- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Kyl's internet gambling bill
by John Kelsey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [ To: cypherpunks ## Date: 10/30/97 ## Subject: Kyl's internet gambling bill ] >Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:31:21 -0800 >From: Steve Schear <azur(a)netcom.com> >Subject: Re: Kyl S-474 Anti-Gambling Bill passes committee [Stuff about Kyl's anti-internet gambling bill.] >Prediction: this bill will be about as effective as >outlawing spring. >About 20% of gamblers are 'problem' types who now regularly >game illegally and could careless about the penalties. Once >all on-line casinos offer real and 'play-money' wagering and >strong crypto it will be neigh impossible for the Feds to >know or prove which players are wagering real money and >therefore gambling. Once Onion and Crowds routers are >operational and widespread the Feds won't even be able to >find the casinos, and even if they do they may not be able >to shut them down (especially if they are built in a >distributed fasion). I always find these laws entertaining. In Missouri, we have state-run gambling in the lottery system, and state-licenced gambling on the riverboat casinos. Our Attorney General has been very vocal about shutting down internet casinos, to protect Missouri's citizens from being exploited. His concern for the welfare of problem gamblers in our state is touching. Odd that he isn't worried about those same citizens being taken advantage of by the in-state operations. Of course, the real issue here isn't about protecting citizens from themselves, or even about keeping citizens from being cheated by the electronic equivalent of weighted dice. It's about protecting the financial interests of those who now benefit from having local gambling monopolies. The state gets quite a bit of money from the lottery, and the companies that have invested in building riverboat casinos here are surely concerned about potential competition via the internet. The cities that have riverboat casinos typically get some part of the money made from them, which nicely brings those city governments into line. Presumably, something similar is happening with various states' Indian Reservations opening casinos. It's an interesting side-point that really anonymous communications and payment systems applied to gambling systems mean not only that *governments* can't shut down competing gambling schemes, but also that organized crime can't shut them down, whether through influencing corrupt governments to try to shut them down, or through direct action. Ob Crypto: There are cryptographic gambling protocols that can be verified (given some set of assumptions about underlying operations) to be fair. Thus, it's possible for a gambling operation to make their client software freely available in source, and allow people to see what it does and review it for fairness. If you find a reviewer or two you trust, you can ask them to digitially sign the executable they got when they compiled the code, and refuse to use any other code. This gives you a level of certainty that you're not being cheated by weighted dice that you simply can't get in physical casinos. (Sure, government agencies inspect those casinos, but the inspectors aren't incorruptible, and they can't be everywhere at once.) For a simple example, consider a situation where Alice and Bob need to agree on a shared seed. Assume they already have established a secure (encrypted and authenticated) session. They can easily generate a new shared seed by doing something like this: 1. Alice generates random R_0 and sends hash(R_0) to Bob. 2. Bob generates random R_1 and sends hash(R_1) to Alice. 3. Alice sends R_0 to Bob. 4. Bob sends R_1 to Alice. 5. Alice and Bob each generate their shared seed, R_0 XOR R_1. If the hash function doesn't leak information about its inputs, and if it is collision-resistant, then this protocol should work. If either party generates a random number, then the resulting seed is random, regardless of the other party's input. (You still have to work out administrative issues, like what happens when communications fail conveniently just after Alice sends Bob R_0, but these are easy enough to solve.) >--Steve --John Kelsey, Counterpane Systems, kelsey(a)counterpane.com PGP 2.6 fingerprint = 4FE2 F421 100F BB0A 03D1 FE06 A435 7E36 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNFje6UHx57Ag8goBAQEsZQP/TWqpL70gThhETuqDlrTJsCCy5PeTMNte t0tzg8fwPFK3cESSN+5ndRAjUXmdS8dmNZW1U8RcDFpH8YRd1uAfJ4CdmMrK8zgk OGcegYoSDgwtdLw43Zslx88nl7OgkfvyQqzZZmDkWwyXn0g1RMLcTVt8nyccm6O+ WPH3VLc+7Ho= =H+YB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --John Kelsey, Counterpane Systems, kelsey(a)counterpane.com PGP 2.6 fingerprint = 4FE2 F421 100F BB0A 03D1 FE06 A435 7E36

