- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

New technology around the corner [slashdot.org]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Note: Text edited for relevance. Forwarded message: > Subject: http:--www.slashdot.org- > Hitachi Makes Breakthrough Contributed by Justin > [Technology] Tue Feb 17 16:40:30 1998 EST > From the rapidly-advancing-society? dept. > Hitachi has made a breakthrough of their own, in a different kind of > storage. Hitachi announced they have found a way to reduce the number > of electrons needed to store a bit of information in a DRAM chip. The > 128MB chips should be coming out soon, and will be perfected in the > 16GB (*drool*) generation of chips. > Read More... > 13 comment(s) > Seagate Makes Breakthrough Contributed by Justin > [Technology] Tue Feb 17 15:28:31 1998 EST > From the buncha-really-tiny-mirrors dept. > A division of Seagate Technology, Inc. has announced a new way of > increasing disk drive capacity density. Quinta has disclosed key parts > of their technology, which they call Optically Assisted Winchester > (OAW) technology to make a practical magento-optical disk that is > capable of holding 40GB/square inch. The new technology uses mirrors, > a new servo system, and other methods to allow these large capacities. > Slashdot is participating in Distributed.Net's Decryption Projects. > Read who's helping, and why. Check out Our Current Rank. > [Technology] Sun Feb 15 11:12:15 1998 EST > Plastic Screens (12) ____________________________________________________________________ | | | When a man assumes a public trust, he should | | consider himself public property. | | | | Thomas Jefferson | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

4 5

Re: Websites and trademarks at odds [CNN]
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199802181552.JAA11020(a)einstein.ssz.com>, on 02/18/98 at 09:52 AM, Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> said: >> How can consumers trust using the Web, where guessing about a >> company's address can be like playing shopper's roulette? Imagine >> visiting your local grocery store and finding no milk or eggs but >> auto parts instead. Imagine walking into Burger King and being >> offered computer software. This is really much todo about nothing and shows a complete lack of understanding of Trademark laws. Trademarks are product specific, there is nothing preventing preventing two companies from having the same name provided they are not in the same business. You can even have two companies with the same name in the same business provided that the likelyhood of mistaking one company for another is small. Some examples: It is perfectly legal to have a company name IBM (the computer company) and another company called IBM (a local auto repair shop in Podunk, AK). It is also legal to have two companies called Widgets both making widgets provided that both were operating in different regions (Widgets #1 only operated in NewEngland while Widgets #2 only operated in Texas). Trademarks not only involve company names but also include product names. A good example of this is Intel and the naming of thier CPU's. The courts ruled that they could not trademark a Number (286,386,486,...) an this is the reason for the Pentium(TM) name for their chips which is trademarkable. Even so there is nothing preventing McDonalds from calling thier new burger the Pentium as no one should mistake a burger for a CPU (well except for some windows users <g>). Now understanding that even when one Tradmarks a name it does not give you exclusive use of the name how does one apply trademarks to a domain name? Should www.windows.com be the exclusive domain of Microsoft just because they have a program with that name? What about a window manufacture shouldn't he have an equal if not greater claim to that domain (after all his whole business is windows)? Which windows manufacture? Should ABC Windows have that claim or Billy-Bob's Windows Imporium? Should the trademark claim extend to all possible domains? (www.windows.com, www.windows.org, www.windows.net, www.windows-blows-chunks-and-bill-gates-sucks-eggs.com)? I haven't even touched on the international issues. Should a company from one company have the ability to enforce it's trademark claim to all domains world-wide? I fear that this is just another example of the Government trying to get it's sticky fat fingers on another portion of the net not to mention yet aother shoddy piece of journalism (calling it that give too much credit to the author). Just for the slow ones out there it is perfectly legal for me to open a computer store, call it Buger King and call my computer system the Wopper. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: I'm an OS/2 developer...I don't NEED a life! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNOsCLI9Co1n+aLhhAQGPUAP/XIg+CYn3zGQH6ztVDY+gZAEVjPMU04QF 4JePKqGUOPSaXwHF6U7Fvx9bqGl9cBd36JT0KwwQluBRQBdJ4q2FAX4a92JubtuX PqeJRTXNf9QszMDh5LFVSBu+aQi5qozqAglHf6Ep7hMNQ8ZyK1yw7pYHWRvLALGJ dQQaIWI/zKo= =RrnK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Lotus Notes
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

One other small advantage I can see to using Lotus's crippled encryption. It disguises the fact that a message is actually (double) encrypted with PGP. Attackers have to break the 40 bits before they see the PGP encrypted data. A pecular kind of steganography. (If you leave off the PGP header and trailer, it may be hard to determine which 40 bits are the correct key.) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

