- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

No Subject
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The snow-monster saw a peppercorn through the vacuum-packed keyhole, it's extra mouth kissing the fresh fruit and chewing the rough. The blizzard continued to whip the darkness, while the snow-men sunned in the warm glow of particle fear and unicity gaps. It remained as cold it as and hot. - A'Tak A'Tdorn

1 0

Supreme Court Case on language choice
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mark Eckenwiler posted this to Cyberia-L, with Subject: Re: House panel votes behind closed doors to build in Big Brother chris mohr writes: + Suppose that the use of particular languages other than English or + a few other common ones, such as Spanish or French, was forbidden over the + telephone Interestingly, there is some Supreme Court case law arguably on point. In _Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad_, 271 US 500 (1926), the Supreme Court considered the validity of a Philippine statute that prohibited the keeping of business records in lanuages other than English, Spanish, or "any local dialect." (I'll omit an explanation of why the Court was analyzing Philippine law under the U.S. Constitution.) The Court found that in charging the petitioner (who kept his books in Chinese), the Philippines had deprived him of liberty and property w/o due process and had deprived him of equal protection under the laws. (I should add that the legislation, which would also have technically applied to records in German or Urdu, was known locally as the Chinese Bookkeeping Act.) Note, however, that the Court observed in the same breath that "the Philippine government may make every reasonable requirement of its taxpayers to keep proper records of their business transactions in English or Spanish . . . ." 271 US at 525. -- "This case presents the perhaps unprecedented situation of a court, as litigant, petitioning itself, as court, for relief." In re Skupniewitz, 73 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 1996) Mark Eckenwiler eck(a)panix.com

1 0

InfoWar 7 (Part III of 'The True Story of the InterNet')
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Re: Monetary Economics (fwd) [amusement]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From owner-traveller(a)Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM Sat Sep 13 07:01:15 1997 > To: traveller(a)MPGN.COM > X-Original-Article-From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth(a)alumni.hmc.edu> > Subject: Re: Monetary Economics > From: shadow(a)krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) > Message-ID: <970913.000519.9C4.rnr.w165w(a)krypton.rain.com> > Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 00:05:19 PST > In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970912130653.007c83c0(a)mail.deltanet.com> > Organization: Shadownet > X-Newsreader: rnr v2.20 > Sender: owner-traveller(a)Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM > Reply-To: traveller(a)MPGN.COM > > In mail you write: > > > For this to work, the entity doing the credit management needs to have the > > highest technology available, which I assume the Imperium has for a very > > long time. The techniques are likely known to those who want to find them > > out, because someone would have defected. Thus, you need a scheme that is > > robust, even knowing the algorithm and some of the keys. > > Old rule of cryptology. No code/cipher is secure unless it can provide > protection against someone who knows the algorithm, but not the key. > This is because it is *inevitable* that the algorithm will either leak, > or worse, be guessed. > > If a key is known, that key is blown. But again, knowledge of one key > should not compromise others. If it does, the code system is a piece of > junk. > > Theoretically, one time pads will *always* be secure. The only trouble > is key distribution (well, key generation is tedious, but that's > relatively minor). > > Public key ciphers are subject to mathematical advances. Not > *computational*, because if you have faster computers, then you can use > bigger keys. But if someone comes up with a new mathematical technique > that greatly decreases the work required to carry the mathematical > operation that "secures" the cipher, then you are toast. For example, a > whole bunch of public key schemes went down the tubes a few years back > when somebody came up with a better solution to what's known as the > "knapsack problem". The remaining schemes are based on the difficulty > of factoring large numbers. So if a breakthrough is made in algorithms > for factoring large numbers, they go away. > > But for game purposes, we can assume that factoring is inherently hard > (or that some new trick is found). So public key ciphers would be > usable, though the keys may be a small book's worth of digits (stored > in a tiny bit of storage). > > Given the fact of there being higher tech cultures, one time pads will > be used for military and diplomatic stuff as well as anything that you > are afraid might be trouble if someone with higher tech shows up. > > But for generic business purposes, you just use the highest TL > available for the public key ciphering gear. That way, it's unlikely > that anybody can crack things soon. Sure, if a TL 16 race is found, > they can crack your ciphers in weeks instead of years, but they aren't > likely to *bother* with most commercial stuff. > > -- > Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) > shadow(a)krypton.rain.com <--preferred > leonard(a)qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort >

