- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: BOMB PLANS
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

welllll pipe bombs do fragment. Years ago someone decided to try to put one under my step brothers truck tire....... needless to say...nothing happened to the truck or our house in front of the truck but next door and across the street..the houses were sprayed with metal fragments.

2 1

FW: LOOKING FOR THAT SPECIAL SOMEONE?
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone else on the list goet this? ---------- From: mary[SMTP:mary@globalpac.com] Sent: Sunday, July 28, 1996 3:56 PM To: ml(a)aol.com Subject: LOOKING FOR THAT SPECIAL SOMEONE? Feeling sentimental? Would you like to get in touch with an old friend, loved one, family member or colleague? Do you need help in locating a (former) spouse for alimony or support payments? Does someone owe you money that you haven't been able to collect because you can't find them or their assets? Let me help. I've been doing this for twenty some years and am very good at it. My fees are reasonable and if I can't find what you need, there will be no charge. If interested, please reply to above. Thank you for your time. Mary Anderson P O Box 39362, Los Angeles, Ca 90039

1 0

RE: Internet blamed for pipe bombs
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've heard that in a lot of cases, too, automobiles have been the vehicle used by the prep. to transport bomb-making materials and bombs to/from their target sites. I'm starting to get concerned that this type of personal transportation technology makes it just too damn easy to wreak havoc and destruction on unsuspecting innocents. I think they ought to pass some kind of legislation restricting the use of vehicles that do not have approved travel-itineraries on file with the Travel Escrow Bureau. >>> Across the country, latest figures from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, >>> Tobacco and Firearms show a 20 percent jump in pipe bomb incidents >>> between 1990 and 1994. >> >>[...] >> >>> "We've been incredibly busy," said sheriff's bomb technician Judd >>> Holiday. "As crime in other categories is dropping, this is going up." > >The friendly Anarchist's Bookstore in San Francisco sells several books on >building bombs. No Internet connection required. I would like offer ano ther >possible explanation for the increase in pipe bombings. The People are >getting frustrated and a pipe bomb can be very useful device releasing >one's frustration.

1 0

Re: e$: The Demographic "Transaction" (was Re: Schelling Points...)
by Arun Mehta 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 15:09 28/07/96 -0400, Robert Hettinga wrote: > >He said there are many hypotheses about what causes this decline in >fertility, including the commonly held one that people make babies as a >form old age pension income :-) That's true: when the state does not provide old-age pension, that's the only alternative, and surely not a bad one. >He also said that the obvious things like public health and education were >good ways to increase life expectancy, but that the very best way to cause >this "demographic transition" was a dramatic increase in personal income. As I see it, having more children makes sound economic sense when you have child labor. You feed the child for 4-5 years, after which it contributes financially to the family for the rest of its short life. More stringent enforcement of anti child-labor legislation would help. Increase in life expectancy is also good, because then you need fewer children as insurance. The spread of the Internet, and the ability to post anonymously should help in exposing instances of violation of child-labor laws, and increasing outrage. Hopefully, it will also make it easier to spread literacy, which is arguably the best way to keep population down. I'd really like to know who this "he" is whom Robert is citing. Arun Mehta Phone +91-11-6841172, 6849103 amehta(a)cpsr.org http://www.cerfnet.com/~amehta/ finger amehta(a)cerfnet.com for public key

1 0

RPK Cryptography
by Dana W. Albrecht 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone on the list heard of this? Any opinions regarding its security? Dana W. Albrecht dwa(a)corsair.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > May 21, 1996 -- AUCKLAND, New Zealand -- A fledgling startup, RPK New > Zealand, today announced that a new public key encryption system, > known also as RPK, is available free, for review and evaluation on the > World Wide Web. RPK is inviting worldwide evaluation and scrutiny of > their new system with the goal of creating, for the first time ever, a > worldwide industrial-strength security and encryption standard. The > company is also offering a free version of an end user program > designed to be used for secure transfer of information to encourage > use and trial of the technology. > > RPK New Zealand is one of the new, very small, "worldwide entities" > that has benefited from the global market access provided by the > public Internet. Previously kept confidential while patent > applications were being filed in New Zealand and for the rest of the > world under international treaty, the RPK cryptographic system was > unveiled this week via the World Wide Web (http://crypto.swdev.co.nz) > where the technology's inventor, Bill Raike, has also offered a > US$3,000 "RPK SafeCracker Challenge." > > Raike, a mathematician and computer scientist who has dual U.S. and > New Zealand citizenship, combined some simple algorithms with well- > accepted higher mathematics to invent the world's fastest-ever system > for secure communications and he's betting US$3,000 that no one in > the world can break into RPK's Virtual Vault and thereby prove him and > his fledgling startup wrong.

