- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Newsgroup proposal: misc.anonymous
by Mark M. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In an effort to get anonymity and message pools more widespread, I think it would be a good idea to establish a newsgroup for anonymous message pools that would get the same distribution as any other newsgroup in the "big 8". The "misc" hierarchy is probably the best place for such a newsgroup since it already carries groups like "misc.misc" and "misc.test". Does anyone have any suggestions or objections? Mark - -- PGP encrypted mail prefered. Key fingerprint = d61734f2800486ae6f79bfeb70f95348 http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMknvNSzIPc7jvyFpAQHnmAf/SmvkV71/p3V2ZzCZApBk2TXD3wVifxi/ ljjRcuaGGs/iDJ1xKuTDGj5qIicM3Y3CSsnedS2g15RtAIpU7IdBKNsa4D55F2vI TJSElzqoqPMlAQRLq45v92DlG9d5zQopfqlT9bkGXZ1DDfTGg2q+F0HUqLYAZC1r DVU+iShjWUjX+0qxvKDClXSLLizdz6QHjTUTuE0PEdYf03KI0rqt/Dceh3iU2BWm bHYS20mHLv0fjdGMEVzBtul6mNfkcrYR2eyYxpWKtPtGzrw3NsSrI+ZYxT74I8S6 e2uB+Evnvl0dauLwhxWrdo4ILW0A9ekKfSrEVkRybBSKp8di2vwCqw== =cgnu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 7

Re: Hallam-Baker demands more repudiations or he'll write!
by PhneCards＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Did you know this company is using your email address as part of an unlawful email bomb? I would advise you to write to them at cypherpunks(a)toad.com and owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com and advise them to stop using your email address for this type of activity. It is illegal to use a invalid return email address. If this continues, I will be forced to prosecute the return email address - which they are making to look like you. Below is the letter that I received in my email box ================================================= In a message dated 96-09-25 14:05:23 EDT, you write: >Subj: Re: Hallam-Baker demands more repudiations or he'll write! >Date: 96-09-25 14:05:23 EDT >From: jimbell(a)pacifier.com (jim bell) >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >To: bdavis(a)thepoint.net (Brian Davis) >CC: cypherpunks(a)toad.com, jf_avon(a)citenet.net > >At 11:50 PM 9/24/96 -0400, Brian Davis wrote: >>On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Rich Burroughs wrote: >> >>> <AP stuff> >>> Anyone who mistakes the lack of "repudiations" for AP on the list for some >>> kind of tacit approval is not getting the whole picture, IMHO. >>> >>> Is this how journalists do their research nowadays -- "give me some info >or >>> I'll write something really bad about you that you'll regret?" Cool. I >>> guess I thought there might still be some kind of pursuit of the truth >>> involved. >>> >>> I personally don't have the time or energy to contribute to the AP >threads. >>> That != approval for the idea. >>> >>> I hope you include your above quote in your piece. >>> >> >>Amen to that. Add that at least one lawyer (and former prosecutor) on >>the list is confident that successful prosecutions will ensue is AP ever >>gets off the ground. > >I don't doubt that there will be harassment. (you can't deny that charges >would be brought even if it is tacitly agreed that no crime has been >committed; "the harassment-value" of such a prosecution would be desired >even if there is ultimately an acquittal.) AP will resemble, more than >anything, gambling. While gambling is illegal in some areas, it is quite >legal in others and there is no reason to believe that locales can't be >found in which an AP system could operate legally. > >Make American laws apply everywhere? That'll be hard to justify, unless you >want to unleash a world where an all people can be subject simultaneously to >the laws of EVERY country, should they choose to enforce them! Would you >like to be arrested in Red China for something you said years earlier in >America about their leadership? > > And are you ignoring the fact that the intentional isolation of one >participant from the knowledge of the actions and even the identity of the >others makes opportunities for prosecution on "conspiracy" charges mighty >slim. And since AP can operate across traditional jurisdictional >boundaries, you're going to have to explain how you can prosecute Person A >in Country B for giving a donation to an organization in Country C, to be >paid to a person D in country E for correctly predicting the death of person >F in country G, particularly when none of the identities of these people or >countries can be easily known given a well-crafted cryptographic and >message-routing system. > > Further, as you probably know as well as any, in order (at least, >supposedly!) to get a conviction you need to prove "mens rea," or "guilty >mind," and I suggest that none of the more passive participants in the AP >system have that. (The ones who DON'T pick up a gun, knife, bomb, poison, >etc.) Sure, they are aware that somewhere, sometime, somebody _may_ commit >a crime in order to collect a lottery, but they don't know who, what, when, >where, or how this will occur, if at all. (either before or after the fact!) > In fact, since it is possible for a target to collect the reward himself >(to be directed toward his designee, obviously) by committing suicide and >"predicting" it, it isn't certain to the other participants that there has >even been any sort of crime committed! > >Based on the mens rea requirement, I propose that there is plenty of room >for most of the participants to reasonably claim that they are guilty of no >crime. They have carefully shielded themselves and others from any guilty >knowledge, and presumably they are entitled to protect themselves in this >way. Morally, you could argue that these people are countenancing something >nasty, in the same sense that somebody could equally well argue that if you >buy a cheap shirt in Walmart you're partly responsible for sweatshop labor >in El Salvador. True, I suppose, but moral guilt does not always translate >into legal guilt. > > >> And yes, I've read Jim Bell's manifesto. The fact >>that no lawyer has dissected it from a legal standpoint has been used by >>Mr. Bell as support for the propostion that it is legal. > >I suggest that there is a greater likelihood that the "powers that be" will >just abandon all pretense of legality, and attempt to strike at the >participants if they can find them without benefit of any sort of trial. >This is a more plausible conclusion, because it cuts through all of the >legal difficulties which would hinder prosecution. In effect, a low-level >undeclared war. > > >Jim Bell >jimbell(a)pacifier.com > > >----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Wed Sep 25 11:04:24 1996 >Return-Path: cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com >Received: from mailhub.MyMail.Com (mailhub.mymail.com [206.247.118.1]) by >emin14.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA03061 for ><phnecards(a)aol.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 11:04:18 -0400 >Received: from toad.com by mailhub.MyMail.Com (5.x/SMI-SVR4) > id AA26654; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 09:04:05 -0600 >Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id AAA10103 for >cypherpunks-outgoing; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 00:55:24 -0700 (PDT) >Received: from mail.pacifier.com (root(a)mail.pacifier.com [199.2.117.164]) by >toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA10098 for <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>; >Wed, 25 Sep 1996 00:55:16 -0700 (PDT) >Received: from ip20.van1.pacifier.com (ip20.van1.pacifier.com [206.163.4.20]) >by mail.pacifier.com (8.7.6-pac/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA14065; Wed, 25 Sep >1996 00:55:14 -0700 (PDT) >Message-Id: <199609250755.AAA14065(a)mail.pacifier.com> >X-Sender: jimbell(a)mail.pacifier.com >X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 00:55:21 -0800 >To: Brian Davis <bdavis(a)thepoint.net> >From: jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> >Subject: Re: Hallam-Baker demands more repudiations or he'll write! >Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com, jf_avon(a)citenet.net >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Precedence: bulk

