- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Bunch of Clueless Idiots (fwd)
by lassie!jim%lassie＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Good riddance. Another clueless twit storms off in anger. AH your fuckin' mother is a clueless twitt!! >As it happens, I made my comments about the assault weapon ban on >talk.politics.guns," reporting the 216-214 vote within 3 minutes of >ts happening (I watched the debate live on C-SPAN). As the owner of >so-called assault weapons, lacking any paperwork to "prove" I >bought them, I'm possibly going to face prosecution. Yes, I'm >angry. Yes, I consider the 216 who voted to make me a criminal >pieces of shit. And well you should be, it infringes on your rights > But I don't vent my anger by shitting on 700 other people, as you >just did. You lost it, dude, and now you're gonna pay the price. >Good riddance. I have'nt gone anywhere yet > Strong crypto will not happen if jerks like Nabalandian, who I've >never seen contribue a shred of content to this list, foam at the I just did Yeh obviosly all crypto is week, let's write a new program to replace the new crypto program we write next week. Fuck everybody Knows only cool people on Internet deserve crypto. Everybody else is CLUELESS oh omnipotent one. > --Tim May, fed up with his own clueless posts -- * Spelling errors are intentional and international * Jim Nalbandian netcomsv!lassie!jim%lassie(a)netcom.com Tempe, Arizona, USA N7SZS(a)K7BUC.AZ.US.NA No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain there right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government. <-------- Thomas Jefferson --

1 0

Re: Clipper Key Escrow Details
by koontzd＠lrcs.loral.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: grendel(a)netaxs.com (Michael Brandt Handler) >Posted-Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 07:05:38 -0400 >Regarding the Clipper Key Escrow scheme: > [1] Who has the ability to submit a warrant and request the key data from the two controlling government agencies? Its even worse than that. They have a catch phrase - "other legal authority", where some do not require a warrant. > [2] What is to stop someone, once they have my escrowed key data, >from archiving it for later use? While not having formally answered this, it has been indicated that the unit key is sent encrypted to a decoder box, which can disassemble the LEAF and extract the session key. I believe this decoder is based on a PC, which leaves one to wonder about even the possibility of timelocking the transaction. (the crypto algorithm is contained in a chip on a P.C. board.)

1 0

Re: Lobbying/Politics/etc
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

L.>1) Any Illegal crypto programs could be removed from Internet in a L.>matter of hours. It might be a little hard to invade Findland, Slovenia, the Republic of China, Italy, etc. all within a few hours. L.>2) Any Illegal crypto message sent via Internet could be analyzed L.>as illegal and not delivered. It might be hard to rewrite the TCP/IP protocols and get everyone to install the changes without anyone noticing. L.>3) Anybody sending such messages would face fines or jail sentences. If they were provably in the jurisdiction and you could tell they did it. L.>4) Any government branch that took your computer could keep it for L.>no reason (except we are investigating it) for a long time, L.>practically until your trail and then maybe forfeit it. If you and your computers were in the (same) jurisdiction. L.>5) Users of Illegal crypto could be subject to other legal L.>surveillance. (telephone, movements, dosscia etc.) If the opposition has unlimited resources. L.>6) In this state even if Illegal crypto was not a Felony you would L.>probly receive probation on first offense, 6 months in county jail L.>on second offense and 1 year on third and subsequent offenses. I L.>have done 11 months in county jail and found it racialy enlightning A real learning experience. Don't panic. DCF Aren't the feds going to be pissed in a few years when the 3D solid "printers" come down in price and I can "print" out a dozen UZIs. --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165

1 0

pgp
by Ice-Fox (aka Robert Sturtz) 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I live in Australia and i was wandering if there was a legal way to get my hands on pgp (or whatever its called) and if there is a way what is it? Yours in SYNC. Robert Sturtz __ __ __/// rsturt(a)wilbur.mbark.swin.oz.au (Ice-Fox on irc) __/// \XX/ Vice-President of Eastern Wargamers And Roleplayers Club \XX/ -------------------------BEGIN SPOOK FODDER------------------------- kill, bomb, maim, plot, c4, sex, murder, assassinate, gun, nuke, plan --------------------------END SPOOK FODDER--------------------------

