- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

list
by jvarley＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't know if this is the right address, but please add me to the list. Thanks. -- jvarley(a)netcom.com | "...Soul of a woman was created below!" Tomes on IRC | --Led Zeppelin

1 0

No Subject
by 155yegan%jove.dnet.measurex.com＠juno.measurex.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Subj: Encryption & self-incrimination > >Isn't there a limit as to how long they can lock you up for contempt of >court? Most crimes do have a maximum sentence I don't believe so; recall that MD in Washington DC who would not tell the judge where her daughter was for fear that the father could find out from open, public court records and abuse her further. Terry Egan (egan_t(a)measurex.com) ,-

1 0

Best sig yet
by Mike Ingle 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From alt.conspiracy: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- FBI-CIA-KGB-NSA-BCCI-DIA-DEA-FEMA-KKK-FOIA-CONTRA-TRILAT-BATF-INS-IRS-MI5 JFK-RFK-MLK-MKULTRA-COINTELPRO-ILLUMINATI-P2 /|/~|~|| /|<~|~ |~>|~><~ CFR-ADL-BLUEBIRD-OSS-ONI-SOE-BIS-MOSSAD-AIDS /~|\_| ||/ |_>| |_>|_>_> THULE-ARTICHOKE-OTO-NSA-BILDERBERGER-40 CTTE SLA-VELIKOVSKY-SDI-INSLAW-TESLA-LAROUCHE-TSS ( 5 1 0 ) 5 3 2 - 6 2 4 8 JIM JONES-GURDJIEFF-ABSWEHR-T.4-WACO-CROWLEY EFF-PGP-RHIC/EDOM-PANDORA-CAN-ENIGMA-BEARDEN GHELEN-SPETZNAZ-SS-MASONS-ODESSA-TAVISTOCK-WFMH-REUCHELIN-EUGENICS-OCCULT ------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Notice NSA is the only one mentioned twice) and the best line from a reply to a Detweiler post: (blah blah) [ long rant deleted ] (blah blah) Now if everyone took that approach...

1 0

Random numbers again
by jerry＠terminus.dell.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, I've finished my prototype version of my hardware random number generator. According to preliminary work the numbers are truely random and evenly distributed. The circuit plugs into the parallel port(bi-directional mode) and presents 8 bits of data on the data lines. You can quickly generate 10k bytes of data with this device. I am intrested in hearing from anyone that wishes to take a look at some data to measure the randomness of the data. If anyone is interested I will provide two sets of data, one from my random number generator and one from a pseudo-random number generator. The circuit uses some 555based timers and some RC networks. A lot of people will not believe that this circuit is truely random, but it works out to be, under some conditions. It boils down using two variable, independent, periodic functions to generate one bit. Due to temperature effects, oscillator stability, circuit noise, and some other factors, the error in frequency and phase of the two oscillators is larger effect than the measurable characteristics of the circuit. In this circuit, I use the 555 timers as the oscillators (with the restistors and capacitors determining the frequency). The second periodic functions is the PC in a loop polling the parallel port. The whole circuit can be built for $5-$10 worth of parts. It should also be possible to rig it up as a passthrough device, in case you don't have an extra parallel port. -- | Jeremy Porter ----------------- Dell Computer Corp. ---- | Systems Engineering --- jerry(a)terminus.us.dell.com -------- |------------------------------------------------------------- | Support your Second Amendment rights to encryption technology.

1 0

Re: Reveal your key or else.
by jpinson＠fcdarwin.org.ec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Ingle writes: >Since the Canadian case, there's been a lot of talk about the >problem of being coerced to reveal your key. If the coercers play by stuff deleted.. >Steganography can hide your data, but then you have the steg program >itself. If they find the program, they have reasonable grounds or >assuming you have hidden data, particularly if you have large >quantities of the sort of data which can conceal files, such as >sounds and graphics. So what you need is the ability to hide both the >"real" secret data and some decoy data at the same time. This could >be done using something like MD5 as a random number generator. Actually, there is a somewhat easier method that uses the one- time pad technique. Take your confidential text and xor it with a random byte file (your key) and call the output file "secret.msg". Then copy the random file off the hard drive and store in a secure location, perhaps off-site, and wipe all traces of the random key file from your disk. Now, type up you Mother's chocolate cookie recipe, and other goodies and pad it so it is the same size as the "secret.msg" file and xor this file with your "secret.msg" file. Rename the output "secret.key", and hide somewhere on your hard drive. (but don't hide it too well). If some one finds "secret.msg", and demands the key, you give in (after some arm twisting), and confess that the "secret.key" is the key file they want. When "secret.key" is xor'ed with "secret.msg", out pops the cookie recipe. Later, you can fetch the "real" key, and restore your original data. Of course, as Mike Ingle suggests, a more believable approach is to xor the encrypted file with some mild pornography instead of a cookie recipe recipe. (One of the great ways of lying is to plead guilty , but to a lesser crime). Of course this technique could be used against you as well. Someone would could xor your "secret.msg" file, with nuclear bomb secrets, and pretend to find this "key" somewhere else in your house. Following the same logic, one can produce a key, that when xor'd with Microsoft's "command.com", will produce output revealing Microsoft's secret plans for word conquest :-) Jim Pinson

