- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Extreme Left/Right
by James Ormond 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy, I always had trouble understanding what people meant when they used the terms "extreme left" and "extreme right". Then, about 4 months ago, I saw a guy define the "political spectrum" the way (he said) it used to be defined before the definitions were corrupted (by whomever wants to divide - and conquer - the people). It made sense to me. A spectrum afterall, at least when we're talking about colors, starts with one type of color and graduates to other, DIFFERENT colors. He defined the "political spectrum" as follows: < ------- LEFT RIGHT -------> Monarchy Oligarchy Democracy Republic Anarchy Rule by: ONE FEW MANY LAW NONE Examples: Dictator, Communist, Lynch Mob Constitutional King Fascist State Govt (US before 1930's) So, according to this definition of the political spectrum, a true "leftist" would be a person that supported the government's usurpation of individual rights, property rights, human rights, privacy rights, etc. Obviously we don't look at it this way. The government only takes away our property (eg. through income taxes), etc. when it's FOR OUR OWN GOOD AND THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRYMEN!!! Sadly, this can only be done (in this country) by violating the US Constitution, and it has been done and it is being done. Unfortuneately, the people that support and seek to defend the Constitution (according to the political spectrum you see above) are on the right (those that support the Republic). It's not politically correct to call yourself a "rightist" these days. Of course, there are not too many Americans (including people that call themselves "leftists" or "liberals") that are willing to publicly admit that they are opposed to the US Constitution. I dare say that most leftists would actually say that they SUPPORT the US Constitution. Many of these people are very concerned about the deterioration of our liberties and spend a lot of time and energy educating themselves and others about how this is being done. I know this because I used to consider myself a "leftist" (although I was never too fond of applying such labels to myself); after all, I had to be SOMEWHERE!!! My political "education" started during the Reagan years. Since that administration was considered "right-wing", I knew I didn't like that (because of the BAD things that it was doing) so I must be the opposite. When I used to listen to a certain "leftist" radio station broadcasting out of New York City, they would talk about "left-wing", communist dictatorships and "right-wing", fascist dictatorships. A dictatorship is a dictatorship!!! The "wing" that it comes from makes no difference!! The way the media defines these things makes no sense; you can't have a dictatorship on BOTH sides of a POLITICAL SPECTRUM no more than you can have YELLOW on both sides of the COLOR SPECTRUM. Maybe I'm totally wrong in my thinking. If I am please try to clarify things for me. I bring this to your attention only because I notice that you often use these terms in some of your e-mails. I think that most "leftists" and "rightists" want many of the same things. We can't get together because the language we use has been so corrupted. Sincerely, Jim.

