- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: [Lucrative-L] lucrative accounts revisited
by Patrick Chkoreff 29 Apr '03

29 Apr '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday, April 24, 2003, at 10:28 AM, R. A. Hettinga wrote: > ... Since we're literally moving title to an asset around the net > instead > of changing records in a database somewhere (remember the > double-spend database at the mint is only *redeemed* notes, not > copies of what's out there), ... I am taking a different approach, where the server stores RIPEMD-160 hashes of all the redeemable coins "out there." It completely forgets redeemed coins. Because the server only stores hashes, the entire contents of the server database could literally be published on the web in streaming live form without seriously reducing the security of the system. Of course, this would be stupid because it would needlessly invite collision attacks, but in principle the idea of avoiding security through obscurity could be applied to the database itself. But then, why not hide the hash file behind a Unix password, and behind an AES-256 key while we're at it? :-) So a coin consists of an lseek position in the server data file, 256 bits of random gibberish, and 64 bits representing the amount. When you present the coin to the server, the server hashes it and looks at the given lseek position. If it matches, it manufactures a new coin at some other lseek place and sends it to you. You store the coin, compute the RIPEMD-160 hash yourself, and send that to the server, at which point it kills the old coin and enlivens the new coin. Obviously all the smart folks who talk about storing only the redeemed notes and even using probabilistic double-spend detection methods have reasons for doing so. I expect my scheme will be slapped down forthwith. :-) > Finally, I would also strongly recommend that we try like hell not to > invent new cryptographic conventions, much less new cryptography, > here. You're preaching to the choir here. I haven't seen any snake oil proposals lately (unless I just gave one above. :-) > First, crypto is hard. :-), and our chances of actually inventing > something new that isn't trivially broken on its face is even harder. > Obviously, if you're one of those big swinging di-, er, big giant > heads, who actually do the math, understand what cryptography > protocols do, and see something that's wrong, or that you can do > better, that's different, but there's a whole lot of time that can be > wasted in reinventing the wheel here that won't get us to code that > earns money. ... Good C libraries for existing crypto protocols are always welcome. I'm just getting Rijndael, RSA, RIPEMD, BBS, etc. into a shape I like. Mostly, I don't like routines that declare *anything* on the stack -- all of my working space is allocated on a single 4k mlocked page up front and Mersenne-twisted before munlock and free. > Second, and in that vein, there is a whole published language of > crypto that's already being used, and if we don't use it from the > outset, nobody will understand us later if we get stuck. In > particular, a trusted third party, or trusted entity, is "Trent", for > some reason, probably because Schneier had it in Applied Cryptography > 10 or 12 years ago. :-). Ah, Marvin for "medium" considered non-standard. :-) OK, Trent it is. > We should change nomenclature only when we've added to it, yes? > > Believe me, we'll get there, especially after we're actually > operating this code the way we want it to run, at a profit, in an > open market. That's certainly something that nobody's done before, > :-), and we're going to have our hands full when we make it happen. Truly. - -- Patrick http://fexl.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0 iQA/AwUBPqf+F1A7g7bodUwLEQISIgCfTVhs4Q+8xc4w5xuH1z5+DPMb/EAAoK/j al4Clq6VA/dR5aFIb0ZxPsEe =pNFb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

17 45

[Brinworld] PhoneCam vs. court; Publishing faces from the street
by Major Variola (ret) 29 Apr '03

29 Apr '03

Man fined for taking photo with phone A man has been fined for apparently taking a photograph of a defendant in court using a mobile phone, it emerged today http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_773538.html?menu=news.technology Teacher sets up drug dealer 'web watch' A teacher sick of drug dealers and addicts in his neighbourhood has taken the drastic measure of posting their pictures on the internet. John Messiter says he has decided to secretly photograph those terrorising the area and make their images public. http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_773853.html?menu=news.technology Interesting privacy/public and libel implications in the latter.

4 3

Finder's Keepers, Smartcards, Anon Cash [Re: double-spending prevention w. spent coins]
by Major Variola (ret) 29 Apr '03

29 Apr '03

One of the attributes that a digital currency system MAY have is whether someone who finds lost currency may spend it. Conventional cash has this property. So do tickets to performances, lottery tickets, bus tokens, prepaid phone cards etc.. A (tamper-resistant) smartcard may have this 'finders keepers' property, or may not. A lost, signed-but-payee-blank check has the property that finders can cash it, except if the (albeit stupid) loser goes "online" first. (Maybe you need to buy a fake ID to cash it anonymously, but its possible if its signed.) Clearly the most anonymous systems (cash) have the 'finders keepers' property, *necessarily*. But one can imagine anonymous systems that are useless to finders, e.g., a smartcard with a real PIN and/or fingerprint reader. In these cases, it is advantageous to the finder to return the smartcard in hope of a reward, IFF the loser makes this possible. Maybe there's a bizmodel in being a clearing house for lost locked smartcards, without trashing their potential "bearer" anonymity unless the loser tells the clearing house they've lost it. Sort of like calling a prepaid ("debit") credit card house if you've lost it (assuming prepaid credit card acceptance still requires going online) to get a replacement.