1 0

Re: Random numbers and "dirty" books
by Jef Poskanzer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>New Scientist >Benford's Law >chaos theory >fractals Use of buzzwords can often be an inpediment to understanding. When the first-digit distribition thing came up in Martin Gardner's column in Scientific American, "chaos" and "fractals" hadn't become popularized yet, so he was reduced to actually figuring out what was going on instead of giving it a mysterious and sexy-sounding label. --- Jef

1 0

Re: Happy Holidays
by Pierre Uszynski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> As one who reflexively deletes all of Larry's posts under whatever > his name-of-the-moment may be, I sometimes wonder if I'm missing > some gems hidden in the mass of text. Yeah, he should feel free to include an abstract at the top of his rants (5 lines tops). Or maybe there is a market for a Detweiler-watcher out there to publish a monthly newsletter, or weekly abstracts. I'm not going to suggest a name for that newsletter, thank you :-) Pierre Uszynski pierre(a)shell.portal.com

1 0

Re: The Cyber Lexicon of 2030 AD
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike - A technical comment - the version posted to cypherpunks has a lot of Macintoshy punctuation metacharacters left in it, e.g. Q J R S representing various quote marks and such. As for the contents, I may or may not get around to writing a real response, but I certainly *hope* that by 2030 we've got digital signatures and such run by the free market and not by the Government, even if it does shrink, and that the Government Printing Office is reduced to the small job of publishing everything the government does. The business about "black banks" providing non-governmentally controlled signatures being unstable because they can't maintain the integrity of their signature schemes is not very credible, unless the governemnt manages to ban them - as long as you have an institution large enough to be relatively immune to bribery and rubber-hose cryptanalysis, it's easy enough to protect the integrity of your signatures. A much more credible scenario is a "Web of Trust" model where many of the major players may very well be government-run (if the central banks haven't collapsed and the phone companies haven't been privatized) for smaller non-free countries, and mixtures of governmental, NGOs, major financial institutions, and MicroSoft Inc./AG/SA/Ltd. BTW, what's fof.org? Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart NCR Corp, 6870 Koll Center Parkway, Pleasanton CA, 94566 # Voice/Beeper 510-224-7043, Phone 510-484-6204 # email bill.stewart(a)pleasantonca.ncr.com billstewart(a)attmail.com

1 0

IRC and the Feeling of Power
by Mike Ingle 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hawkwind describes the "justice system" of IRC in his forward. It seems to me that the kick/ban process on IRC is a good example of how not to moderate a forum. Many people on IRC seem to be there for no other purpose than to enjoy the testosterone high of being op. They go to a lot of trouble to write bots which keep their channels open and op them when they join. They take great pleasure in kicking people. There is often a little clique which runs a channel, and whenever one of those people joins, someone else ops him. Have you ever been on a channel where nobody was saying anything, but people were constantly opping, de-opping, kicking, banning, unbanning, coming back in and flooding the channel before being kicked again, etc...? I don't use IRC that much, but from what I've seen, that system doesn't work very well. An extropians-style kill command would probably be better for IRC or the list. If someone is causing trouble, you could just set to ignore them.

2 1

Re: IRC and the Feeling of Power
by Mike Ingle 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>As a more frequent user of IRC, I agree with you. However, the problem is >generally technical. This system was established because IRC channels have >no "home" server or organization which can claim "ownership" and >"responsibility" for the behavior and content of the channel. These problems will exist in any distributed system, so solutions need to be worked out. >>I don't use IRC that much, but from >>what I've seen, that system doesn't work very well. An extropians-style >>kill command would probably be better for IRC or the list. If someone is >>causing trouble, you could just set to ignore them. >I would prefer a system of "talkers" and "listeners". The channel >administration, whatever this may be, decides who can talk and who must >listen. There is a tentative first step toward this goal in the current >wave of server revisions. Why have an administration at all? Why not just give everyone an /exclude command which eliminates everything from a particular person, and an /include command which restores output from that person. If someone is ranting or flooding, everyone will /exclude him and he will be left with only himself for an audience. --- Mike

1 0