5 4

Re: Censor John Gilmore -- EFF is a disgrace!
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear "Info", Mr. Stephen Boursy has made a number of important revelations here. I went back and read nearly all his posts, and I will say this _again_, I have found NOTHING to suggest a lack of reliability in what he says. I am in no way affiliated to Mr. Boursy. I have never seen his face, even. In fact I had hardly noticed Mr. Boursy's presence till only a few days ago, when the forcible expulsion of Russian Mathematician Dimitri Vulis from the "cypherpunks" list fell like a bomb over my naive gullible head. Only AFTER this, I started reading ALL the previous postings that I had missed (about 60-70 % of them). I decided to find out what's happening. I saw OBVIOUS things, and OBVIOUS LIES, since as a lurker who kept ALL previous postings (in the Freedom-Knights list and elsewhere) I could COMPARE my archives to what people claimed. More often than not, to my amazement, what a LOT of people claimed were packs of lies. And against Mr. Boursy and Mr. Dimitri Vulis in particular, entire SEWAGES of lies. ' So I forward this info to... "INFO", the Weekly Net-Supplement of "Eleftherotypia", Greece's largest and most democratic newspaper. The Greek public are rather well informed on the "shiny" side of the Internet. But (the director of "Info" and I) have met and discussed, on two occasions, a few months ago, ALSO the "DARK" side.... Our only problem, is VOLUME. It's like trying to clean up a shit-hole which has spilled the shit even outside itself, in the garden... :-) (The AMERICAN section of the internet, i.e. MOST of it). Here goes... At 07:24 ìì 18/11/1996 -0500, Stephen Boursy wrote: >George A. Stathis wrote: >> >> At 12:07 ðì 17/11/1996 -0600, snow wrote: >>> >>> Boursy is a twit who has lost more accounts that Vulis. > > > I've lost but one account--world.std.com (Software Tool & >Die) soon to be purchased by the conglomorate Plug Pullers >R US. That was entirely related to a local rent control >matter. Now I may be a 'twit'--that is an entirely >different matter. > > >> I would suggest that it is not at all a "safe" indication of personal >> or intellectual _worth_, (of Mr. Boursy or of anyone) "how many >> accounts he has lost". > > I would say though that if one makes false statements as has >this 'snow' character it indicates a lack of credibiltiy. > > >>> Ignore him. > > Something you seem unable to do. Isn't it odd how some will >tell you how insignificant and irrelevant you are only to devote >so much of their time and energy to you. I find that very odd. > > >> It is not ethical to send such strong negative _injunctions_ to masses >> of people and also to strangers (the 1900-strong members of the cyberphunks >> list for instance). > > Well thanks George but I do think his statement speak for themselves. >I'm not in the least concerned someone like him could harm me--in fact >I find it very amusing that he is deemed 'acceptable for that list >while Dr. Vulis is not. > >> Because, you may or may not have strong reasons for >> believing you are justified in such invalidation, but more than a 1000 >> people are now _told_ by (self-appointed) "experts" such as yourself what >> and whom to ignore or to believe. (Like sheep led to the slaughter)... > > > Well that's sort of like Tiny Tim Skirvin and his Global Killfile-- >it does him more harm than those he is after--in fact little Tim reads >my every word. > > >> But what you are doing now, extending the "1-person-blacklist" to your >> number-two-entry (Mr. Boursy) is exactly the thing that I hoped you might >> avoid. > > And based on lies as well--I've only had one account terminated--that >by Barry Shein who lives in Brookline, Ma. and that was entirely do >to real estate industry money and the rent control issue (a statewide >referrendum on rent control which existed only in Brookline, Cambridge, >and Boston)--many millions of dollars at stake there. Shein is simply >a whore. > >> First they kicked out Dimitri Vulis. >> >> Then they slandered and kept out Steve Boursy. > > Well my suggestion--given the size of the list and that we have >numerous sympathizers there--is to have all of their posts forwarded >and publically post them for free and open discussion. > > Steve > > >> >> Then... >> >> When they came after me, there was nobody left to support me. >> >> (You can perhaps realize what this paraphrase is about)... :-( >> >> Sincerily, and with... Sanity of Mind :-) >> George Stathis >