3 2

Re: Fake News for Big Brother
by Tyler Durden 29 Apr '03

29 Apr '03

Norman Nescio wrote... "Thank God for the protection of anonymity. With people like Tim May throwing around death threats towards those who say the wrong thing, this may soon be the only way we can communicate without fear. Please join me in condemning this savage trampling on principles supported by all men of honor." Well, I might be willing to "condemn" the letter of May's post, but I'm not so sure about condemning the spirit of it. Basically, if a newspaper claims to be doing objective reporting of the facts, and they then become merely an arm of 'law enforcement' (which in turn enforces the momentary whim of local dictators no longer constrained by law due to the 'Patriot Act'), then all hell's broken loose already. And while I can't get with the notion of killing somebody for doing something I don't like (unless they're trying to hurt me or my family), a brick through a window might be an appropriate response. -TD >From: Nomen Nescio <nobody(a)dizum.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Subject: Re: Fake News for Big Brother >Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:50:11 +0200 (CEST) > > > On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely > > nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a > > major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict > > in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox > > Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented > > to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically > > not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort > > the news on a television broadcast. > >It's significant that a United States Court of Appeals has a stronger >commitment to the First Amendment than supposed arch-libertarian Tim May. >Look at May's response when confronted with the idea that a newspaper >has the right to print what it chooses: > > > But the journalist and his editors are still alive. > > > > When they have been necklaced and lit, we can rest easier. > > > > Burning down the entire newspaper office would maybe be overkill, but, > > hey, what the hell. > > > > Fuck them dead. > >That's right: Tim May believes people should be tortured and killed for >saying the wrong thing in their own newspaper. Apparently he believes >that he has the right to set rules which everyone else must follow in what >they say, under penalty of a horrific death. Needless to say, nothing >could be further from the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. > >Thank God for the protection of anonymity. With people like Tim May >throwing around death threats towards those who say the wrong thing, this >may soon be the only way we can communicate without fear. Please join >me in condemning this savage trampling on principles supported by all >men of honor. _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

1 0

Wired: Mike Hawash "officially" charged
by Tyler Durden 29 Apr '03

29 Apr '03

U.S. officials on Monday charged Maher "Mike" Hawash, an Arab-American who had been detained since March, with conspiracy to help a suspected cell of people accused of aiding al Qaeda and Taliban forces. Maher Mofeid Hawash, 39, of Hillsboro, Oregon, was charged in a criminal complaint with conspiracy to levy war against the United States, conspiracy to provide material support to al Qaeda and conspiracy to contribute services to al Qaeda and the Taliban. Hawash, a software contractor with Intel, had been held since March 20, sparking an outcry from supporters who protested the high level of secrecy surrounding legal proceedings against him. The Justice Department said in a statement that Hawash was believed to be involved in the same activities as the "Portland Six" -- a group indicted in the fall of 2002 and accused by Attorney General John Ashcroft of being part of a "suspected terrorist cell." Hawash was charged with the same violations as Jeffrey Leon Battle, Patrice Lumumba Ford, Ahmed Abrahim Bilal, Muhammad Ibrahim Bilal, Habis Abdullah Al Saoub and October Martinique Lewis. All six previously charged defendants had lived in Portland, Oregon. Five of the six are in custody. Al Saoub is still at large and is believed to be outside the United States. The complaint said U.S. officials identified Hawash based on evidence seized at the time of the other arrests and from evidence gained through follow-up investigations. According to the criminal complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Portland, Hawash decided after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States to travel to Afghanistan to join forces with Taliban and al Qaeda troops fighting there. The United States, which blames Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terror network for masterminding the strikes that killed more than 3,000, launched the attack in Afghanistan to uproot the country's Islamic fundamentalist Taliban government. Hawash is accused of traveling with the other defendants to China in an attempt to enter Afghanistan and fight against U.S. forces. Hawash returned to the United States in November 2001 after failing to enter Afghanistan. The complaint says Hawash claimed his travel to China was related to his personal software business. Hawash was initially detained as a material witness in a secret grand jury investigation. The material witness designation allowed Hawash to be held indefinitely without being charged. According to an investigation by the Washington Post, at least 44 others have been held in secret as material witnesses by authorities in terrorism-related investigations. The American Civil Liberties Union has condemned the government's detention of the individuals. Friends of Hawash, led by former Intel executive Steven McGeady, continue to campaign for his release. According to the campaign website, Free Mike Hawash, the evidence against Hawash is weak. "The evidence presented in the complaint is, in our opinion, weak, and amounts to guilt by association," says a statement on the site. "The government had a weak case when he was originally detained and has no stronger a case now. "We will continue to stand by Mike," the statement continues. "We believe in his innocence, and believe that he will ultimately be cleared of all charges." Reuters contributed to this report. _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

