- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > 'We' shouldn't, it is their own country and it is up to their populace to > stop it. Do you really want Singapore or China having a say in how we run > our web? I certainly don't, and won't support any move to force any > particular view on them. And Germany was Hitler and the Nazi Party's own country. Do you really want Clinton and GingWretch having a say in how we run our web? (I don't). It may be 'their' country ('their' being the government), but it is 'their' world ('their' being the people). There was a reason that the Western powers didn't return East Germans who broke the laws of their country by climbing over the wall and running for freedom. Making information available does not 'force' a view on anyone. > > The Web was conceived as offering despots and dictators a choice > > between remaining in the dark ages and allowing freedom of > > speech. I want a couple of whatever this guy is on. > Bull, the web was conceived so physicist and other researchers could share > data in a easily digestible format. No. The internet was conceived so that the DOD could monitor the communications of physicists and researchers who thought it was awfully nice of the government to provide this wonderful method of sharing data and information. Toto

1 0

Re: ADSL (Was: GSM technology
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>At 09:43 AM 1/20/97 -0500, Nurdane Oksas wrote: >> Does anyone use ADSL lines? or are they still very expensive? > >They're not widely available yet; I don't know if any of the (US) >phone companies offer it as more than trials. One limitation is that >the technology works over copper wire, so it has to be offered at >your local telco wire center. Of course, your local telco has to >have something useful to do with the bits once the user sends >them to the telco, and has to have some useful bits to send the user. >This means they've got to haggle about standards for 5 more years >(or just do the right thing and deploy IP, with some respectable >bandwidth to the outside world) (or deploy ATM to get a layer 2 >connection to something outside.) That was the intent of at least one sectio of the recently enacted Telecom Reform Act, but now the Baby Bells are trying to block local access provisions in the SC which would allow, for example, ISP to offer ISDN/ADSL/HDSL via their own CO equipment (bypassing the telco switches). > >Don't know if the telcos have a clue about pricing, either. >It's obviously got to be more than cost, but they'll probably >thrash around a lot the way they did with IP.... > ># Thanks; Bill ># Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com ># You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp ># (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

RE: ADSL (Was: GSM technology
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote re: ADSL lines> They're not widely available yet; I don't know if any of the (US) phone companies offer it as more than trials. One limitation is that the technology works over copper wire, so it has to be offered at your local telco wire center. A previous poster mentioned that because of the copper wire restriction, that they may deploy first in older centers. This would appear to be the case, since a Canadian telco (Sasktel) is offering ADSL in Saskatoon for 60$/month with unlimited internet access. Saskatoon falls into this category - in my opinion. I was only is SK briefly over New Years, but perhaps Toto can fill in details. James

1 0

David Kahn advocates GAK
by Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl' 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In today's (22 Jan 97) Long Island, NY Newsday Viewpoints, p. A31: "Let Feds Overheard Cellular-Phone Talk" by David Kahn (an editor at Newsday and author of "The Codebreakers") He intones the usual horseman: "...such criminals as terrorists, drug- runners, kidnappers and child-pornographers are increasingly using encryption to conceal their plans and activities, the FBI says." He also mis-states opponenents of GAK positions, claimingthe criticism is that "key escrow [at least he doesn't call it key recovery] won't work all the time", ignoring anti-GAK mentions of COINTELPRO, J.Edgar Stalin^H^H^H^H^H^HHoover, etc. etc. And the usual nonsense about "every day that criminal messages can be heard is a gain" w/out noting that anyone smart enough to use crypto now will not use it if GAK is fully implemented. Newsday is part of the LA Times Syndicate, so member papers may also have the same viewpoint appearing in their pages within the next couple of days. Their website is http://www.newsday.com ... I don't know if the viewpoint is on-line there. Rob ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key.

1 0

Re: Seismic Crypto
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:39 PM 1/21/97 -0500, John Young wrote: >In a NYT report today on a "mysterious" blast in the >Australian outback in 1993, there's mention of "seismic >weapons" and research on them by Nicholas Tesla >in the 1930s. > >Would any of our weapons connoisseurs have more >info on what these are and how they were supposed to >work? Electrical, chemical, nuclear? ... Pick up a copy of the Johnson Smith Catalog, lots of fun to read and they sell t-shirts with greys on them. The catalog sells several "contriversial" books and tapes, including psycic healing techniques, astral projection, the infamous alien autopsy tape, and several books about and works by Tesla, including one specifically about the device that you are talking about. On another thread, pick up the Cheek3 Scanner modification guide while your at it, I hear that it is a good resource.

1 0

Re: FBI Gets 500 Mil to Tap Your Communications
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"rwright(a)adnetsol.com" "Ross Wright" 22-JAN-1997 02:52:34.76 >at [8]. Unlike the earlier draft, this essay lays out its assumptions >and straightforwardly projects needed capacity growth. The result is >a capacity figure of fewer than 60,000 intercepts, less that 4% of >the original request. This level of capability would allow the FBI >simultaneously to monitor more than 500 phone lines in an area with >the population of Manhatta still an enormous increase on historical >numbers of intercepts. [...] >[8] <http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_3.01.html> Something that the CDT didn't point out was that basing wiretap "requirements" on past growth makes two assumptions, both of them invalid: A. Past wiretaps (& other probes, such as pen registers & tap-and-trace) were all entirely justified; the growth in their use does not reflect either use of them in situations they are not required for or use of them in situations in which government has essentially failed and more resources poured into the alleged "problems" (e.g., drug trafficing, money laundering, and pornography) will do less than no good whatsoever. B. The number of lines will go up at the same rate as the estimated growth in wiretaps. In regards to this latter one, if they go up at a greater rate, then the FBI will request expanded capacity; if they go up at a lower rate, they will assuredly not request a decrease, and will thus ultimately have the capablility to wiretap _all_ lines. >Fuck the FBI. With a backhoe. -Allen