1 0

Re: Clinton's Bigger Gun Ban
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 11/2/97 11:14 AM, Tim May (tcmay(a)got.net) passed this wisdom: [snip] >Some in the gun community are vilifying Olyarms for introducing this OA-93 >"assault pistol" (the name often applied to politically incorrect pistols >like this). As if Olyarms should have been cowed into not introducing a >product out of fear that Clinton would abuse his authority to ban Chinese >ammo. I would not villify them, but I would wonder if they considered that aspect when they decided to market the weapon. >> One thing though, 7.62x39 really could not be compared to the 5.56 >>NATO, its really more potent out to 2-300 meters; it is still a .30 >>cal vs 5.56 NATOs .223, but its far less potent than 7.62 NATO >>(7.62x54). The 7.62x39 was the standard caliber of ComBloc weapons for >>several decades, most specifically the AK-47, AKM-44 (sniper weapon), >>and SKS carbine. I think the Dragunov sniper system used a more potent >>cartridge. > >I've never owned anything in 7.62x39. I hear the SKS rifles are pretty good >for $150, or whatever, and a lot of people have bought them. To me they >look a little crude. And since I can afford things out of the AR-15 line.... Having faced down the SKS carbine in Nam on a couple of occasions, I can say its a rugged built and seemingly idiot proof weapon of reasonable accuracy out to 2-300 meters tops. Many versions come equipped with a three-fluted bayonette thats considerably longer than what we used and its *most* impressive when some guy comes out of the brush with one in your direction ... I got a chance to examine the blade from a few inches when I deflected his thrust and delivered a blow of my own ... I would just a soon have remained in blissful ignorance of the details ... <sigh> >(Debate rages in rec.guns and elsewhere about the relative merits of the >cartridges. I certainly see more variants of the AR-15 here in America, >more use by tactical and law enforcement teams, and more accessories. But >maybe I'm not looking in the right places.) The 7.62x39 really isn't much of a cartridge, its not potent enough to justify its size, 7.62x54 is more potent and its not small enough to capitalize on its wimpiness, 5.56 NATO delivers as much oomph in much less size. It is relatively simple to appreciate the size difference. When the standard issue service rifle was the M-14 (7.62x54 NATA) the standard load for a soldier was six(6) magazines of twenty plus the seventh in the rifle. When the M-16 became the standard service rifle, the same ammo load weight permitted twenty (20) magazines of twenty plus a twenty-first in the rifle. 140 rounds versus 420 rounds - biiigggg difference >One of the more interesting images I ever saw was a photo in one of the gun >mags of a friendly meeting in the U.S. between Eugene Stoner, principal >designer of the AR-15 (the M-16 in its military version) and Mikhail >Kalashnikov, whose name needs no further explanation. > >I suppose tree-hugging peaceniks would be aghast at a meeting between these >two merchants of death. I, being an antigovernment type, was nevertheless >impressed. I too was quite impressed with that meeting, but not surprising. I brought a prisoner in once, an NVA regular, a major, and spent several days in the field with him before we could get lifted out. He spoke excellant English and wonderful education and a wry wit. I found I related better to him than I did to most of the upper ranks in the 1st MarDiv in DaNang ... almost had half a mind to say 'screw the suits' and let him go. Of course therein lies the problem of 'the suits' ... so long as they can get us to think of the enemy as 'gooks' or 'ragheads' or 'krauts' they can con us into killing them ... but as soon as you realize they have wives and kids and jobs and bills and neighbors and aunts and uncles and nephews, in short, are just like use save for the cut of their uniform ... its gets a lot harder to see just why you should kill them (unless of course they are pointing a gun at you!) Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "The strongest evidence of intelligent life on other planets is that they haven't come here yet.' -- from somewhere on The Net