More FUD from the Luddites at FV
by cman＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Once again, FV has decided that it is easier to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt than innovate. This is part of a continuing pattern that has been extensively documented in previous threads on this mailing list. There are a great many problems with the claims that FV are making with respect to their souped-up keyboard sniffer; here is the one I consider to be the clincher: If I can place any program of my design on a user's machine to sniff credit cards, I can easily exert total control over all of the e-mail sent or received from that machine. Since I can do this, it is now trivially easy to circumvent the "security" of FV e-mail confirmations. Furthermore, to do this, all I really need is control over the network traffic to that user's machine, which in many instances is going to be easier than placing a program on someone's machine. I can then set up dummy companies that my "virus" or whatever will buy "information" from -- some of these might get detected when user's get their bills, but this hypothetical program might chose amounts that would disappear into the noise of actual, legitimate purchases. Therefore, the real moral of the story is: DON'T PUT UNTRUSTWORTHY PROGRAMS ON YOUR HARD DISK --doug P.S. a good video camera in the right spot, or a telephone tap of a major mail-order distributor could probably get you more credit cards, faster, than the FV approach. Credit cards are fundamentally insecure; typing your CC# into your computer is no more dangerous than giving it to the minimum-wage clerk at Denny's. This insecurity is factored into the business model of the credit card companies -- end users do not pay one dime for erroneous or fradulent charges that lack a signature along with a card swipe or imprint. ------ ------ Douglas Barnes "The tighter you close your fist, Governor Tarkin, cman(a)communities.com the more systems will slip through your fingers." cman(a)best.com --Princess Leia

1 0

Re: Opinion piece in NYT; responses needed
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Mutatis> It's a decentered network (or set of networks) designed > Mutatis> to get information to its addressee. Data flows through [..] > This is unfortunately a wide-spread myth. While it's true for mail and > news, it's not for IP packets. Witness: Duh. You're right. My glitch. --- "Mutant" Rob <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" (not in quotes) for a copy of my PGP key.

1 0

Re: Dealing with Spam, Part 2
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>MailGuard, which can be downloaded from www.fundi.com, interposes itself >>between your existing email package and the Internet. When a piece of mail >>comes in, it checks to see whether it recognizes the address of the sender. >>If not, it issues a carefully drafted challenge, asking the sender politely >>to confirm that he is not a bulk sender of commercial mail by replying with >>a specified phrase in the subject field of the email. A freeware Java-based, open architected client-side proxy (ByProxy), which includes agents for SPAM filtration, auto pgp encrypt/decrypt among others is posted to www.besiex.com. It already has noCem and auto/manually builds a friends and enemies list (similar to MailGuard). --Steve --------------------------------------------------------------------- reply to schear - at - lvdi - dot - net --- PGP mail preferred, see http://www.pgp.com and http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html RSA fingerprint: FE90 1A95 9DEA 8D61 812E CCA9 A44A FBA9 RSA key: http://keys.pgp.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=0x55C78B0D ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: PGP
by cmca＠alpha.c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com] [Subject: Re: PGP] It was written (not on paper) by "Sentient1" <Shade(a)cdale1.midwest.net>: > Could you settle a dispute? Is it, or Is it not, legal to take >PGP source code and the like out of the country if it is written on >paper? Yes it is. MIT published a book consisting of nothing but PGP source in OCR type, and it has been exported. Chris McAuliffe <cmca(a)alpha.c2.org> (No, not that one.) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAwUBMSQ2ZoHskC9sh/+lAQEd0gP/ZSj0lQYlWN9XxDEzSCRRSnt13TKG3DYU cqGLcbJb9hsp7Ye4+oW8Ei1+iXGOX/2u/TB7gNfQQ0MFR96bqSl0VzCq1R1Z4vqC vb6lv2pURpMwltTy7+k3gWx2p6Dsc6uTXC8ydTLKcWLg9o98JsR8ZtnxyOdzWtGM SoeaAP+T7Wk= =25iG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: A Cyberspace Independence Refutation
by lmccarth＠cs.umass.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