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor.
by Jeremiah A Blatz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> writes: > Mission: > > Singapore and China are blocking certain net groups. I think > this is a bad thing, question is how can we stop it? The Web > was conceived as offering despots and dictators a choice > between remaining in the dark ages and allowing freedom of > speech. Blocking and filtering schemes threaten this ideal. > > > Requirements: > > A scheme which makes blocking of individual IP addresses > impractical. <snip> > Considerations: > [i.e. areas needing brainstorming] > > 1) Copyright. Clearly copyright holders such as CNN etc would > need to be involved. Although proxies have long been a part of > the Web and the scheme does not threaten their interests it would > be as well to get them on board at an early stage. I believe that the new copyright regs explicitly allow web surfing. Copyright should not be an issue, I think. IANAL. > 2) How can one prevent the proxies themselves being blocked? Some > ideas that come to mind: > > 2a) Only issue new sites gradually so that blocking requires > continuous updates. > > 2b) Use DHCP to change network addresses regularly. > > 2c) Some crypto hack I can't quite work out (hence the post to > cypher punks). I can phrase the challenge more compactly though. > We have two sets of opposed groups A and M. The A group wish to > establish a continued conversation with groups B and C. M is > willing to permit communication with group B but not C. Whenever > M discovers that a member of group B is willing to act on behalf > of group C, M transfers that member to the C group. > > The problem is to keep A's channels of communication open despite > the efforts of M for very large group sizes. > > I'm not sure if this is a pure crypto challenge or a game theory > problem. Secure connections from proxy to client would eliminate driftnet scanning. That's probably about all the crypto. One idea would to put /cgi-bin/redirect in all the distributions of apache, apache-SSL, etc. That way, anyone who cared at all about privacy or was clueless would have an anonymizer on their web server. People who really cared could run web spiders that looked for sites with the redirect, and have cgi-bins that returned a randomized list of 10 or so. They could periodically post the list to semi-relavent newsgroups. The idea here is to reduce the chance of a denial of service attack against the anonymizer pool. The points of attack that I can think of are: 1) Filter out out anonymized connections. Crypto helps solves this one. Of course, then the evil empire filters out crypto, but that's bad for business. 2) Make the list of anonymizers dissappear This is a bit easier for the bad guys. Stego could help solve the problem, especially if combined with crypto. (i.e stego the list, encrypted with a few key underground folks public keys, into a pic of the great wall of china or something. 3) Make it illegal to use anonymizers and enforec randomly. FUD. I dunno how to solve this one. Put anphetamines in the water supply? > Comments? If people are willing to work on this I can provide > some facilities and act as a media contact. Distribution wins. (BTW, look at www.anonymizer.com) Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMuZwuMkz/YzIV3P5AQEb5gL/aOgddVJ91jtZUPrDcsnqdhOFpKLx1IAH UMZi+HkdB+ZUsRhLxCSy0enpqxikwyFVOMINSr3uLRtYSIcuPK2JFdSACI79yISk 7oZWxwTO5TDMYtbBRAAZv/d9VyCT/EVE =OIEP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Manila says ID system not prelude to martial law (fwd)
by David Lesher / hated by RBOC's in 5 states 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Reuters sez: Message-ID: <Rphilippines-cardUR8Au_7JF(a)clari.net> MANILA, Jan 15 (Reuter) - Philippine President Fidel Ramos on Wednesday dismissed as baseless fears that his order creating a national identification system was a prelude to martial law. ``That is a wild opinion without any basis in fact,'' Ramos told his weekly news conference after Cardinal Jaime Sin, the outspoken Archbishop of Manila, accused him of being authoritarian. {We're talking, therefore it's no threat..} {Sin said it's immoral} {Opposition said could be used to monitor political activities, that it was reminiscent of Marcos.} Officials have said a computerised ID system whereby cards issued to citizens by state pension funds would carry reference numbers assigned to them for life would make it easier for people to transact business with the government and minimise fraud. ``That's all there is to it ... (its) very simple,'' Ramos said. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

Re: Fascist cocksuckers: 0, Freedom of speech: 1
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Otto Matic <ott0matic(a)hotmail.com> writes: > >> John Young wrote: > >> > Governments in China, Burma and > >> > Singapore have already tried to discipline this on-line activity with > >> > minimal success. > >> > >> Do you have any pointers to information in regard to this, or are you > >> just being a goddamn tease? > > > >For example, the fascist cocksuckers Sandfart and Geekmore have been > >totally impotent in their failed attempts to suppress free speech. > > > >Gilmore's as inept as the governments of China, Burma and Singapore combined > > > > FUCK CENSORSHIP. FUCK EFF (EFFEMINATE FASCISTS FOUNDATION). > > > >--- > > > > Seems as if you've been censored! Bummer, dude! Yes. I'm sure Sandy Sandfart is having a good time censoring his betters. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor.
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Otto Matic <ott0matic(a)hotmail.com> writes: > >From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Tue Jan 21 16:57:46 1997 > > >"Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> writes: > > > >> Mission: > >> > >> Singapore and China are blocking certain net groups. I think > >> this is a bad thing, question is how can we stop it? The Web > >> was conceived as offering despots and dictators a choice > >> between remaining in the dark ages and allowing freedom of > >> speech. Blocking and filtering schemes threaten this ideal. > > > >Phil, when I saw the subject, I thought this was another article > >condemning Gilmore, Sandfort, and their disgraceful censorship. > > What's up with this one getting censored? You didn't say cocksucker or fuck > anything? Alles Kriticismus auf der Listfuehrer Gilmore und Obercensor Sandfart ist stricklich verbotten. Heil Kocksucker Gilmore! --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0