1 0

E-cash
by pluto＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Salve, As another idea to prevent the netizen from being a sitting duck for the gov and the big mailorder companys: Get an account at MarkTwain! Do it now! Pluto ********************************************************************** P pluto(a)inx.de P Free information! # G-> pluto(a)well.com <-G Freedom through knowledge. # P www.well.com/user/pluto/ P Wisdom for all!! =:-) # ********************************************************************** +--HI, I'm a signature virus :-) Copy me into your sign to join in. ---+

1 0

Re:BOMB PLANS
by mccoy＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy write: > > The Sunday San Francisco Examiner had an article about how simple > it is to make a pipe bomb. It was syndicated from the Dallas > Morning News. In the article a "federal bomb expert" opined: > > They're probably one of the more common explosive > devices that are encountered. That's because the > pipe not only provides a container, but fragments > into sharapnel." ^^^^^^^^^ > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Now I don't know what takes to qualify one as a "bomb expert," > but the standards must be pretty low. The reason hand grenades > look like pineapples is because it's very difficult to get metal > to fragment unless it is scored or otherwise predisposed to come > apart in little pieces. This is no longer true with respect to hand grenades and was not really accurate wrt the old pineapple grenades. Modern grenades are pre-scored to produce good fragments, in fact one reason for abandoning the old grenades was that they fragmented into only a few large chunks along the weakest stress lines of the pineapple gripping and this did not produce the desired effect (which is lots of little high-KE pieces, four or five big pieces with relatively low-KE were produced by the pineapple grenades...) An equivalent effect for a pipe bomb would be produced by mixing in a handful of brads, wire cut into 5mm lengths, or tacks, most "recipes" for such devices I have seen tell someone to mix in nails. This is really stupid if you consider that most people only have relatively big nails sitting around and coupled with the volume restriction of a pipe bomb you will get the same poor effects as the old hand grenades. jim

1 0

Re: Twenty Bank Robbers -- CLARIFICATION
by JR＠ns.cnb.uam.es 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I forgot to say what the GOALS are. The goals of every individual > cypherpunk are (in from highest to lowest priority): > > 1. Stay alive > 2. Get as much money as possible > 3. Keep as many cypherpunks alive as possible, all other things being equal. > > - Igor. > Most responses fail to consider "suicidal" behaviours. In many cases, when there are rounds left, it may be worth playing against your interests if that will yield later a higher benefit. The fact that anyone makes a proposal is of no interest to anyone else as long as goal#2 stands over goal#3 and there is enough people to stablish uncertainty of behaviour. As an example, if #1 proposes he gets all the money, all other things being equal, #3,#5,...#19 should theoretically vote for him since they know they can't win as long as there's a #2... But #19 knows he could win if only he and #20 were alive. It is in his interest to vote 'no'. If #1 dies, then he may get a chance, because #18 is in his same position and might do the same in the other rounds. Yes, you can follow it backwards and discover that goal #3 above then should take precedence. Should it? There's still goal #2 above. If the c'punks can't communicate among them then that's the end of it. #1 gets all. But if they can, there's another side: If you not only know the order of proposers, but also their proposals, then you can always play 'unfair' or 'against you' until the proposal that's better for you comes. Say #2 speaks to #20 and agrees to propose that he'll get some money too. Restriction #2 above takes precedence and proposer #2 knows he'll get #20 vote as long as he makes that proposal. It is in #20's interest to vote against #1 "all for me" in the first round since that way he'll get some money on #2's proposal. But then #3, #4, etc... can play the same game. The first one that can provide a proposal making happier most of the people will win... Say #1 proposes to even split between half of them. Will that work? If they can't cheat their vote that's the end of it. Then comes another point in place. Can they cheat? Obviously, under these arrangements, anyone proposing he gets all money, other than #19 risks his life for others can agree into a better split. But OTOH, #18 and #20 know that they can agree on something better than #19's proposal of he getting all. If #18 cheats, #19 can agree with #20 to split even and #18 is dead. If #18 doesn't cheat. then #20 has two chices: - believe #19 will not cheat and propose an even split. Vote against. - fear #19 cheating and the risk of not getting anything. Odds are all for #19, so he shoudl vote for #18 proposal. The only choice is for #18 and #20 to agree in an even split, where #18 can also cheat and ask for all money. But then he risks #19 and #20 agreeing on voting against him. So #18 must offer something to #20, and it must be enough for #20 not wanting to take the risk of #19 cheating too. Following back, everybody but #19 and #20 risk their lives. #19 is interested in everybody else being dead, and #20 in anyone giving him anything. Anyone who gives anything to #20 will get his vote. Anyone not giving anything to #20 risks #20 voting for someone else on the hope he'll get something on the next proposal. And everyone needs an agreement with #20 to keep his life. As you go back, #18 has a better chance of staying alive if he can ensure #19 and #20 won't agree because his offer is safer than the risks involved for #20. Work backwards. The point is, the expectancies of winning work at all round, and at every point you are interested in not dying. As you reach the end if you make an agreement and cheat you have less risk (there are less possibilities for new agreements), but if you have gone to that, it's because more and more people have cheated before, and confidence will be low. So you are more interested in not cheating to keep your life. I think the net result is that most c'punks will be offering even splits to ensure a maximum of votes. As people makes arrangements and c'punks dies, confidence and credibility on agreements in advance will fail, so the risk for the latests increases too... In the end all comes down to gullibility of the partners. If you assume they are not gullible, you'll vote for the first proposal of an even split to save your life. If they are, then you can play against while there remains gullible people, but then you know your cheating is your dead (except for #19 and #20) and you risk less by going even. That's more or less like real life: one can temporarily play against himself if that will yield later a higher benefit. But that comes at a cost in credibility, and the more you use it, the less useful it becomes. On a non-gullible environment, the first time you cheat your reputation breaks and it is in everyone else's interest to play against you. That's the ancient concept of honor. On a less-exceptic or more tolerant environment you may have a few goes before getting people absolutely exceptical again. The number of goes will depend on their tolerance level. Same for the game: there can be cheating up to a tolerance level. After that everyone will know that a non-even split proposal will take out your life. Where the border comes is a matter of circumstances. jr