1 0

Re: Lexis and Privacy - Bill approaches.
by PhneCards＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Did you know this company is using your email address as part of an unlawful email bomb? I would advise you to write to them at cypherpunks(a)toad.com and owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com and advise them to stop using your email address for this type of activity. It is illegal to use a invalid return email address. If this continues, I will be forced to prosecute the return email address - which they are making to look like you. Below is the letter that I received in my email box ================================================= In a message dated 96-09-25 15:12:13 EDT, you write: >Subj: Re: Lexis and Privacy - Bill approaches. >Date: 96-09-25 15:12:13 EDT >From: declan(a)eff.org (Declan McCullagh) >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >To: unicorn(a)schloss.li (Black Unicorn) >CC: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >This would be good if the bills were written well and thoughtfully. >Unfortunately, they explicitly extend executive branch regulatory >jurisdiction to the Net. At least the one I read did; I understand there >are multiple versions. > >-Declan > > >On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Black Unicorn wrote: > >> >> Pressure from the FTC Which fielded hundreds of complaints about Lexis and >> the social security number scrap) has prompted members of the Banking >> Committee to add provisions to the most recent spending bills which >> protect personal information (including social security numbers, phone >> numbers, addresses, and so forth) under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. >> This limits access to this information to credit agencies and otherwise >> authorized entities. (Of which I assume Lexis is not one). >> >> It's not great protection, but it's something. >> >> I urge everyone to take their own measures to protect personal data >> regardless of what some piece of paper on a library shelf says is >> protected. The only real protection is not to allow release of the data >> in the first place. >> >> -- >> I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist >> unicorn(a)schloss.li >> > > >// declan(a)eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan(a)well.com // > > > > >----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Wed Sep 25 15:11:39 1996 >Return-Path: cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com >Received: from mailhub.MyMail.Com (mailhub.mymail.com [206.247.118.1]) by >emin14.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA10310 for ><phnecards(a)aol.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 15:11:34 -0400 >Received: from toad.com by mailhub.MyMail.Com (5.x/SMI-SVR4) > id AA27335; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 13:11:11 -0600 >Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id FAA15636 for >cypherpunks-outgoing; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 05:06:43 -0700 (PDT) >Received: from eff.org (declan(a)eff.org [204.253.162.3]) by toad.com >(8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA15631 for <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>; Wed, 25 Sep >1996 05:06:39 -0700 (PDT) >Received: (from declan@localhost) by eff.org (8.7.5/8.6.6) id FAA10228; Wed, >25 Sep 1996 05:06:38 -0700 (PDT) >Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 05:06:38 -0700 (PDT) >From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)eff.org> >To: Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> >Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Subject: Re: Lexis and Privacy - Bill approaches. >In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.94.960924190706.9902A-100000@polaris> >Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960925050416.10072A-100000(a)eff.org> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Precedence: bulk

