frightening uniforms and the "myth" of their >bloodthirstiness. (Note: I am not saying their bloodthirstiness was a myth, >but that they deliberately cultivated this image. Intimidation works, >game-theoretically.) What Timothy May espouses is not the appearance of craziness but actual insanity itself. > . . . Even the "MAD" policy of "mutually assured >destruction" has game-theoretic justification. (Indeed, this is virtually a >truism, given the role game theory and the RAND Corporation played in the >devising of the MAD strategy.) While humanists and liberals may cluck at >the admittedly horrible consequences of MAD, were it ever implemented, it >is solidly grounded in these "games." Fortunately, the goal of MAD was to >not have to be used, and it appears now to have worked quite well (albeit >at high cost). Recall that during the time MAD supposedly worked that both of Reagan and Brezhnev were comatose much, if not all of the time. The crazies were out of the picture. Who was in charge? Let's suppose it was the generals. Who would know better their systems were shit? Recall on the day that Reagan was shot that Alexander Haig appeared on national TV and announced 'I am in charge here.' Haig was not constitutionally in charge of anything. Did he mean 'we' not 'I'. Who would that 'we' be? The twentieth century is drawing to a close as the world's most bloodthirsty by far: 40 mil under Stalin, 25 mil under Mao, 8 mil under Hitler, and so on. There are no heroes. Timothy May suggests that we continue to play his stupid game. Much of the cold war for public consumption was predicated on the notion that ends do not justify means. It was rather profitable for some interests however. The numbers speak for a strong info-war capability. But what we are asked to do is to refight the last war with grandpa, who we find out stayed home and watched it on TV but gets off on all this scary shit. Especially the uniforms. Perhaps Timothy May through luck, manipulation and hard work has made it up toward the head of the line to feed at the public trough and then declare to the rest of us that we have a free and competitive market. He will cite Hudson, Heritage, RAND, ... AEI, and Cato whose shining lights best understand who it is that is signing their paychecks. These are the folks that bought us Vietnam, did not pay for it in lives or money, but profited immensely. He cites Kahn whose best game is the consulting game. Wanna buy a hot stock? Buy Steven Emerson -- guy's gonna take off. -- Llywarch Hen

4 3

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by David Sternlight 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:10 AM -0700 7/20/96, Vinnie Moscaritolo wrote: > On 19 Jul 1996 19:51:39 Hallam-Baker wrote >>It is no coincidence that the Tree of Liberty needs to be watered with >>blood on occasion. > >As a native Bostonian, I have to tell you that the original "Tree of >Liberty" was cut down many many years ago and in it's place now stands a >storefront, if you look up onto the second floor you will notice a frieze >of a tree. This is all that stands to commemerate the "Tree of Liberty". > > >oh btw that storefront is in the comabat zone of boston, and the last time >I checked that store was called either the "Naked I"or the "Pussycat >lounge", can you guess what they sell? > This is too good to pass up. The modern version, then is: "The tree of liberty must be titillated with the money of sex-seekers." David MIT '54

2 1