1 0

uh,
by wabe 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--What is that weird lawsuit all about wheresome director of the NSA is getting sued forsomething? Does anyone know?-wabe --digsig EojdyErVslc/s6aQeIHwnOlMw3lUKJhdZc/ZeCNfe7H L4ctAUj8gI6C830BTXaeFrhHME7aCeT3ev4HKbeT 4HICjjQYriAdlICrERT+zrSEtB1bkK+b6iRoC6a0y

5 8

Re: Any talk of limiting _existing_ crypto?
by jf_avon＠citenet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > This mail is brought to you by the e$pam mailing list > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Any talk of limiting _existing_ crypto? > Integration with mailers and browsers may not even be such a good idea, as > the evolution of such products will cause obsolescence. What about add-on package to current e-mail packages that does not contain crypto but makes the interface between crypto programs and e-mail client (pgpjn for pegasus, Private Idaho, etc) ? Are they regulated too? -- Jean-Francois Avon, Pierrefonds(Montreal) QC Canada DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee Finest of Limoges porcelain and crystal JFA Technologies, R&D consultants physicists and engineers, LabView programing. PGP encryption keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 ID# 5B51964D : 152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C

1 0

Nightmare Scenario: Public Key Distribution Controlled
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Distribute a key, go to prison." How does the New World Order limit the use of strong crypto without "key recovery" when so many copies of older, pre-ban crypto are already out there? Simple, by declaring that public keys themselves are crypto material, as the Brits did in their Trusted Third Parties draft proposal, and hence declaring that distribution of keys after the effective date of the legislation constitutes a violation. Give someone your key, either by placing it on keyservers or even by mailing it to them, and one has just "distributed" crypto. This will make the public key infrastructure essentially useless, as the public key servers go down, as corporations yank any directories they may have, and (possibly) as individuals stop putting PGP or S/MIME fingerprints or pointers in their messages. How possible is this? Recall that the British proposal formally classified key material, the keys themselves, as cryptographic products. The language of the current unSAFE and Procto-CODE draconian bills, still changing of course as committees rewrite them to be more Big Brotherish, is vague on what constitutes crypto. If language is inserted making keys part of the bills, or if "interpretations" by Defense, Commerce, etc. make this determination, then there goes the infrastructure, even for already-distributed keys. Sure, underground use will continue. And those with PGP, and keys, may well have a reasonable defense in court, arguing that the program *and* the keys they used were already in their possession prior to the effective date of the legislation. But the effect would be chilling to almost any normal use of these programs. This is my latest nightmare scenario. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- 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: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 3

Real issue of crypto controls: security or taxation loss?
by jf_avon＠citenet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi. I've been lazily following the crypto-control issue through e$pam list. Somebody posted a question asking how many peoples would eventually be victims of crypto-enhanced crime. Then, TM came to say that this is irrelevant. TM was right in the context of the post, but it led me to ask myself this (vague) question: What is the real issue here, what makes the govt so insistent about wanting to ban crypto? What is such a threat to them that it makes them pass laws that are profoundly against the US constitution? What causes their panic? To this, all I can find of enough magnitude to put them in such state is that they just recently *truly* realized that crypto will, infinitely more than to threaten the security of the state, threaten their very existence by putting them outside of the money loop. To paraphrase somebody, "individuals recognize taxation as damage and routes their e$ around" I think that *this* debate should be injected in the population and the *bogus* "national security" debate should be dismissed as, just that : bogus. *Everybody* not living on govt taxated money gets a sparkle in their eyes when I introduce them to crypto via the e-$ topic. And all of the others gets pale... ;-) For most peoples, privacy in itself is worth something only if if they have some *value* they want to preserve. Most of the time, this value concretizes itself as "money". So if we talk to them in terms *they* understand, we run a much better chance to make them understand why spreading crypto is a tool we believe will greatly enhance human's life quality. Any comments about why we should *not* put most emphasis on the financial aspect of crypto? Ciao jfa -- Jean-Francois Avon, Pierrefonds(Montreal) QC Canada JFA Technologies, R&D physicists & engineers Instrumentation & control, LabView programming. PGP keys: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon and: http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html PGP ID:C58ADD0D:529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 PGP ID:5B51964D:152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C

