- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Dr Vulis's crypto experiment (Re: IMDMP: SOURCE CODE RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENT)
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > my predictions: > 1) Dale Thorn will become another Kagalenko and will mailbomb mods Unless someone can give me good enough reason to get involved with communications programming, even at a macro level, I doubt I'll be much of a technical threat to c-punks et al. I suspect that the main reason for much of Sandy's fear and loathing of late is not the incessant Spamming of the c-punks list, but rather the presence of a superior, dominant intellect which threatens his space here. Which would you fear most: The government looking over your shoulder, checking for possible ITAR violations, or a relentless critic who's apparently made it his current life's mission to ceaselessly point out your limitations to the whole world? > 2) 90% of cypherpunks-moderated will be about moderation > and censorship This topic should be one of the easiest to cut.... > 3) there will be massive openings of alternative cypherpunks > mailing lists, all doomed to fail Failure or success depends on many factors. Unfortunately, most successes in real life are money-sponsored, and therefore necessarily contain a driving, but hidden agenda. > 4) several alt.* newsgroups like alt.cypherpunks will be created Most people watch TV rather than get involved in anything. Whatever is interesting about that (other than as an academic study) I don't know. > 5) main business of freedom-knights will be shitting and spitting > at cypherpunks in alt.cypherpunks I've been posting some intense material to freedom-knights, but the response has been quite restrained. One could conjecture that the interest level there is not high (as far as c-punks goes), or that the maturity level is higher than other places... > 6) moderators will spend increasing amounts of time on their work In mathematics, when something doesn't compute intuitively, although on paper the proposition looks OK, you'd say "there's something wrong or missing here, it doesn't add up", etc. Moderators spending lots of time moderating postings from the hoi polloi doesn't add up either. > 7) crossposting between alt.cypherpunks and mail.cypherpunks > will be prohibited by alt.cypherpunks FAQ, posted monthly > by Dr. John Martin Grubor This thing about crossposting is way overblown. I was told forcefully once not to crosspost to c-punks and coderpunks, as though one list were a true subset of the other. Posters should be advised of the specific reasons for not "crossposting" to certain list combinations, unless you are referring only to commercial Spam or other 'bot-generated mail.

1 0

Re: Dr. Vulis' social engineering experiment
by Jane Jefferson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Also Sprach Toto: > > If what you say is true, then Dr. DV K's efforts are quite possibly > the most important issue being addressed in this conference, because > behind free speech, lies the most important issue of all--when does > it start, and when does it stop. Exactly. > The military-industrial complex proclaims this necessary for the > purposes of state-security, and denies that it is used in order to keep > their 'sins' from being exposed. (If you believe this, then please > contact me by private email regarding an ocean-front property I have > available in Tucson, AZ. If you act quickly, I will throw in a set > of the Amazing Ginzu Knives as an added bonus.) The heart and soul of the problem is that "sin", "freedom", "good", and "evil" are abstract concepts which fluctuate from individual to individual. If Dr. Vulis is indeed an adjunct professor at Fordham University, I think that perhaps he has been hanging out and drinking too many beers with my former philosophy professor Quentin Lauer. ;-7 > The crypto-cognizant citizen proclaims cryptographical ability as > a means of empowering their rights of free speech. The more intelligent > of them recognize as misinformation the government's feeble claims that > they cannot successfully investigate someone moving tons of illegal > drugs into the country unless they have the capacity to eavesdrop on > the private correspondences of 'all' of their citizens. (Which is the > equivalent, in my mind, of claiming that AIDS cannot be held in check > without knowing the details of all of the citizens sex-lives.) Governments, however, are made up of the very same people who claim to require these rights to privacy. Those people create, codify and enforce the laws. The problem is that the people who find themselves in this position of power are not always the most moral or concerned with the best interest of the majority. And fiendishly, it is the very chaos and anarchy and random chance espoused by proponents of the cypherpunk philosophy that allows these people to gain this power, unchecked! Thus, the real problem ends up being not "how to control the government so that the government doesn't control us", but "how to deal with the government when it goes into control-freak mode". That it will go into such a mode is a given -- based on human nature and history. This is a fundamental cycle of evolution and human behavior. We have to face the fact that humans are predators, and as long as we are, the cycle of this behavior will continue. The human race has not evolved to such a point where privacy is not an essential thing. If tomorrow everyone turned instantly telepathic and we all were capable of knowing each other's thoughts, you'd best believe the suicide rate would be beyond belief. Buisnesses would instantly fail, countries would instantly be absorbed by other countries, many relationships based on love and trust would be destroyed. And during that time, the deadliest person alive - the toughest and the meanest, and the most effective in the face of all the chaos, would not be the person who was capable of preserving their privacy. Rather, it would be the one who was capable of surviving in it's complete absence. This is not to denigrate the efforts of the cypherpunks, but merely to point out an area that they may not have thought of as a method to battle the trend towards fascism. -- Marcus: "They'll try to kill you." | "You won't see me in Xena: "Oh, I still have a few tricks | front, but you can't left up my sleeve...I don't | leave me behind!" have any sleeves!" -- Xena bloopers | -- YES