1 0

Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> > Date: Wed, 04 Jun 97 23:46:16 -0500 > Subject: Re: Webpage picketing (fwd) > Well this is why I had wanted to set the analogies aside. There are some > real diferences between cyberspace and your metaspace analogy of the > picket line. In cyberspace there is no sidewalk for your picket to stand > and for me to pay as little or as much attention as I wish. But there is, the publicly funded routers on the publicly funded network which are handling public traffic sitting in nice little queues just waiting to be processed. Perhaps a slightly more complicated setup might make it clearer. Consider that we have some length of fiber laying from Chicago to Salt Lake City. That fiber is fully owned/funded by the federal government. The two routers on the end of the cable are also fully owned. Now from those routers extends another network cable that goes to fully privately owned networks. Now in Salt Lake City there is a young 14 year old girl that just took an at home pregnancy test. It turned up positive and she has pretty much lost it. Now in Chicago there is a webpage for an abortion clinic. Her sister lives in Chicago. The girl gets on her trusty little bit-pusher and proceeds to contact that page from a lookup done in Yahoo. Now at this point her parents still think that what you don't know can't hurt you and her sister has a vistor for a few days that summer. Now ask yourself, does a anti-abortion group have any claim to providing that young girl alternate information that is not pro-abortion? Perhaps this will better exemplify the demarcation I am making. I admit it is a thin line, but that is all it takes. > A more closer analogy between cyberspace and metaspace is that your > picketors are not standing off to the side but are blocking the door and > the only way I can enter is to read their signs first. This is the point > where your picketors have oversteped the bounds of their 1st Amendment > rights. While the have the right to picket infront of the store they > cannot interfere with the comming and goings of the customers. The has > been well tested in the courts. The problem with extending the picket > analogy to cyberspace is there are no sidewalks. It's all or nothing. > Either you are blocking the door or you are not Not at all, blocking implies a stoppage NOT a delay. I suggest you sit outside an abortion clinic when the picketers are there. I assure you they are up close and personal. The old ruling of 15ft. seperation was over-turned just this year I believe. It is true that they may not block you but they are allowed to delay your journey slightly with civil coverage. I further belive the court would look at the nature of the Internet and the structure of the web and determine that a single page at the very beginning or perhaps a small splash screen first would not be an unwarranted imposition. I want to make it clear, I am a strict Constitutionalist. I don't see the government having the delegated authority to spend any public money on the Internet, human cloning, BATF, DEA, etc. I believe strongly that such enterprises are best left fully in the state and individuals care. I most definitely believe that were the 9th and 10th Amendment interpreted and used actively we would see a massive decline in government intervention and as a consequence lower taxes. _______________________________________________________________________ | | | Speak the truth, but leave immediately after. | | | | Slovenian Proverb | | | | Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com | | The Armadillo Group www.ssz.com | | Austin, Texas, USA 512-451-7087 | |_______________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199706060440.XAA08064(a)einstein.ssz.com>, on 06/05/97 at 11:40 PM, Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> said: >Forwarded message: >> From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> >> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 97 23:46:16 -0500 >> Subject: Re: Webpage picketing (fwd) >> Well this is why I had wanted to set the analogies aside. There are some >> real diferences between cyberspace and your metaspace analogy of the >> picket line. In cyberspace there is no sidewalk for your picket to stand >> and for me to pay as little or as much attention as I wish. >But there is, the publicly funded routers on the publicly funded network >which are handling public traffic sitting in nice little queues just >waiting to be processed. >Perhaps a slightly more complicated setup might make it clearer. Consider >that we have some length of fiber laying from Chicago to Salt Lake City. >That fiber is fully owned/funded by the federal government. The two >routers on the end of the cable are also fully owned. Now from those >routers extends another