3 2

"Confessing to a felony"
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:03 AM 9/26/96, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Wed, 25 Sep 1996, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > >> > >> Soon I am going to be going overseas to Japan, and I want to take >> > >> my notebook with me so I can keep up with everything, however, I have >> > >> encrypted my hard drive and usually encrypt my mail. Is this in >> > >> violation of the ITAR to keep everything the same when I go over? >> >> Gentlemen, us customs does not give shit about what you take out >> on your diskettes. >> >> When I went to Russia recenty, I took PGP for DOS, and no one gave >> me any problem. >> >> IANAL > >Obviously not, you've just confessed to a felony. So? "Confessing to a felony" is meaningless, as I understand things. While BU is a lawyer, and I am not, I maintain "confessing to a felony" is meaningless without several necessary factors: a. interest by law enforcement that a crime has been committed and needs to be prosecuted b. evidence that the "confession" can be backed up by other evidence c. common sense Thus, if even former prosecutor Brian Davis, when he was a prosecutor, were to have "confessed to a felony" (for example, saying a bad word on a forum where minors might be present, under the CDA, and before it was put on semi-hold), his colleagues would just have snickered, thinking him crazy. As to the felony status of taking PGP to Russia, I think it's not a felony. The "personal use" exemption in the ITARs certainly makes taking PGP to _Western_ Europe an OK thing. Whether Russia is still considered to be worthy of an "exemption to the exemption," as it were, is unclear to me. Mostly, I think U.S. Customs doesn't care. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

7 11

Re: Spam blacklist project
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hallam(a)ai.mit.edu writes: > Well if some people find it amazing that there are people out there > who agree with the 98.8% of people who did not vote Libertarian at the > last election then so be it. Course half the eligible population didn't vote at all obviously favoring market and personal approaches over political methods of governance. DCF

2 1

Mercenaries
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:40 PM 9/17/96, William Knowles wrote: >On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Michelle Thompson wrote: > >> Interesting information from a friend of mine- >> >> >An american can not serve for pay for a position in another military >> >that could be filled by local populace. I may have my jurisdiction >> >wrong tho, this could be an international law not a US law. >> >Basically, you can't go be a grunt or an assasin in another country, >> >because they can find their own, As to Michelle's point that Americans cannot serve for pay in other militaries, there are all sorts of waivers and "look the other way"s involved. For example, the retired American officer who became the top military man in Estonia (or one of the Baltic States)--while still retaining his U.S. citizenship. >What about the French Foreign Legion? or the Volunteers for Israel, >which isn't really a fighting force, but Americans can help keep >the Israeli army at a ready state. Israel is one of several states which the U.S. allows dual citizenship with. For political reasons, because of America's extermination of the Jews in WW II (Whoops, we were on the other side...so why do we have such a cozy deal with Israel, but not with, say, France? Beats me. Politics.) Brian Davis, our former Prosecutor, can tell us how likely it is that any person would be charged and brought to trial for being a paid mercenary for some small country in the Third World. The CIA is often behind such mercenaries, so national security issues could make the issue murky. But the real reason such prosecutions are rare is that the government realizes how Orwellian it sounds to say: "You are being prosecuted because you were a mercenary for Oceania in its war with Eastasia. While Oceania was once our ally in our battle with Eastasia, and we endorsed and financed your role as a mercenary, we became allies with our great friend Eastasia and are now in a state of war with the tyrants of Oceania." >Explicit isn't a dirty word, Or is it? AOL has declared "explicit" to be a Banned Word, along with "pissant," "craps," and "cock," and numerous other such ordinary words. (So much for mentioning their pissant policies, a game of craps in Las Vegas, or a male chicken.) --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