2 1

Re: Dr. Vulis' social engineering "experiment"
by Bill Campbell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca wrote: > If what you say is true, then Dr. DV K's efforts are quite possibly > the most important issue being addressed in this conference, because > behind free speech, lies the most important issue of all--when does > it start, and when does it stop. As a long time lurker (much longer than many of the numerous relatively recent vociferous posters) I *must* speak up. If the dear "Doctor's" posting are indeed a "grand" experiment in newsgroup (or maillist) sociology, then it seems they are akin to experiments in recent history; if the patient dies, so what? There are other lists... While many of you think that the ability of a list to withstand constant spamming is an important issue; the government is busily working to outlaw encryption and privacy, and I fear that much is lost by the side issue of the "how easily can I kill a list". I feel we at a *critical* crossroads in this debate, and one of the more important voices has *very* effectively been silenced. > The military-industrial complex proclaims this necessary for the > purposes of state-security, and denies that it is used in order to keep > their 'sins' from being exposed. (If you believe this, then please > contact me by private email regarding an ocean-front property I have > available in Tucson, AZ. If you act quickly, I will throw in a set > of the Amazing Ginzu Knives as an added bonus.) This is very true, but I cannot understand why you think that the attempt to disrupt and destroy this list a necessary step in the task of resisting this governmental effort. > As far as I am concerned, any CypherPunk who believes that the > socio/politico issues surrounding cryptography are not important > enough to be an integral part of this list is falling into the > same type of trap as those who think that they can become good > cryptographers without becoming good cryptanalysts. Again, I can't understand why "killing the messenger" is advancing the issues of privacy and crypto issues. How does the posting of numerous crude anti-Tim May messages promote personal privacy? > > "In peacetime, a warlike man sets upon himself." -- Nietzsche > "In times of war, a peacelike man sets upon others." > Bubba Rom Dos This seems horribly to describe the current situation. =Bill=

3 2

Re: "Technical data" exemptions in new crypto regs
by Richard L. Field 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In reply to Solveig Bernstein's First Amendment challenge questions: I read the new regs as permitting: (i) publication of source code in paper form (including publications reproduced on microfilm or on prerecorded phonograph records), or in the form of a motion picture film and soundtrack (section 734.3(b)(2)); and, separately, (ii) teaching or discussion of information "about" cryptography (section 744.9). The export of other encryption materials (including the distribution to non-US persons of source or object code on diskettes) is restricted, even if the materials are publicly available "educational information" for release by instruction in catalog courses and associated teaching laboratories of academic institutions (section 734.9). Technical assistance activities that go beyond "mere" teaching or discussion of information about cryptography are restricted, if they show "intent" to aid a foreign person in the development or manufacture, outside the United States, of controlled encryption commodities and software. This is a General Prohibition (see section 736.2(b)(7)(ii)). I think one question to be resolved is: could the "mere" teaching about cryptography (which is okay), *coupled* with distribution of source code in paper form (which is otherwise okay because it is not, by itself, subject to the EAR - see note to section 734.3(b)(2) and (b)(3)), be considered a violation of the EAR because it demonstrates "intent" to aid a foreign person in the development of encryption software? One would hope not (see Bernstein), but the new 734.9 seems to imply that such a combination may be restricted. Thus, a potental First Amendment challenge to the new regs would be a challenge to a restriction on teaching coupled with paper publication/distribution of source code. Another would be a challenge to the restriction on non-paper publication/distribution, whether or not coupled with teaching. - Richard Field (For discussion purposes only. Not legal advice or a legal opinion.) On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:45:44 -0500 (EST) you wrote (to Declan McCullagh): > >What have the new crypto regs done to the "technical data" and the "public >domain" exemptions from ITAR? > >The problem is this: as I understand it, the Commerce Dept. regs exempt >teaching and print presentations generally, but these exemptions do not >apply to "encryption software." > >Does this mean that the exemptions do not apply to *teaching about* >encryption software or *publications about* encryption software? Or *only* >that the exemptions do not apply to diskette-contained source code or object >code. > >In other words, the new regs might completely decontrol teaching and >publication of something like Professor Bernstein's Snuffle. > >On the other hand, the new regs might, like ITAR, restrict teaching and >publication of Snuffle (as well as publication of source code in diskette >format). > >The purpose of the question is to understand whether a First Amendment >challenge to the new regs is a First Amendment challenge to a restriction on >*teaching, publication, and program distribution* or just a challenge to a >restriction on *program distribution.* > > >Solveig Bernstein, Esq. >(202) 789-5274 >(202) 842-3490 (fax) > >Assistant Director of Telecommunications & Technology Studies >Cato Institute >1000 Mass. Ave. NW >Washington, DC 20001

