- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Technology- vs. Human-based Surveillance
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:35 AM 7/8/96, Deranged Mutant wrote: >Who needs high-tech for a surveillance state? I remember several >years back a Soviet-history class that put a lot of emphasis on the >Czar's totalitarian regime, much of which was already in place when >the Bolshviks took power (and one of the reasons they held it). ... A human-based surveillance state is very expensive, even by the standards of modern America and its bloated government. The recent example of the DDR's "Staasi" provides an example. Hard to hide the extent of the surveillance when so many people are involved. Better, think the Thought Police, to use technology to do the intercepts and pre-screening of the take. Also, the right technology (right for them, not us) makes widespread tapping possible, where human-based systems are not. (As but one example, hard to get human spies into companies on short notice to monitor a target.) In short, technology-based surveillance is "scalable" in a way that human-based surveillance is not. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: NYT/CyberTimes on CWD article
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:01 PM 7/6/96 -0800, Norman Hardy wrote: >At 9:17 AM 7/6/96, Declan McCullagh wrote: >>"We are writers, not crytographers." >> >>-Declan >.... >This seems to be an application for Bloom filters. >See page bottom of page 561 in Knuth's "Searching and Sorting", First Edition. >(Vol 3 of Art of Computer Programming) > >With a Bloom filter you can hide which URLs you reject yet quickly rejecting >particular URLs. > >Compute SHA(URL) yielding 160 bits. Divide that into 16 ten bit quantities >b[i], for 0<=i< 10. >Reject the access if P[b[i]] = 1 for each i. P is an array of 1024 bits >computed by someone >with the index prohibitorum. (pardon my Latin) > >Yes, this excludes 1/1024 "falsely accused" URLs, but you get the idea. As Norm knows, we used this algorithm to provide a label search function (What Unix people use grep for) for an IBM OS back in the 1970s. SHA is probably overkill for the hash function, but you need something better than a barber poll hash. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The Internet may fairly be | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | regarded as a never-ending | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | worldwide conversation. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: Word lists for passphrases
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

perry(a)piermont.com (perry e. metzger) In a message dated 96-07-08 19:21:11 EDT, you write: << Human stupidity is never a surprise. Perry >> I know. Just look at your posting a private message to a newsgroup because of something thats just beyond your use. So... you can't handle it and become like a baby.. and start something so utterly pointless as this.. by writing me back to begin with. You dont like the program..or think its so trivial (which it is... big fuc*in deal ) then thats fine. EVERYONE has their opinion. Some people find a use out of it...obviously you dont. Its Ok man. Just take some prozac (or is the topic ritalin now??) and youll be A OK

1 0

RE: What remains to be done.
by Andy Brown 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 09 July 1996 02:04, John F. Fricker[SMTP:jfricker@vertexgroup.com] wrote: > One of these days Microsoft will officially release NT's IFS SDK. A few > "preliminary" and incomplete copies of a 1993 beta release do float around > but for a mere $50K there's a company that will sell you the complete source > for an IFS. It's a crime that Microsoft hasn't shipped this SDK yet as the > Installable File System is one of the great powers of NT. You can do this with the existing device driver kit since they supply the entire source code to the AT hard disk driver. I took a look and decided that it would be too much work for me alone. They also seem to suggest that you can write "filters" that extend the capability of existing drivers. > So, if someone is interested in coughing up the $50K I know a couple NT > programmers just chomping at the bit to build cool IFS's like PGPDrive, etc. I'm one of them, but this low level device driver stuff makes me shudder! - Andy

1 0

Re: [RANT] Giving Mind Control Drugs to Children
by JR＠ns.cnb.uam.es 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com> says: Mike Duvos writes: > Perry Writes: > > > Most people would have no particular urge to stop a child with > > diabetes from taking her insulin. Your friend seems to have the sick ... ... > Since diabetes has an organic cause, this analogy with syndromes and > disorders defined solely by behavioral percentages fails. 'fraid not. ADD has an organic cause, and can be detected with reproduceable biological tests. Agreed, but the point is IMHO that not everybody that takes it do actually need it, and that it is worst for them as well as for the rest of us (indirectly). And I don't think there's any point in denying there is a strong and widespread abuse of "easy solutions" (like government mandated key scrow for instance). >Admittedly, ADD is nonfatal, and I will agree that the analogy breaks >down there. I will also agree that it may be overdiagnosed -- that is, >misdiagnosed by sloppy practitioners. That does not mean it isn't real. > That's it. Agreed again. .... >Has it occurred to you that many of the children in question are happy >being medicated, as are many adults? In any case, who are you to tell >other people what's good for them? > >Perry Wrong. Many people feel happy taking antibiotics for a cold. But it is worst for the vast majority of them. A cold is produced by viruses on which no antibiotic is effective. But they kill their natural baterial barrier, making them more prone to a serious disease. And they select AB-resistant bacteria which will spread to other innocent people later. Anyway, I'm nobody to tell them to stop killing themselves. But *I* am ENTITLED to tell them not to kill *ME* by selecting resistant microorganisms when they take antibiotics they shouldn't. For *I* will have to stand those myself later. I don't tell them what's good for them. I do tell them what's BAD for ME. As well as I tink I'm not entitled to forbid anyone to smoke, but I am to expect they not to in my presence and to respect my health if I politely ask them so. I am not entitled to say which crypto anyone has to use. But I am entitled to expect no one will force me into using one that will be worst for me in the long run. And would rather prefer if people knew what they do and the extent on which they can rely on crypto when they use it. jr