network cable that goes to fully privately owned >networks. Now in Salt Lake City there is a young 14 year old girl that >just took an at home pregnancy test. It turned up positive and she has >pretty much lost it. Now in Chicago there is a webpage for an abortion >clinic. Her sister lives in Chicago. The girl gets on her trusty little >bit-pusher and proceeds to contact that page from a lookup done in Yahoo. >Now at this point her parents still think that what you don't know can't >hurt you and her sister has a vistor for a few days that summer. >Now ask yourself, does a anti-abortion group have any claim to providing >that young girl alternate information that is not pro-abortion? Well yes & no. :) Yes they have the same free speech right as anyone else. Do they have the right to force anyone to listen to their speech or force them to distribute it no. They can put up there own web page and if yahoo choses to they can provide links to it (thouhg yahoo is not required to do so). Anyone intrested in listening to what they have to say is free to go to their web site just as anyone is free to go to the abortion site and read that info. The anti-abortion group should not be required to present the views of their opposition and the same for the abortion group. >Perhaps this will better exemplify the demarcation I am making. I admit >it is a thin line, but that is all it takes. >> A more closer analogy between cyberspace and metaspace is that your >> picketors are not standing off to the side but are blocking the door and >> the only way I can enter is to read their signs first. This is the point >> where your picketors have oversteped the bounds of their 1st Amendment >> rights. While the have the right to picket infront of the store they >> cannot interfere with the comming and goings of the customers. The has >> been well tested in the courts. The problem with extending the picket >> analogy to cyberspace is there are no sidewalks. It's all or nothing. >> Either you are blocking the door or you are not >Not at all, blocking implies a stoppage NOT a delay. I suggest you sit >outside an abortion clinic when the picketers are there. I assure you >they are up close and personal. The old ruling of 15ft. seperation was >over-turned just this year I believe. It is true that they may not block >you but they are allowed to delay your journey slightly with civil >coverage. I further belive the court would look at the nature of the >Internet and the structure of the web and determine that a single page at >the very beginning or perhaps a small splash screen first would not be an >unwarranted imposition. Well down here in Pensacola where we like to shoot abortion doctors I beleive that there is a 50' seperation (other side of the street). I don't know how the courts would rule but from past rulling against picketors interfering with the customers of a business I would tend to dissagree. To be honest I am not up on which way the wind is blowing in the courts on this issue. I do feel that the delay is unconstutional. It is where the fine line between your and my 1st amendment rights cross. The size and amount of delay is irrelevant from a constitutional standpoint (can't be a little bit pregnet can't be a little bit unconstitional). This is where are disagreement over the picket analogy rest. Inoreder for the picket analogy to be extended to cyberspace it requires me to download someone's elses speech before I can download the speech that I want to hear. In metaspace there is a sidewalk for the picketers to stand and I can pass them by without slowing down never hearing what they have to say. Here localy I have them well trained, when they see my vette they know not to block the driveway as I will not slow down for them (actually the sound of the 427 is enought to get them moving off to the side). >I want to make it clear, I am a strict Constitutionalist. I don't see the >government having the delegated authority to spend any public money on >the Internet, human cloning, BATF, DEA, etc. I believe strongly that such >enterprises are best left fully in the state and individuals care. I most >definitely believe that were the 9th and 10th Amendment interpreted and >used actively we would see a massive decline in government intervention >and as a consequence lower taxes. Never questioned it. :) - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~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://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBM5elpY9Co1n+aLhhAQHj2wQAxcypN4AERgmHy1X5aDZI9/vMxKfXiQrG REgPV2inTnatWf05u6QWTyG8FjQecIQCSFyNa3OCjDU17u1vqjN91lvo+K3jtotV f88jkE4OSNzEZVKCZ0FjpWVECvFk1cpKgqQKtH4UFUmf04NDxgQ8nNFXu0cESA16 YchbsjWz7js= =Krwo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[ANNOUNCE] Phil Zimmermann on recent FUD and PGP 5.0 plans