6 8

Make Money With Your PC
by mailhost＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<HTML><PRE><BODY BGCOLOR="#000000"><FONT COLOR="#00FFFF" SIZE=3> ***************COMPUTER USERS NEEDED*************** $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Set Your Own Hours. Earn $20,000 to $50,000 per year. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ If you presently own your own Macintosh or IBM compatible personal computer, this amazing work-at home program may be just for you. First, please understand this is not a get-rich-quick scheme, chain letter scam or anything else that makes the promise of getting something for nothing. However, this is a legitimate program that will reward those who do not mind hard work, with a substantial source of extra income. Our manual, 'Work at Home Using Your Personal Computer (c 1995)' will outline the 27 different areas that are the most needed and requested services. We then put you in direct contact with the actual companies in your local area that are downsizing and offering work. Today, many, many companies are streamlining due to economic pressure and the need for home-based workers is at an all-time high. Basic skills such as typing, data entry or word processing will allow you to earn between $10 and $15 an hour. More advanced skills such as medical billing, database management and bookkeeping earn $20 to $30 per hour and are a common occurence. Those with even greater technical skills, graphic design, desktop publishing, basic programming or web site design can earn between $30 and $45 per hour. This program comes to you with a 100% money-back guarantee. The package we send to you contains everything in writing. You will recieve the easy-to-follow, fact filled manual and software package only if you act now! This program is the perfect solution for housewives, students, the home-bound, as well as those seeking a solid second career. The easy-to-follow manual and software package comes to your for only $49.95 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Look below to see how you can save $15 today! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- IMS 5201 Kingston Pike Suite 6-216 Knoxville, Tennessee 37919 YES, please rush the 'Work at Home Using My Personal Computer (c 1995) manual! ___________ I have enclosed $49.95 plus $4.95 shipping and handling. ($54.90 total) ___________ I want to save $10.00! I am ordering within 24 hours - I have enclosed $39.95 plus $4.95 shipping and handling. ($44.90 total) ___________ Please RUSH my order - add an additional $15.00 (OPTIONAL) I have enclosed (Check One): _____ Cashiers Check _____ Money Order _____ Personal Check SHIPPING INFORMATION Name:__________________________________________________ Telephone:_______-______-____________ Physical Street Address (NO PO BOXES please)__________________ _______________________________________________________ City:___________________________________________________ State:_________ ZIP:____________________________________ Your E-Mail Address (Needed for order confirmation)____________________________ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ SAVE AN ADDITIONAL $5.00!!! FAX YOUR ORDER NOW! Please tape your completed and signed check in the space below and fax to IMS. That facsimile number is 1-423-681-6520. ************************************* FAX: 1-423-681-6520 PLEASE TAPE YOUR CHECK HERE Please SIGN you check ************************************* Thank You For Your Order 2156887000908001546877 </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3>

1 0

SAFE Gut Amendment
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks to Declan we offer the full text of the "Amendment in the Nature of a Substitue to H.R. 695 Offered by Mr. Goss and Mr. Dicks," passed by the House Intelligence Committee on September 11. http://jya.com/hr695-amend.htm (63K)

1 0