1 0

stupid national security excuse again ...
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ok. Not that I really care, at this point, who really killed Kennedy or whether there was this or that conspiracy, but I am really sick of this bull shit "national security" excuse. What kind of "national security" excuse could there be for the CIA to say whether they confirm or deny the employment of some guy (whom they could easily discredit by saying that they have nothing to do with him)? This sort of maneuvoring by (insert your favorite TLA) is just exactly why I am so against encryption regulation by the government. They can snowjob anyone just by saying "national security". Ern -------- COURT REJECTS BID FOR FACTS ON ALLEGED KENNEDY PLOTTER REUTERS SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court Monday rejected a bid to force the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to disclose whether it employed a man who claimed he was involved in the murder of President John F. Kennedy. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco denied an appeal by a California judge who sued to try to force the CIA to disclose information about Claude Capehart. Capehart, who died in 1989, claimed to have been a CIA agent involved in the November 1963 assassination of Kennedy in Dallas, according to the court ruling. In February 1992, David Minier, a municipal court judge in Chowchilla, California but acting as a private citizen in this case, made a Freedom of Information Act request to the CIA to say whether the agency had ever employed Capehart. Minier, 61, later asked the CIA for all records of the ''activities, assignments, actions and whereabouts of (Capehart) during the month of November 1963,'' according to the Appeals Court ruling. The CIA denied Minier's request, saying that to confirm or deny a relationship between the CIA and Capehart ``would jeopardize national security and compromise CIA sources and methods,'' the ruling said. ...

1 0

Re: Put Uncle Sam in your Calling Circle
by David Rochberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Mark O. Aldrich" <maldrich(a)grci.com> writes: [Tom Tomorrow RSA posters] > > THE QUESTION THAT (therefore) BEGS TO BE ASKED: > > How can all the rest of us get copies, or are you just rubbing our > collective noses in the "I got one and you don't" dirt? :) > You can find EPS and GIF versions at http://www.rsa.com/rsa/gallery/gallery.htm -david

1 0

Re: [RANT] Giving Mind Control Drugs to Children
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 9 Jul 96 at 0:19, Perry E. Metzger wrote: [..] > Has it occurred to you that many of the children in question are happy > being medicated, as are many adults? In any case, who are you to tell > other people what's good for them? Whether or not the medication works for some (or all) people, whether or not it ruins or improves their lives, etc. etc, is not really the issue. A problem is in giving children medication when they lack the legal freedom (and possibly emotional or mental maturity) to make their own decisions to take it or not. 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.

1 0

MSoft crypto API's
by George Kuzmowycz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The June 10, 1996 Network World carried a story on page 8 under the title "Microsoft breaks crypto barrier", which starts off as follows: " Microsoft Corp. last week said it will include cryptography-based security technology in its operating systems, messaging product and Web browser through a new set of APIs that will be available both in the U.S. and overseas. " The fact that the National Security Agency is allowing Microsoft to export the cryptographic APIs is somewhat of a coup for the software vendor, although the NSA did nothing to alter the current export ban on strong encryption." Later on, it says: " Microsoft's Crypto APIs will be available to third-party vendors writing applications with embedded security. But the hardware or software Crypto-engines for these applications will need to be digitally signed by Microsoft before they will work with the APIs. Under an unusual arrangement with the NSA, Microsoft will act as a front man for the powerful U.S. spy agency, checking on whether the vendors' products comply with U.S. export rules." I was a bit surprised not to see any discussion of this here. Is it just old news? Or maybe people here don't read Network World? I didn't paste in the whole article for copyright reasons. Since they seem to be on a one-month lag with posting back articles on their Web site, it just this week became available at www.nwfusion.com. An MS/NSA alliance? -gk-

4 3

Re: what's up with GROW?
by Robin Powell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>>>> In article <199607101517.IAA19065(a)cygnus.com>, Michael Tiemann <tiemann(a)cygnus.com> writes: > I didn't post there specifically, but John Gilmore may have done so a > while ago. What specific problem are the cyberpunks trying to solve > that GROW would facilitate? Sorry, I've just recieved so much complete incompetence with this issue that talking to someone who was on the ball took some adjusting. Hope I wasn't too rude. One of the main issue on cypherpunks right now (Black Unicorn did a sort of "white paper" on it recently, as in two days ago) is integrating cryptography with other apps, in particular WWW apps. It just seemed to me that if the kind of exstensibility which Emacs is famous for was going to be a part of GROW, which apparently was the attention, this would be a Good Thing for cryptography integration. I good point in this direction is that the most popular way of using PGP with email is emacs-based (i.e. more people sign their posts to cypherpunks using Mailcrypt, the emacs-PGP interface, then all other signers combined, so it must be pretty easy to use). I've used it, and it's incredibly slick. I had hopes the GROW to go as far as emacs but with more network awareness. Oh well. This has been crossposted to cypherpunks, BTW. -Robin PS: You may want to go through and terf ALL the grow pages, not just some of them.

2 1