1 0

Re: cypherpunks vs hacker
by pjn＠nworks.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In> Rather than debate semantics of the definition of "hacker," or ask In> others to suggest definitions, it might be better for interested folks In> to read some of the various books on the topic and then decide for In> themselves. Some of them are: In> - Levy, "Hackers," of course Very good history. In> - Haffner and Markoff, "Cyberpunk" In> - Sterling's book on hackers Hacker Crackdown. In> - any one (but not more) of the several Shimomura v. Mitnick books I think that Markoffs book on the incident was written beter then the rest. I might also suggest: - Masters of Deception - The Cuckoos Egg by Stoll P.J. pjn(a)nworks.com ... Resistance is futile, taglines will assimilate your hard drive. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]

1 0

Re: WaPo on Crypto-Genie Terrorism
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 28 Jul 96 at 12:59, David Sternlight wrote: > >IMO, the US does not have a comfortable lead. It's already falling > >behind considering some of the stronger crypto programs available (at > >least as freeware) are made outside the US. Many of the stronger > >algorithms were invented outside of the US (IDEA for instance). > > This, and similar remarks by others, consistently misses the point which I > have been making for about a year now, and which Director Freeh finally > made explicit in his testimony last week. That is--the government is > concerned with mass market software incorporating robust crypto, used > overseas, and recognizes that they can't keep niche products off the [..] Really? The RAR archiver is getting quite popular (DOS and OS/2), and uses a variation of DES in the encryption (according to the authors). An Italian archiver called CODEC also uses DES. PGP gets more publicity than any crypto product around (CNN, NPR, Pacifica, NYTimes, etc.) and will likely get bigger as time goes on and as the arguments over escrow proposals get louder. MS's C[r]API and Netscape also make people more aware of strong crypto... > Though I've no connection with Freeh, it's interesting that his language is > almost word for word the same as what I've been using. Do you suppose some > of his staff reads my stuff? Actually, I don't care one whit. > >So why should criminals bother with using standards if they are > >readable by authorities? > > See above. Doesn't counter my question/argument. Serious criminals with a few braincells who care about wiretapping or protecting their files from the authorities will obviously not use anything that the government can read. Even a ban on unescrowed crypto worldwide will not help. Every copy of strong crypto software will not magically disappear upon the signing of such treaties and laws. [..] > >Are they going to magically erase all copies of strong software that > >is already currently available? (Side note: the Pacifica news report > >on Friday notes that while Freeh gave his testimony, over 100 copies > >of PGP were downloaded from MIT's site.) > > What he's saying is that US-exported copies of the Lotus Lockshens, > Microsoft Machayas, and Netscape Niguns of the world still do not contain > robust crypto the USG cannot read. So? People can use alternate programs to encrypt the software, such as PGP. [..] > >It's not clear that terrorism can be tracked, even if it's unencrypted. > >The OK and WTC bombings were apparently not encrypted, and there's > >some allegations that the authorities had advanced warnings of the > >latter. > > He says it can, and suggests following the banking trail among other > things. We know the government has already had good success with this [..] Apparently not successful enough, as the two examples I posted happened successfully. Banking trails will exist with or without escrow. [..] > >Particularly absent in the WaPo-ed is that many do not trust the > >authorities (in the US and elsewhere)--particularly the FBI, which > >has a long history of extra-legal surveillance. > > So as Netanyahu says at length we need to build in protections against > abuses, using both the legislature and the judiciary. 1. The damage is already done if rights are violated, irregardless of the law. If the police listen in on your phone conversations because of your political views, you may have legal recourse.... but they've already listened in. 2. Legislative/judicial protections are meaningless if judges don't follow up on them. Historically they give leeway to the police, and as of late judges that enforce the technicalities are lambasted publicly for letting criminals go free. 3. Israel isn't exactly a prime example of human rights, especially if you're a Palestinian. Rob --- No-frills sig. Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help" Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com (root@magneto) AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.

9 9