1 0

Re: Nalbandian
by schirado＠lab.cc.wmich.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Okay. "Writing code" is the activism of choice here, as opposed to speaking out, spreading the word to Joe Sixpack, etc. No problem. First: There have been many non-code discussions over the last few months, many of them begun by respected list members (Tim May, Eric Hughes, etc). Second: If something is posted to the list that you find stupid, you all SAY that we should just ignore them. But of course, you post this itself to the list at large. Which prompts another round of go-between, attack and counter-attack. You say that the "clueless" need to get thicker skins? Pot calls kettle black, film at 11. You accuse the clueless of wasting time and bandwidth, and then perform the same thing (in a far superior fashion, of course, since your spelling and grammar skills show you to be a better person anyway). In a nutshell: If it's not related to the list, DON'T POST IT. Take the crap to e-mail. Frog Farmer, ignoring his own advice for the first (and hopefully last) time.

1 0

Re: Regarding Mr. Nalbandian's Comments
by snyderra＠dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:37 AM 5/6/94 -0400, Michael Brandt Handler wrote: >[3] Sending badly composed rants to seven hundred people and then >publically posting a response to a private message is not the way to be >taken seriously. Great way to get dropped in a kill file, though, as he has with my mailer. >People who use Elm: if you know how to create a killfile for Elm, please >send me an email message telling how. Thanks. Do a man filter. If you need more help, mail me. It's fairly simple, but I'm offline reading mail on my Mac, so I don't have access to the directions right now. ObCrypt: I just got my copy of Applied Cryptography. It looks great. Now if only Bruce were in the country so I could mail and get the disks so I don't have to type all the code in. :-) Bob -- Bob Snyder N2KGO MIME, RIPEM mail accepted snyderra(a)dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu finger for RIPEM public key When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.

1 0

MIT talk on Cipher breaking
by Alan Wexelblat 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[As usual I have no more information than presented here. Contact joanne(a)theory.lcs.mit.edu for more information. --AW] > MIT TOC SEMINAR > > Thursday, May 12, 1994 > > Refreshments at 4:00pm, Talk at 4:15pm in NE43-518 > > ``How to Break Gifford's Cipher'' > > by Alan T. Sherman* > University of Maryland Baltimore County > >(* Joint work with Thomas R. Cain. Part of this work was carried out >while Sherman was a member of the Institute for Advanced Computer >Studies, University of Maryland College Park.) > > ABSTRACT > >We present and implement a ciphertext-only algorithm to break >Gifford's cipher, a stream cipher designed in 1984 by David Gifford of >MIT and used to encrypt New York Times and Associated Press wire >reports. Applying linear algebra over finite fields, we exploit a >time-space tradeoff to separately determine key segments derived from >the primary rational canonical decomposition of the feedback function >This work, the first proposed attack on Gifford's cipher, illustrates >a powerful attack on stream ciphers and shows that Gifford's cipher is >ill-suited for encrypting broadcast data in the MIT-based {\it Boston >Community Information System (BCIS)}. > >Gifford's cipher is a {\it filter generator}---a linear feedback shift >register with nonlinear output. Our cryptanalytic problem is to >determine the secret 64-bit initial fill, which is changed for each >news article. Our attack runs in $2^{27}$ steps and $2^{18}$ bytes of >memory, which is a significant shortcut over the $2^{64}$ steps >required for a straightforward exhaustive search of all initial fills. >Given ciphertext only from one encrypted article, our prototype >implementation running on a loosely-coupled network of eight >Sparcstations finds the article key within approximately four hours on >average. Exploiting a key-management flaw of the BCIS, we also >compute at no additional cost the corresponding master key, used for >one month to encrypt all article keys in the same news section. In >addition, from the decomposition of $f$, we compute the exact >probability distribution of the leader and cycle lengths of all state >sequences generated by Gifford's cipher. > >Host: Shang Hua-Teng