1 0

Re: (Fwd) National Emergency
by Mark.L. Burton 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Subject: (Fwd) National Emergency from: gathering(a)cygnus.com Mailing list alt.gathering.rainbow >------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- >Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 17:42:58 -0800 (PST) >From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> >To: rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu >Subject: National Emergency >Reply-to: rre-maintainers(a)weber.ucsd.edu > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). >Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. >You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use >the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions >for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:23:24 -0800 >From: Hal Finney <hal(a)rain.org> >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Subject: National Emergency > >Michael Froomkin posted to the cyberia list a pointer to the Clinton >administration's new export policy. He has a copy on his web site at: ><URL: http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/nov96-regs.htm >. The thing >I found interesting is that it refers to the fact that we are currently >living under a state of national emergency! I searched on the whitehouse >web site and couldn't find the executive order referred to (maybe it was >classified) but did find this one: > >For Immediate Release June 30, 1994 > > > Executive Order > #12923 > - - - - - - - > > Continuation Of Export Control Regulations > > > By the authority vested in me as President by the >Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, >including but not limited to section 203 of the International >Emergency Economic Powers Act ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1702), I, William >J. Clinton, President of the United States of America, findthat >the unrestricted access of foreign parties to U.S. goods, >technology, and technical data and the existence of certain >boycott practices of foreign nations, in light of the expiration >of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. >App. 2401 et seq.), constitute an unusual and extraordinarythreat >to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the >United States and hereby declare a national emergency with respect >to that threat. > >Apparently this state of emergency is still in effect. This is what >gives the President the power to unilaterally make changes in the export >policy. It would be nice if our congresspeople would take some >responsibility in this matter. > >Hal > > > >{{greywolf(a)sover.net}}PGP Public key>> >http://www.sover.net/~greywolf/gwkey.asc > ********************************************************************** We have been living in a state of serveal national emergancy for some time,but you wont find any public documents about it. The emergancy conserns break away factions with in the U.S. citezenry.This country is falling apart at the seams and a form of civil war is predicted soon. The Federal govenment will respond by declaring Martial law on all U.S. Citezens. They are allready prepareing for this war.I sugjest We prepair to. Peace Love and Light :) Wandering Bear EarthSky Tribes Cascadia Nation Rainbow Family of Living Light http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1137 --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: The Utility of Privacy
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:10 PM 11/18/1996, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >Note in the following exchange that HC firsts asks for examples >of harm, then when clearly unambiguous examples are given, tries >to imply that the examples are rare, trivial or (most amazingly) >that the victim did suffer, but must have deserved his/her fate! You are building a straw man. Nobody has been said to deserve their fate. Their fates appear to be unlikely events. Contrary to what several privacy advocates have implied, I am not claiming that people should not be allowed to protect their privacy. Nor am I claiming that people who protect their privacy are criminals. I am asking why I should protect my privacy. Most people have concluded that it is not worth the bother. Why are they wrong? (And, why are privacy advocates uniformly hostile to these questions? Because they are asked anonymously?) >> BTW, are you operating under your True Name? > >NOYB. Fair enough. >More importantly, since you seem to think privacy isn't >all that important why don't you give us your true name, date of >birth, SS#, mother's maiden name, address where you sleep at >night, pictures of you (and your family), etc.? After all, as >you wrote, the "odds are low" anything will come of it. Who me? No way! :-) HC

2 1

Re: Crypto Bounties: Another Thought that crossed my mind.
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[snip] Ian Grigg <iang(a)systemics.com> wrote: >In order to overcome project failure, I could write my contract as a >multi-supplier seed project (often done by governments). That is, the >pot gets shared around, say, the three best alternatives. Once >supplied, all are free to pick from the alternatives. > >In order to overcome the low silly bid, somehow reputation would have to >be built into the market. That is, your efforts in the past as >programmer will cause your solution to be better valued than mine. Why not the free market rate the programmers. Have a software distribution/payment collection system which requires that the programmer get a completion bond from a 3rd-part insurance company. If the programmer fails to deliver as promised and/or on-time the donding company pays the 'investors' back in full. Since the bonding company's money would be at risk, if the programmer failed to deliver, they have every incentive to conservatively rate the programmers/companies offering ot build SW to spec. [snip] >There's a lot of aspects of newbies and switching funds that I havn't >really thought through here. However, I like this viewpoint because it >eliminates the need for judges. History shows that a good market >microstructure will beat an authority approach in the long run. > >Also note that if you drop the free software assumption, and make it, >say, moneyware, then the market becomes much more workable - the asset >being traded is a share of future revenues. This has more ramifications >than might be obvious: Propose a market to write a GAK killer for >e$10,000. If it clears and is built, is the Dept. of Justice forced to >buy the rights out? > >> Has anything like this been proposed before? Yes, Eric Hughes proposed a broad and structured proposal primarily addressing this manner of market funding for software development (and possibly suitable for other intellectual property creation) at DEFCON IV. My previous comments on completion bonds were taken from his presentation. --Steve

1 0

Taking out the garbage
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Beginning Monday, 11/25/96, I will bounce all email from the various (non-)subscribers polluting this list with garbage back to the authors. Furthermore, I will attach documents describing basic Internet rules of conduct to each bounce. I would encourage other Cypherpunks to do the same. [Flames: /dev/null.] -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred

1 0

Digests
by se7en 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, I finally finished all of them, and they are all currently on-line and up-to-date. If anyone ever takes on a similar project, I have some advice: don't ever let yourself get behind! http://www.dis.org/se7en/ under the dc weekly digests section se7en

