- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: (fwd) ViaCrypt PGP ships today
by Dark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For some reason it occured to me that were CiaCrypt (oops, slip... sorry) to want to provide an unsecure product to the general cryptography public, the best way to do it would be to attack the security of the secret key password. To me, the fact that Phil Z. has vouched for the program is enough for the moment. If the key password were attacked, output would not be affected. I'm sure this is no revelation to most of you. As for the rest, See how smart I am? :) -uni- (Dark)

2 1

Re: Private and Public
by Arthur Chandler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hmmm... my post may well ignite some flames; but I can't go along with the notion that this list is for purely tech discussion. Encryption is a social and political issue as well as a technical one, isn't it? I would think that it's more dangerous to ignore the social and political ramifications than to have them out publically. It seems to me that encryption poses LOTS of dilemmas for any government. I chose just one -- taxes -- for my post. And looks like there are quite a few viewpoints on that one, with regards to the government's right to examine your income sources. The fact the encryption schemes are classified as military (or military-type) material and so are subject to comparable controls by the State Department should alert us to this fact. So to insist that we stick to Greatest Primes and Modulo seems... unrealistic. Of course, if the discussion seems pointless or irrelevant to you... there's always the delete key. My :9&53xS+ (= digital $.02) worth. On Mon, 8 Nov 1993, Nick Papadakis wrote: > > > What do you think? > > I think you are inviting a political flame war on what is > supposed to be a technical list. Please take it to alt.privacy. > > - nick >

4 3

Re: ID of anonymous posters via word analysis?
by George A. Gleason 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm not so sure about translation software... apparently there is a story about the first time this was attempted; an NSA implementation for use on the US-USSR hot line, to speed things along in the event of a crisis. When they opened the thing up for test, there was a diplomat at each end, and a top military official as well. At the US end, they typed in, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." Then it popped out in Russian, and was typed back in again in Russian. What popped back out in Washington in English was, "The ghost is ready but the meat is raw." Back to the proverbial drawing board. Presumably things have improved a bit since then, eh...? -g

2 1

Re: some newbie DC-net questions
by pierre＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Jim McCoy <mccoy(a)ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> > > > 3) What happens when two members of a "table" attempt to transmit at the > > same time? How is this case handled? > > They will get a collision. If an even number of members transmit at once > then the bit will be the opposite of what each expects to see, if an odd > number then it will be an undetected collision. There are fairly standard > protocols for backdown on distributed broadcast networks. > Actually, it seems to me undetected collisions are not as likely as this makes it appear: Every person trying to transmit is monitoring at the same time to make sure the message they transmit does appear in the "sum of differences". If you tried to transmit and any bit comes out wrong, it's that there was a collision. Only an odd number of completely identical messages transmitted at the same time would appear as one un-collided message. Of course, if you are only considering very short messages (like 1 bit answers to questions) you are looking for trouble... but if you are sending around longer messages similar to email, then un-noticed collisions are unlikely because messages include signatures and such. When you detected that your message collided, typically, you stop transmitting. You then decide on a random time delay, wait for that duration and try again if the way is clear (all zeroes carrier). Pierre. pierre(a)shell.portal.com

2 1

to mark re: MoD tapping
by Cdt Pvt Dan Doughty 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

well from what I have read, an observer watched as one of the members loaded a program, called a local telephone system, (the utility was a phone utility produced by the phone company) and then whala he could hear the people voices or if data he could watch it scroll down his menu. I was amazed when I heard this. No tech available but I thought I should mention that it was a hardware utility available through the modem. Dan

1 0

Article in biz.clarinet.sample
by Lyle_Seaman＠transarc.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't know whether forwarding Clari articles posted to ...sample is permitted or not, so I am posting just a pointer. Trot on over to biz.clarinet.sample, and check out this article: > Subject: Software you can buy but can't sell > Message-ID: <biz-computerUR971_3N1(a)clarinet.com> > Date: Sat, 6 Nov 93 18:08:02 PST > In mid-October, the House Subcommittee on Economic Policy, Trade and > Environment began a round of hearings on legislation to reauthorize the > Export Administration Act, which sets export control policy for the > United States. There's not a lot of information, but it's a favorable article. Peeve: I wish tech editors wouldn't insist on spelling out acronyms that nobody ever (ever! Well, except tech writers/editors) uses in their spelled out form. If they must spell them out, do it in parens, and bury it. I *hate* having to try to figure out what "the Transmission Control Protocol / Internet Protocol suite" is (eg). > It wasn't that Iraq's dictator had hired the world's best technical > wizards to work for him. It was because the technical minds which were > already in Iraq recognized the fact that standard Internet Protocol > routers were designed well. Knock one out and another takes over, > invisibly. The computer network keeps running.