1 0

i
by nobody＠jarthur.cs.hmc.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

lassie!jim%lassie(a)netcom.com (Jim Nalbandian) says: >AH your fuckin' mother is a clueless twitt!! >Yeh obviosly all crypto is week, let's write a new program to >replace the new crypto program we write next week. Fuck everybody >Knows only cool people on Internet deserve crypto. Everybody else >is CLUELESS oh omnipotent one. >I think if cryptography is illegal it does't mater a FUCK what >version the program is. Insure against the inevetable by >distributing to the DUMM FUCK CLUELESS COMPUTER USERS THAT ARE NOT >AS FUCKIN' COOL AS YOU ARE. Power to the people/power in the people should you be interested in congratulating jim nalbandian for his recent well thought out and highly intellectual contributions to the list feel free to contact him personally jim nalbandian (602) 968-4540 his adept and comprehensive instructions on the use of payphones will be educational for those on the list who are too modest to take credit for their constructive feedback and are thus included below >Wow, FUCKIN' hard to figure out. The little round things you have >in your pocket are called coins. If you pick up a phone an ask the >operator to call Fort Yukon alaska she will ask you to put some of >those round things in the phone. Believe it or not, she will now >when the phone has a nuff round things and let your call go thru >for three minutes maybe. Be sure to wipe your fingure prints of >the round things before depositing them in the phone (This is like >doing a file wipe in PGP) or for those more inclined to use the postal services 1241 west university drive tempe, arizona 85281

1 0

Re: Double betting and money laundering
by pcw＠access.digex.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Peter Wayner wrote: > >>Apparently, casinos are now on the lookout for people who >>are teaming up to play both halves of a bet. One casino >>kicked out two guys who apparently were betting on pass >>and don't pass on the craps table. Why were they bothering? >>Was it laundering? Nope. It turns out that casinos hand >>out free "comps" based on the amount of betting that you >>do. This is called being "rated." They notice that you're >>betting $10 chips and figure that the math shows that you'll >>probably lose x dollars per hour. Then they give you free >>room and food to show their appreciation. > >Forgive me, but I am skeptical. I worked for a short while as a licensed >craps dealer in NJ about 10 years ago. There is no combination of bets >on a craps table that will cancell out the house advantage. When I delt, >the house welcomed any combination of bets any player wanted to make, let >alone worrying about what some confederate on the same table might do. > Yes, there is no combination that will cancel out the house odds. I'm guessing that the two craps players hoped that their small losses would be less than the cost of the hotel room that they would win by being comped. The story just reported that the casino kicked out two people who were engaged in this after one demanded to be comped. The article mentioned that casinos seemed to want to comp people at 30% of their expected losses. I'm sort of skeptical of this working out because the expected losses of two players mirroring their bets with an odd/even strategy on the roulette wheel is twice the expected losses of one person just betting straight odd. But who says that gamblers know everything? -Peter

1 0

Re:The Value of Money
by f_griffith＠ccsvax.sfasu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >>> GRABOW_GEOFFREY(a)tandem.com asked: >>> >>>>Didn't Nixon take the U.S. off of the gold standard? >>>> > >> >>The US$ was devalued from $35 to $38 /oz gold and the Treasury stopped >>redeeming dollars from anyone other than central banks in '69. >>This created a two tier market. The US devalued again in '70 (0r '71) >>to $45 /oz, and then threw in the towel and stopped backing the >>currency with anything other than "the full faith and credit of the >>US government" [:)]. >>US citizens were permitted to own gold bullion again as of Jan '75, >>under Ford. >> >> Jeff >> trestrab(a)gvsu.edu > Roosevelt eliminated domestic convertibility 1n 1933. Nixon eliminated international convertibility ("closed the gold window" as it's often stated) in August, 1971. The dollar was devalued from 1/35 oz of gold to 1/38 oz in December, 1971. The dollar was devalued from 1/38 oz to 1/42.22 oz in Feb, 1973. Of course, the devaluations didn't really matter since even the international convertibility ha been eliminated. Reynolds

1 0