1 0

Re: Quantum computers/Java of a different sort
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Mike McNally <m5(a)vail.tivoli.com> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Quantum computers/Java of a different sort > For all you quantum computer fans, see > > http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/html/970117c.htm > -- > Mike McNally -- Egregiously Pointy -- Tivoli Systems, "IBM" -- Austin Shades of the Infinite Improbability Drive! (cf Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy) Peter Trei trei(a)process.com

1 0

Re: You can now subscr. to the moderated/unmoderated/flames lists
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn wrote: > I don't like to admit to it, but I've practiced baiting for many years This startling announcement ranks right up there at the top of the 'surprise' scale, along with K.D. Lang's announcement that she is gay. (Like the Butch (crew-cut) hairstyle was not a major hint.) By the way, when I espoused my opinion that the moderation announcement's "your suggestions will be considered" was merely political rhetoric, I was offered (and took) a bet of 50,000 electronic porno byte-credits on whether or not I was right. My opponent and I agreed that lack of any serious recognition of the list member's input would be taken as a sign of my supposition being correct. I am of the belief that I have won the bet. Does anyone have any proof to the contrary? Toto

1 0

Arkansas Phone Scramblers, etc.
by John C. Randolph 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just had an interesting exchange with the latest person to take up residence in my bozo filter. I get this message from some clown I've never heard of, sent from AOL, saying that he wants one of these Radio Shack scrambler frobs, and hinting that he'd be willing to pay lots for it. I sent him back a note pointing out, among other things, that I don't know him, he doesn't know me, and that we're talking about buying and selling a frob that at least one set of JBT's doesn't think he should have. I concluded by telling him that I wouldn't sell him one if I had one, that I wouldn't tell him whether I had one, and that if he wants to have a private conversation with someone, he should just get a copy of PGP phone, like everyone else. He sent me a huffy note, saying I'd better learn some diplomacy. So, what do you think guys? Did I just piss off some federal prosecutor who was hoping to body-grab me to a clueless jusrisdiction like Arkansas to try me for crypto-terrorism, or did I piss off another fucking AOL'er? Amused and Torqued at the same time, -jcr

1 0

Re: Dr. Vulis' social engineering "experiment"
by Bill Campbell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca wrote: > If what you say is true, then Dr. DV K's efforts are quite possibly > the most important issue being addressed in this conference, because > behind free speech, lies the most important issue of all--when does > it start, and when does it stop. As a long time lurker (much longer than many of the numerous relatively recent vociferous posters) I *must* speak up. If the dear "Doctor's" posting are indeed a "grand" experiment in newsgroup (or maillist) sociology, then it seems they are akin to experiments in recent history; if the patient dies, so what? There are other lists... While many of you think that the ability of a list to withstand constant spamming is an important issue; the government is busily working to outlaw encryption and privacy, and I fear that much is lost by the side issue of the "how easily can I kill a list". I feel we at a *critical* crossroads in this debate, and one of the more important voices has *very* effectively been silenced. > The military-industrial complex proclaims this necessary for the > purposes of state-security, and denies that it is used in order to keep > their 'sins' from being exposed. (If you believe this, then please > contact me by private email regarding an ocean-front property I have > available in Tucson, AZ. If you act quickly, I will throw in a set > of the Amazing Ginzu Knives as an added bonus.) This is very true, but I cannot understand why you think that the attempt to disrupt and destroy this list a necessary step in the task of resisting this governmental effort. > As far as I am concerned, any CypherPunk who believes that the > socio/politico issues surrounding cryptography are not important > enough to be an integral part of this list is falling into the > same type of trap as those who think that they can become good > cryptographers without becoming good cryptanalysts. Again, I can't understand why "killing the messenger" is advancing the issues of privacy and crypto issues. How does the posting of numerous crude anti-Tim May messages promote personal privacy? > > "In peacetime, a warlike man sets upon himself." -- Nietzsche > "In times of war, a peacelike man sets upon others." > Bubba Rom Dos This seems horribly to describe the current situation. =Bill=

1 0

Re: RSA challenge: is it legal to try?
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > In short, I think it's absolutely foolish to believe that any sort of > workable system could ever have been arranged to patent software, even if > all of the issues above had been addressed fairly. And the reason I asked > for an "innocent" explanation is to give people the benefit of the doubt so > that they could show that the system was working. It isn't, and you know it. Sure the 'system' is working. Software patents were begun as a means for the government to exert control over the direction of software development. It's the same thing as crypto-export regulations. They established a dick-licking order for those who want to whore their way to riches under government rule. So now the quickest way to export your product is to name it 'Crypto Light'. Toto