James Donald writes: [in reply to strata] > Your other arguments casually dismiss the very real power that large numbers > of able people with good communications can exercise, have just exercised > very recently. Large numbers of able people with good communications very recently exercised their putative "very real power" against the passage of the CDA. They had no substantial impact AFAICS. (I intend no slur against the effort.) Could you name some examples, and add some qualifications that made the difference in those cases ? > Nation states are a new creation. In the past many different > kings ruled many different bits of one nation, and one king often > ruled parts of more than one nation. > > Today nation states are almost universal, and people can no longer > imagine what a nation is, other than a nation state. Just in case I'm one of those who "can no longer imagine what a nation is, other than a nation state", you should perhaps define the term more concretely. I guess The Nation of Islam might fit, or the worldwide community of Palestinians. > But the net is a nation, and is not a state, and nationalism is a force that > governments usually cannot withstand. OK, first of all I'm not convinced that the net qualifies as a "nation", but it's hard to say until I better understand what you mean by "nation". _Strong_ nationalism is a powerful force that governments often exploit to their own considerable advantage, and indeed also brings down governments in some cases. Offhand, it looks to me as though the USSR did a decent job of withstanding various strong internal nationalistic forces for a long time, and was brought down mainly by other considerations. > What makes a government strong is its cohesion, but the state cannot > create its own cohesion. When states attempted to confront nationalism, > they often lost cohesion and vanished altogether, like a string of sand. > > The "Nation state" is in essence a tactic for avoiding this hazard. Perhaps "often" is the case; from previous experience, I suspect your grasp of the relevant history is clearly superior to mine. (You have some great stuff on your web pages.) I note that you did not claim "all". > Governments are acutely aware of this problem, and act very cautiously > in the face of such threats. Many people seem to imagine that a > government innately and naturally has cohesion, that it is naturally > one thing, naturaly capable of acting coherently and cohesively as > an individual can. On the contrary, governments maintain their > cohesion with difficulty, and continually act, or refrain from acting, > in fear that they might lose it. OK, but govts. do indeed manage to muster plenty of cohesion in various actions. > In an all out knock down battle between a particular government and the > internet, in a state where a substantial proportion of the middle class > was on the internet, the government would be in serious danger of > evaporating like a jellyfish in the sunshine. I disagree, but assertions will get us nowhere. > The government can get away with a substantial amount of harassment and > restraint, but has only limited power to act without itself being acted > on, to change the world without itself suffering change. Sure, but the govt. has been changed before and can change again. I'm honestly very happy to see all this optimism. But unless and until my pessimism fundamentally changes, I couldn't sleep at night if I were to lie down and accept the optimistic claims. -Lewis "You're always disappointed, nothing seems to keep you high -- drive your bargains, push your papers, win your medals, fuck your strangers; don't it leave you on the empty side ?" (Joni Mitchell, 1972)

1 0

Patents and Trademarks invalid
by Zachary R Amsden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here's an idea: whenever someone uploads something like the RC2 source code, why not have everyone attach it to their .signature? Is criminal justice seriously going to pursue tracking down millions of people that did this? Or would they pull the plug. Food for thought (please don't e-mail me about this - I have enough e-mail already. Post instead)

3 2

Anonymous Posting FAQ'S Using Private Idaho
by wussery＠slip.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I have created several FAQ'S that I hope will streamline the creation and subsequent sending of postings or email using Private Idaho. I would like any feedback, pro or con on the usefulness of these documents. My goal throughout the writing process was to make it as EASY as possible to set up an account on alpha.c2.org. As most people know, subsequent to setting up your account on the alpha server, one can post anonymously to newsgroups and send anonymous email. This by NO MEANS is the ONLY way to send anonymous mail, but is a popular way of doing so. I was prompted to write these FAQ's because of the amount of frustration that I experienced while trying to setup my anonymous account. Hopefully others will have an easier path, subsequent to reading my FAQ's. I have sent a copy of these FAQ's to the author of Private Idaho and hope to be hearing from him soon about any glaring omissions or errors. Should you find any errors, please point them out. It is most important that easy to use, step by step documents be made available for the public. The consequence of enabling individuals to easily set up an anonymous presence, is the free flow of information and to be able to challenge a "fact" or individual without hesitation or possible repercussions. I hope my FAQ's will help in this regard. The FAQ's can be found at: http://www.slip.net/~wussery/pgp.html While you're there, check out some of the other spots that have caught my attention. Hope you enjoy, and don't forget to give me your feedback, pro or con. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i iQCVAwUBMSNJDl4zaQ9yYVwNAQFCdAP/aKIOArRdihXpK9Q8wfILzxLXivTJ92Vy Y6yXaDQtt/SF8NYc5FgkQ8qB/5qqFRUYIm/mEPWDWWhs68EapX2YjwZi5acFjbTT kt905IHcsleDxxz2aL5NWH+2daKdOc0I7JNIioPg4YYlZ+2sr+/lnvWs9d6BClDV +gHZZn4bLEY= =zmAr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- There's No Elevator To Success. You Have To Take The Stairs. Remember:"You Can't Fake The Harvest", Stephen Covey PGP ID 0x72615C0D url:http://www.slip.net/~wussery Compuserve:72567,2213

1 0