- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Faith, logic, language, & history...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Some have posited that the traditional way of looking at religion, logic, and culture is false and that in fact a new methodology of examination has been found. What is happening is that some faction has decided to abandon 5000+ years of human social and religous culture in favor of a new set of definitions. These definitions use the traditional terminology in a new manner and in addition invoke an alternate understanding of basic logic (ie 1st Order Predicate Calculus). To date no proof or demonstration, only an oft repeated claim, has been forthcoming to demonstrate the short-fall in the traditional approach. While the issues based on faith are clearly outside the purvue of rational proof the invocation of alternate logics to back them up is not. It falls on the current cadre of supporters to demonstrate two things: 1. The shortfall in comprehension or understanding that occurs with the traditional approach 2. How the new system addresses these shortcoming succsfully. In short, if these folks really want us to believe their assertion: ^(A) <> (^A) Then they need to demonstrate why De Morgans Law and other derivations of this logical axiom are incorrect and how this alternate inversion identity corrects these failures. *IF* this can be accomplished then the remainder of their argument has some basis in consideration. The catch they don't seem to have seen is that when one inokes an empirical philosophy in the support of a faith based philosophy it is done at the behest and within the guidelines of the empirical philosophy. To do otherwise is to change the rules in the middle of the game. How many people believe it is irrelevant, how many books are written is irrelevant. All that matters is demonstrating the proof within the boundary conditions. It is not an issue of personality or popularity. Myself, I don't believe they can do it. Computers work, crypto works, man got to the moon, medicine works, airplanes fly, etc., etc., etc. As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding. It's time these folks got their butts in the kitchen. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

This is a listed crime? (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Information Security <guy(a)panix.com> > Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 04:18:43 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: This is a listed crime? > Is "lying to the FBI" a law on the books, or is the actual > charge something else? Deliberately providing police incorrect information during an official investigation is a crime. A person can answer the question truthfuly or else they can refuse, lying is not an option. There is also the potential for being charged as an accomplice. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

RE: atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > As I've demonstrated before (and for the last time): > > ^(A) = (^A) f() = belief function A = hypothesis ^ = not f(^A) != ^f(A) At least not without placing requirements on f(). Then you claim everything is a belief, so f() is meaningless. But then you deny A == A when you claimed that metaphysical objectivity is a belief, so what was the point in writing the equation in the first place? Go transcend. Matt

1 0

US Complaints in Embassy Bombings
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We offer three of the US complaints in the embassy bombings: http://jya.com/usa-v-qaeda.htm These describe charges against Wadih el Hage, Mohamed Sadeek Odeh and Haroun Fazil, filed in New York's Southern District. El Hage is the American arrested last week that Guy referred to with the "This is a listed crime?" thread. NYT reports on El Hage and Fazil: http://jya.com/fazil-el-hage.htm Odeh is the first suspect arrested at the Pakistani border. Fazil is an explosives expert charged with making the Nairobi bomb and directing the op. He is a fugitive with a $2m reward offered. All are allegedly members of Qaeda, Bin Laden's "international terrorist" group aiming to kill Yanks worldwide for Echelon-type stuff. Know who's with Jim and CJ at Springfield? Blind Sheik Omar of World Trade Center bombing fame and Mafioso John Gotti, who nearly croaked from lack of dental care at another pen. The place has a distinguished history. See its honor roll on Alta Vista. Search "Medical Facility for Federal Prisoners."

2 1

Anon Mail Server?
by James Hillenbrand 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What is a good server that I could send mail through anonymously.. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -------==== James Hillenbrand ====------- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ICQ NUMBER (UIN) : 7621556 PERSONAL E-MAIL : JamezHill(a)Audiophile.com ALT. E-MAIL : MegaHertz(a)Audiophile.com HOMEPAGE : http://www.ThePentagon.com/DaMaGe NOTES : Pumpin' BASS lower than you can hear and louder than you can stand! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

1 0

Re: Stego-empty hard drives... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 00:46:03 +0000 > From: Michael Hohensee <mah248(a)is9.nyu.edu> > Subject: Re: Stego-empty hard drives... (fwd) > I believe that the idea was to set it up so that BIOS defaults to > HD-hiding mode. How do you propose to do this? Via a BIOS setting? > When you're taking your laptop through customs, you do > nothing while the machine boots up, the doctored BIOS does its thing, > and everybody's happy. When you want to get at the stuff on the rest of > the HD, you reboot and type in your passphrase. How do you propose to prompt the user for the correct time to type? ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