1 0

Re: RSA challenge: is it legal to try?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:33 PM 1/16/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 08:13 PM 1/14/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>US. Alone, that would have denied non-US patents to RSA. However, such an >>explanation grandly ignores the fact that computer software (let alone >>mathematics in general) was not considered patentable ANYWHERE (?) before >>public-key systems made their appearance in 1976. >... >>I'm still waiting for an "innocent" explanation for the US patent office >>beginning to issue software patents. I don't think there is one. > >The first software patent was Dennis Ritchie's patent on setUID. So what year was that? >Computer security is one area that, if you're going to allow patents >on software at all (which I think are a bad idea, but that's politics) No, it's not JUST politics. It's also (im)practicality. Even if, arguably, software OUGHT TO be patentable, going from a time in which software wasn't patentable to software patentability is essentially impossible. First, it requires (or, at least, ought to require, if they were to do it right...which they didn't) a searchable compilation of all previously existing software ideas and constructs to ensure that obvious or previously-existing ideas were not given patents. Since prior to about 1976 there was no motivation on anyone's part to collect such a database (secrecy being the most useful protection) then it was practically guaranteed that the Patent Office would be unable (or unwilling???) to refuse to grant patents on old ideas. Further, unlike a lot of big-ticket engineering, programming can be done by individuals with a relatively low-cost computer. Many if not most of the software constructs that were later called "patentable" were probably actually invented by people who had no interest in patenting them...and the few greedy ones who did were given the rewards. That's not fair, particularly when they may have been invented during a time in which software patents were known to be impossible to get. Also, since unlike other areas of engineering current programmers didn't have to pay for previous software constructs ("do-loops were free") there should have been distinct limits on the royalties that anybody could ask for in software-patent cases. Another problem is that much of the costs of most software companies are personnel and advertising. Any realistic royalty system (even assuming all other problems were solved) would have to determine what portion of a program's functionality was attributable to a patented concept, which I assert is essentially impossible. Do you charge for execution time? (the guy who patents the "wait loop" would make a fortune!) Length of code? Number of times called? Royalties must, presumably, be limited to a reasonable and practical level, and also (obviously) they may also have to be divided among a number of potential claimants, in the same way that (for instance) a car manufacturer may have to pay royalties on potentially hundreds or even thousands of patents to sell a single car. If no mechanism currently exists to arrive at a fair division of such royalties (about 20 years after the patents for the various encryption systems were filed) , I think it may be presumed that nobody seriously believes that this is possible. In short, I think it's absolutely foolish to believe that any sort of workable system could ever have been arranged to patent software, even if all of the issues above had been addressed fairly. And the reason I asked for an "innocent" explanation is to give people the benefit of the doubt so that they could show that the system was working. It isn't, and you know it. It's not surprising that no REAL LAWYERS (tm) around here were willing to tackle this issue. They know it's all a fraud. >>It also ignores the strong likelihood that the reason for the Patent-Office >>policy change (done, apparently, without benefit of a corresponding law >>change) was because with public-key/RSA there was finally an example of >>software the government wished to deny to the average citizen, >>and the only mechanism (short of secrecy, which was broken) to do so >>was to patent it. > >D,H,R,S, and A didn't _have_ to apply for patents.... >With hardware security products, the NSA has the power to seize and >classify systems which are applying for patents, for no particularly >good reason, and they used to do it often. Actually, I don't think they REALLY "have the power." What I mean by this is simple: Since American patents are supposedly grantable for applications filed up to one year prior, there is no guarantee that they will even see a patent application to grant until long after the cat is out of the bag. For instance, there was >an analog scrambler for CB radios that got its patent applications >seized in about 1980. And most software patent applications for >crypto have involved machinations to avoid getting trapped by this, >like publishing in foreign journals before submitting applications. Why should they have to publish in FOREIGN journals? Like I said before, since up to one year can elapse after disclosure (and, apparently, even longer in the case of the DHM patent, submission to ANY journal, not merely domestic ones, should do to prevent NSA's tricks. (and today, publishing on the Internet should achieve exactly the same results.) Richard Schoeppel commented this way: "Roger Schlafly has made a reasonable case that the DHM patent is invalid because the invention was "published" more than a year before the patent was filed. (He dug up a copy of a preprint they were circulating with a stamped received-date of ?May 1976?.)" What are we to conclude? These sleazebags can't even follow their own rules! Look, I asked for an INNOCENT explanation of software patents. INNOCENT explanations don't include the obvious kind of scams pulled like this. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0