1 0

NT insecurity
by jmr＠rmisp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, for those uninformed out there who believe that you can penetrate an NT box using NTFSDOS, the problem remains that security in windows NT is a combination between the filesystem NTFS and the actual operating system, NT. NTFSDOS only allows reading the drives, not writing to them. NT also keeps the security registry keys/information in approximately 25 areas, not in 1 password file. So.. ya can't "erase a password file under NT" because they don't exist. There's my 2 cents for this 60+ letter a day mailing list. Justin Michael Robbins of Dreamage Technologies jmr(a)rmisp.com0000,0000,8080"> warlock(a)thepentagon.com Please use the 1-888-401-2862 Paging/Messaging system for immediate response.

3 2

Playing Cards - Caution!
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A few days ago I suggested that playing cards are a good source of entropy. This was based on claim by Persi Diaconis which was quoted in The Economist. I've researched the claim and I now believe it would be wise not to use playing cards as a source of entropy for cryptographic applications. A fully random deck of 52 cards has about 225 bits of entropy. That means that each riffle shuffle introduces about 32 bits of entropy. Intuitively, that seems like a lot of entropy for one riffle shuffle. I've tried a few riffle shuffles with a sorted deck. While hardly scientific, the level of randomness does not look like 32 bits. Most of the time the cards alternate. The claim that 7 riffle shuffles of a deck of 52 cards will bring the deck to a state of near randomness appears in this book: Diaconis, Persi "Group Representations in Probability and Statistics" Hayward, California: Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 1988. ISBN 0-940600-14-5 The section "An Analysis of Real Riffle Shuffles" begins on page 77. A model is presented which Diaconis believes is similar to how people shuffle in real life. What is troubling from a cryptographic point of view is that there is little empirical evidence to back this up. What is more, Diaconis mentions that there is some variation in shufflers. A neat shuffler will be less random. (Side note: The Economist claims Diaconis can execute 8 perfect shuffles in less than a minute. This means the deck is returned to its original order!) >From the point of view of cryptography, neatness is not a very precise term and should not be relied upon. The book says that in the late 1960s, tournament bridge players started using computers (!) to shuffle the cards as hand shuffling was considered suspect. This is less than reassuring. Nothing I have written here is intended to reflect poorly on Dr. Diaconis. We were not solving the same problem, nor have I fully understood his work. In my first article I said this: "Playing cards are a nice source of randomness because they are widely available and their behavior has been under study for a long time by people with strong financial reasons for finding flaws. I slightly prefer cards to dice because dice may be slightly predictable or even loaded." The study of randomness in cards looks much harder to me now. Also, flaws which may be exploitable for financial reasons when real money is on the table may have to be substantially more dramatic than the flaws required to exploit, for instance, an alleged one-time pad. Here's why I now prefer dice: Dice are simple. Each die throw can be made to be quite independent of all other die throws. Even loaded dice may be used by throwing them repeatedly and adding the results mod the number of sides to the die. Dice which are suspect may be studied by repeated throwing. Non-independence can be more easily studied as it can be assumed that a throw of the die is, at most, related only to the previous throw and none before. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

3 2

Re: FCPUNX:Playing Cards
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP UNSIGNED TEXT----- At 03:14 PM 11/14/96 -0800, ph(a)netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson) wrote: >It would be nice if cryptography software would allow you to enter >randomly selected playing cards from time to time to increase the >entropy of keys. Careful people (Black Unicorn?) would enter the >cards prior to sending each message. If the keyboard-entropy program you're using hashes in the values of the keys typed as well as the timing, this can let you improve the actual entropy of the data you enter. Get yourself a deck of cards or some 20-sided D&D dice or toss some yarrow stalks or open a book randomly, and type in those values rather than the fjfjfjfjfj stuff you might otherwise use. Won't hurt, and it'll let you be sure you've got all the entropy you need* Bill Stewart, lurking from fcpunx [*Depending on how the universe has been treating you recently...] -----PGP UNSIGNATURE BLOCK----- 32767WHATISSIXTIMESNINE23THEUMBERHULKHITS42GRATEFULDEAD10OFSWORDS -----END PGP UNSIGNATURE BLOCK----- # 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

1 0