by Dave Del Torto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A message from our Fearless Leader... dave ................................. cut here ................................. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Last month, Pretty Good Privacy Inc went through a reorganization in its top management. We were spending too much money, too fast. Tom Steding was replaced by Phil Dunkelberger as the president of PGP, and I handed over the chairman title to Jonathan Seybold, who had been, with me, the original cofounder of the company. Jonathan is devoting his time to the business side of things, while I am focussing my attention on my role as chief technology officer. I have seen some speculation in some usenet newsgroups that these changes were in some way connected with the fact that PGP was recently sued by RSA Data Security over some dispute regarding royalties for use of the RSA patent, which PGP holds a license to. Let me set the record straight on this. There are sound business reasons why this shuffling of top management occurred at PGP, and these reasons are known to all of our employees. The RSA lawsuit against PGP is absolutely not one of the reasons, not even remotely. I don't think shuffling top management is a likely reaction for any company to take in response to a lawsuit, even if the lawsuit had merit, which this one does not. We fully expect the RSA matter to be resolved in arbitration proceedings, in our favor. I know that it is common practice for some companies to issue statements to "spin" the story about certain events, sometimes at the expense of truth. This makes a lot of people understandably skeptical about such explanations. I do have responsibilities toward my company, but no one could get me to deny a truth about the reasons for the restructuring. The truth is, the restructuring had absolutely nothing at all to do with the RSA lawsuit. I would now like to announce that we will be releasing PGP 5.0 in mid-June. It's in beta release right now on our web page (www.pgp.com) In keeping with my own dedication to personal freedom and privacy, we will be releasing a freeware version for noncommercial use through MIT's web site (web.mit.edu/pgp) just like in the old days before the company was formed. And we do plan to publish the full PGP source code for Mac, Windows 95, and Linux. There are a lot of new exciting features, including automatic key lookups from remote key servers on the Internet, which will likely result in the rapid growth of a ready-made nationwide PGP public-key infrastructure, on an unprecedented scale. We are also encouraging the migration to new public key algorithms in addition to RSA, namely the NIST Digital Signature Standard (DSS), as well as Diffie-Hellman (Elgamal) keys. We expect most of the new users to be using these new algorithms instead of RSA, in part because they offer new features, better performance, and better security for the same key sizes. I hope that you will all join me in this opportunity to move to these new algorithms, allowing everyone to finally enjoy the use of public key cryptography without the encumberances of patents. Philip Zimmermann Chief Technology Officer, PGP Inc. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBM5WoZWV5hLjHqWbdAQGaxgP/UM+i7Pz38x68zdWVOsTrQVepa+0FUndC NkvTi5iMTC9up7HJgleXMWuAB00qVB8XlC1/6oSx4Ot+gTecu0wXgNG/l8LXFBAo YYxlPhR497fvKfnWXATkJ3jQJAQbACHXzh7Wycc1MGq+46o6+CkECrUvUs8//KQT toJMdfVJEVA= =ywNo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: JIWAR Registration
by William Church 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Confirmed

1 0

Re: JIWAR Registration
by William Church 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Confirmed with username cypherpunk1

1 0

Re: Webpage picketing
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 06 Jun 97 00:24:59 -0500, "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> said: >Well down here in Pensacola where we like to shoot abortion doctors I >beleive that there is a 50' seperation (other side of the street). Actually, this law was lobbied for by Zeiss Optical. They're trying to increase sales of rifle scopes.

3 2

Who subscribes to the list?
by ghio＠temp0093.myriad.ml.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If you're worried that someone might find out who is subscribed to the list by querying some of the majordomos, don't bother. I already have a list of all your IP addresses. Sendmail has a nice feature which checks all the sender or recipient addresses by doing DNS lookups on them. My nameserver is watching you. :) P.S. I'm sure none of you would be foolish enough to use penet-style remailers which do not encrypt the message headers.

6 6

No Subject
by SHIVAANI KUMAR 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

UNSUBSCRIBE cypherpunks

1 0