4 3

RE: Redundancy in XOR encryption
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

in any practical or semi-practical application, you'll have to have a way to decompress the perfectly compressed data. A dictionary? A Huffman-tree-ish sort of thing? Are you going to transfer it out-of-band? **It** becomes the target of interest. ---------- From: paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk[SMTP:paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 1996 12:33 PM To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: Redundancy in XOR encryption > > > > Compress P to get perfect compression (ie. 0 redundancy) > > Encrypt F (the compressed text) using a repeated key XOR > > > > of course this is all rather theoretical as there is no such thing as > > perfect compression, but I just thought it might be interesting to > > see if this is indeed strong, superficially it appears so to me... > > > > Paul: > I think that if the cryptanalyst knows that F has zero redundancy > that he can run searches from 0 to n bits for the key and have > the computer flag solutions that have zero redundancy. I never though of that. > I also think that a perfectly compressed file would have a relative > entropy value close to one also, hence the computer could flag possibles > that have both characteristics. yeah, these two are reasonably unlikely to occur together (only a reasoned guess, anyone got any comments on this?) so we really have a weakish system. > Hence, instead of searching for plaintext by counting coincidences, > we are searching the decrypts for solutions that have zero redundancy > and a relative entropy value close to one. How many solutions will > have both these qualities? I don't know. But if the compression method > is known, brute force will be tried, and only having to try to > decompress (read) data that has the resultant characteristics > of compressed information will speed things up by quite a bit. Yeah, this is still a form of brute force but I was thinking of this in terms of a smallish (sub 200 bit) key, so brute force against solutions with 0 entropy is a realistic possibility.

1 0

RE: Workers Paradise. /Political rant.
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

snow <snow(a)smoke.suba.com> wrote: > Actually, don't some wealthy Canucks come south of the border for > certain treatments unavailable in the Great White North? Yes, some wealthy (and not so wealthy people) go south of the border for treatment. Some go because the treatment is unavailable here, others go if they chose not to wait for treatment here. The most common types of exported services are usually high cost and/or experimental but their availability is most often constrained by the low number of people who are qualified to render the service. Many services unavailable in a patient's local area are still covered by provincial health plans. This works when a patient has to travel from a remote region, to another province or to the U.S., and can cover experimental treatments. Some Canadian hospitals make use of U.S. care providers for services when a backlog exists in Canada. For example, Windsor has used Detroit MRI services to reduce waiting times. There are also people who go the other way (U.S. to Canada), usually when they have to pay their own bill. Detroit to Windsor is again not uncommon. > Are the PRICES as high in Canada as here? In general, prices are lower in Canada for the same level of care. I do not know if the underlying costs are also lower in general. Each province create a payment schedule for services that it reimburses. Hospitals bill the province for services, but all capital cost items (e.g. equipment, buildings) must be paid for from other sources (e.g. donation). Thus, we tend to have fewer capital intensive treatment facilities since the ROI is usually low. The figures that I have seen indicate that the U.S. pays 40%-50% more than Canada on overall health care services. Some of this is due to the rapid availability of higher cost/experimental services. Some of this is due to the higher cost of the administrative bureacracy. Due to the large difference in total costs, I do not think that travel in either direction significantly effects this number. Ciao, James Check out www.spinex.com for more effective alternatives to MRI for diagnosing spinal function at 1/20th of the cost. P.S. No, Canada is not perfect, and I don't know everything.

1 0

[joke, non-code] Re: Get this for a snake-oil example :)
by f_estema＠alcor.concordia.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Benjamin Grosman wrote on coderpunks: > Hey there...thought I'd drop this in to you... > someone I know is in the process of being set upon by a shamster (well, ^^^^^^^^ Shamster: SHA-enabled biocomputing hamster. Distantly related to Shneier's DESosaurus. Cute, cuddly and mathematically secure and authentic. I leave to the imagination its input and output processes. Eats snake oil for lunch.

3 2

Re: The GAK Momentum is Building...
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:49 PM 9/18/96, Declan McCullagh wrote: >On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: >> >> (BTW, I predict that the tainted term "key escrow" is now gone from the >> official lexicon. I haven't seen the Clipper IV proposal, but I surmise >> that the baggage the term "key escrow" carries means that some more >> benign-sounding term will be used in the final proposal. Something like >> "Key Recovery System." You heard it here.) > >I agree, of course. But Gore's office has been telling me about the "Key >Recovery System" for months. It's nothing new in the DC cryptolexicon. Yeah, I shouldn't have added the "You heard it here" line, implying I had invented the term. As others have noted, this seems to be the new term for key escrow. The brainwashing must've taken hold on me, and as a good citizen-unit I had absorbed the message: "Key Recovery is Security, Ignorance is Strength." --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0