1 0

Re: Remailer Abuse?
by nobody＠cicada.berkeley.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hh(a)cicada.berkeley.edu says: > Harassing other users is considered abuse, and sending chain letters is a > form of harassing other users. However, it's not a very serious form of > abuse. If I found conclusive evidence that someone were sending something > like childporn through my remailer, I would take some pretty drastic > actions. Interesting. I wonder what those drastic actions would be? People sending serious death threats and the like through anon remailers should be aware that those actions are considered seriously anti-social and may cause them some problems. But I don't view "kiddie porn" the same way. Its very definition is VERY ill-defined, and there is widespread disagreement on how much of an evil threat to truth, justice, and the American Way it really poses. This makes me start to think that borderline policies like this should be well publicized by the operator of the remailer. I don't support the kiddie porn witch hunt going on in the U.S. currently, and would not have assumed that posting what many people consider to be harmless photos of kids under 18 would get someone automatically turned in to the cops. (Again, keep in mind that the definition is very fuzzy. Some people who have been busted as kiddie pornographers have been busted for extremely mild and un-pornographic material that no reasonable person would consider harmful.) .....Cindy

1 0

Private and Public
by an41418＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In response to Eric Hughs: I disagree that income tax is a bad thing. What other way does the government have of maintaining fairness across income tax levels. Someone who only makes 15k a year should not be expected to pay as much as someone who makes 200k. Income tax generates too much revenue to be that easily dispensed with. Given the financial trouble our country is already in, I hate to think of the consequences to the budget if income tax disappeared. Note: I do not enjoy paying this tax, but I'm glad to know that the people making a lot more than I am are contributing more. Wonderer ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

4 3

RE: Private and Public
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

But of COURSE the government has a right to know how much money you make - It OWNS you; why else would it protect you and educate you? (Up Ahead - be prepared . . . you have now crossed into the Twilight Zone). Blanc ---------- From: Arthur Chandler Subject: Private and Public Date: Monday, November 08, 1993 9:31AM I'm sure that few folks want to unsheathe the pro- and con- spoofing arguments again. But Patrick's last post got me thinking: Does the government have the right to know how much money I make, and from what sources? The IRS says yes, absolutely. But Eric Hughes, in a talk given at San Francisco State University, said, in response to a question from an audience, that international digital banking will make it very difficult for a national government to track monetary exchanges, and thereby tax them. Furthermore, I deduced from the gleam in his eye that Eric thought that this was a Good Thing (correct me if I misconstrued you, Eric). Right now, there seems to be a kind of social contract between us and the government: it protects us, provides free schools, etc etc, in exchange for which we have to pony up a fair share of our earnings. It follows, doesn't it, that the government has a right to enforce its laws saying that everyone must pay that fair share of taxes? To enforce that rule, it has a right, under certain conditions, to rummage around in our records to see if we have hidden any income source from them. This may or may not be Big Brother. But it does seem to be the modus operandi of every government that ever was. The point: concerns of privacy often come in conflict with the larger obligations of public good. We can't say categorically that one must always predominate. What do you think?

1 0

UPDATE: Internet "whitepages" database of addresses
by Stanton McCandlish 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

_____ Begin forward ______________________________ Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1993 09:56:28 pst From: "JS McBride & Co. PostMaster" <jim_mcbride(a)netmail.com> Subject: InterNet Mailing List Here is the CORRECT info on the InterNet Mailing List. Addresses are extracted from news feeds, list servers, and other sources. NO personal information is collected. The following is the ONLY information we collect. 1. Electronic mail address 2. User name 3. Search keywords 4. Date info was collected The search keywords are limited to products. Example: xwindows,unix,dos,ms-windows,emacs To have your name removed from the list, send a message to DELETE(a)NETMAIL.COM Please place ANY addresses that you wanted removed from the list in the body of the message. To get more info on how and why we are building the list, send a message to LISTINFO(a)NETMAIL.COM . [Just see next message. PGN] Comments should be sent to TMANNING(a)NETMAIL.COM Thank You, James McBride, NetMail, 415-949-4295 Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1993 22:11:07 From: "JS McBride & Co. PostMaster" <jim_mcbride(a)netmail.com> Subject: Auto Reply [What you get from LISTINFO. PGN] Thank you for your mail to Jim McBride at JS McBride & Company. Due to the volume of mail be handled by this account, this is an automatic reply. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY!! 1. JS McBride is NOT collecting demographic information on email addresses. Due to the controversy surrounding this practice, we have discarded the product demographics we collected. We are however still collecting email addresses and user names. 2. The information collected (name and email address) will be offered in a printed white pages directory and in a white pages server on the net. 3. You DO NOT need to ask to have your name removed. BEFORE your name is used in the directory, you will receive mail asking for your permission. If you reply to the inquiry, your information will be used. If you do not reply, your name will NOT be used. 4. Comments regarding the white pages should be sent to Tom Manning at JS McBride & Company. <tmanning(a)netmail.com> 5. Mail to Jim McBride should be sent to <jimm(a)netmail.com> 6. Information regarding the purchase of the white pages directory should be sent to <listinfo(a)netmail.com> or telephone us at 415-949-4295 Thank you for your time, Jim McBride Thanks to all of you (too many to note) who forwarded this to RISKS. PGN] ------------------------------

1 0