1 0

Re: Making Money in Digital Money
by A.Melon 29 Apr '03

29 Apr '03

> Most of these changes have passed the cypherpunks by. All the P2P > work, file sharing, Freenet, IIRC, weblogs, WiFi, open source, open > spectrum; for the most part it's as if none of this exists, in the > world of the cypherpunks. weblogs? http://invisiblog.com/

3 2

Re: Fake News for Big Brother
by Justin 29 Apr '03

29 Apr '03

At 2003-04-29 14:51 +0000, Sunder wrote: > > http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm > > > > On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about > > lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. > > Ok fine, but what about the old saw that you can't lie to any law > enforcement types? You can't lie to them during the course of semi-quasi-whatever official business. Feeding them false intel with their morning or afternoon coffee I'm quite sure doesn't qualify. -- Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. --Rumsfeld, 2003-04-11

1 0

Re: Fake News for Big Brother
by Tim May 29 Apr '03

29 Apr '03

On Tuesday, April 29, 2003, at 07:51 AM, Sunder wrote: >> http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm >> >> On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely >> nothing illegal about >> lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press >> organization. > > Ok fine, but what about the old saw that you can't lie to any law > enforcement types? Are we to assume that no Law Enforcement Officer > ever > watches Fox News? > > By extension, does that mean any member of the media may lie to a Law > Enforcement Officer? > > If so, why does does Fox get to lie, and Joe Spudweiser can't? > > Ok, what if Joe Spudwiser has his own neighborhood newspaper? > > > Can't have it both ways. Then again, in this "envrionment" nothing > makes > sense other than to assume that everyone is lying. The "making false statements to officers" bit is only about Official Investigations. It doesn't cover lying to your next door neighbor the cop, lying about what speed one was traveling at, or lying on a news broadcast he may be watching. (Even if he's an Official Investigator!) Also, convicting someone of "making false statements" is fairly difficult, and such prosecutions and convictions are rare. --Tim May

1 0

Re: Fake News for Big Brother
by Tyler Durden 29 Apr '03

29 Apr '03

Well, it might not be such a bad thing in the long run, particularly if they printed a retraction some days later. Already the masses believe what they read/hear from "trusted" media sources, even to the point of "knowing" that Saddam Hussein was somehoe behind 9/11/01. If this were well publicized, there could be the realiztion of "what!they LIED to us?!" In the case of the New York Times the lies are not out-and-out lies, but a deliberate slanting and re-arranging of information in such a way as to support the 'well-intentioned' initiatives of their perceived community. Or perhaps worse still, not investigating too closely when our military releases some 'hot' information...any soft questioning will be done weeks later and in a page deep in the interior... Who once raised the point that "in a world where everyone told the truth all the time, the consequences of a single lie could be catastrophic..."? -TD >From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> >To: Eric Cordian <emc(a)artifact.psychedelic.net> >CC: cypherpunks(a)minder.net >Subject: Re: Fake News for Big Brother >Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 23:37:54 -0400 > >On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 12:04:10PM -0700, Eric Cordian wrote: > > The news media, will, in fact, print fake news supplied by the >government, > > with full knowlege that it is false, to further an ongoing >investigation. > >Yes, that may be the case. It certainly is here. But let's not forget >the fact that this incident has drawn sharp criticism from other >journalists. > >-Declan _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

3 2

RE: Fake News for Big Brother
by Major Variola (ret) 29 Apr '03

29 Apr '03

At 10:16 AM 4/29/03 -0400, Trei, Peter wrote: >I'm not sure how I feel about this. Problems would arise if there *were* a >law against >news media presenting false information. The question becomes 'What is >truth?', and >'Who decides". Peter is right on. Everyone needs to remember that police can lie, media can lie, governments lie. And remember that broadcast media requires government licensing. ---- "They did what?" --My wife, when I reminder her about the Tuskegee experiments, when she doubted the USG would plant things in Iraq

1 0