6 6

Re: Stego-empty hard drives... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: 22 Sep 1998 02:15:42 -0000 > From: Anonymous <nobody(a)remailer.ch> > Subject: Re: Stego-empty hard drives... (fwd) > > How do you propose to do this? Via a BIOS setting? > > By default. The machine boots. It is either told to accept a passphrase or > is told nothing. If the latter, it boots normally, only with its HD-hiding > code. If the former, it prompts, accepts a passphrase, and then boots > normally, only with the HD-hiding code disabled. Understood. > What I think you're asking is how the actual cryptography would be done. I That aspect is trivial from the mod-the-BIOS perspective, let's assume for a moment that the crypto is in the ROM-burner... Specificaly I am asking: Given a BIOS which has been modified to allow the end-user to select between encrypted and non-encrypted operation, how is the end-user supposed to make this selection? So far I've seen two suggestions: 1. The BIOS is only 'sensitive' at particular points in the POST. 2. The BIOS has a user-accessible selection via some method to activate their selection. Both are workable, I'm looking for a more specific description of the methods. In the case of 1., is the marker going to be particular windows which are bounded by particular messages printed to the boot console? In the case of 2. is it going to be a particular 'magic keystroke' that enables some hidden option screen? It seems to me that both have obvious methods of attack if the only goal is to demonstrate to a legal standard that such capability exists. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) (fwd)
by Fred C. Moulton 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a recent message Jim Choate wrote: >However, yourself, pjm, & Mr. Smith are claiming that a belief that >something doesn't exist isn't a belief is simply a tricky play on semantics. >A belief in a negative is still a belief irrespective of how many people >believe it. Might doesn't make right (or logical). Mr. Choate please spend as much time working on reading comprehension as you do on logic. If you read my message you will see that I have not stated my view on the proper definition of atheism, I have not aligned myself with pjm or George Smith nor have I aligned myself against them. I did provide two quotations from scholarly sources that used definitions similar to that provided by pjm. I also provided a quotation that there several definitions of the term in usage and the various definitions each have their supporters and their opponents. My point was the definition I quoted are well established in the scholarly literature and demonstrate that pjm was not trying to introduce some new and unusual definition into the discussion. Also based on the portion of your message I quote above, it appears that you might have misunderstood the quotation I included from Mr. Smith's book. I am sorry that both space and copyright issues do not allow the entire book to be sent to you, but I do suggest that you read the entire discussion in the book if you are having difficulty with the short passage quoted previously. Regards Fred

1 0

Re: Stego-empty hard drives... (fwd)
by Neels Kriek 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have bee using Encrypted magic Folders for a while now. it gives you the option of encrypting all files in a specific folder. it can also do file name scrambling and even hide all the files in a directory from the OS. It activates through a hot key combination. You work on the files you want and when you exit emf the whole dir is hidden again. probably not the most secure system but it will certainly fool most them if you disable booting from a stiffy/floppy.

1 0

Re: ArcotSign (was Re: Does security depend on hardware?)
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 21 Sep 1998, Nick Szabo wrote: > I have consulted at both DigiCash and Arcot. I am still > under nondisclosure to Arcot, so I can't answer any > questions about this that go beyond the publicly available > information. Arcot has recently made available on their public > web site "Software Smart Cards via Cryptographc Camouflage", at > http://www.arcot.com/camo2.html. At the end of > this paper is referenced Rivest's "Chaffing and Winnowing" > paper. These give a good overview of how such a technology > can work, and the scope of its application. I'm certainly not a cryptographer, but I'm somewhat at a loss in trying to understand the purpose of using public-key (or asymmetric key) cryptography within a policy/technology system which won't allow the use of the strengths of asymmetric key crypto. As I understand the paper you reference above, to implement this system the public key must be kept confidential, and signed documents must also be kept confidential, or the system of the security as a whole is at risk. With those constraints, why bother with the overhead (computationally/technically/legally) of asymmetric key crypto at all? It seems like much of the security in the system described above comes from the server/other party's ability to thwart brute-force attacks by detecting and responding to multiple failed attempts at authentication; that seems like a very good thing, but not really a strength or a weakness of the protocol itself, but an additional practice/protocol which is useful in many contexts. Is it really necessary/useful to call the scheme "software smart cards"? If it were called "An improved system for user authentication", I don't think it would make people nearly so suspicious. From my perspective, one of the advantages of smart card technology is that I can carry my authentication material with me; a system which puts it on my hard disk is less attractive. Floppies are portable, but not durable. I didn't understand the relationship between this scheme and Rivest's chaffing and winnowing which you note was cited as a reference in the SSC paper - would you (or someone else) mind explaining the connection? The closest I can get is thinking that there's a parallel between trying to guess which PIN in the SSC system is valid and which isn't, and the "winnowing" part of the Rivest protocol; but that doesn't seem like an especially meaningful or illuminating relationship. It looks like maybe a footnote was dropped, which would've tied the Rivest paper to a particular passage in the paper. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles(a)netbox.com

2 1