- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Publicly Verifiable Anonymous Voting System
by Arun Mehta 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:53 27/07/96 -0700, JonWienk(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: >Here is the how the voting system works. > >1. All voting information (public keys, ballots, ballot signatures, etc.) is >publicly available via a Web site or other similar means, and can be downloaded ... One problem with such a system is sheer complexity. Even an illiterate person must be convinced of the transparency of the system, i.e. that his/her vote "counts". In the conventional system, where you mark a piece of paper that goes into a locked box watched over by reps of the rival parties, which you can subsequently view being opened and processed, you intuitively understand how the system works. This was one of our arguments (not, admittedly, our strongest) against electronic voting when they sought to introduce it in 1989 for the Indian federal elections -- further details on http://www.cerfnet.com/~amehta/evmsunob.htm Arun Mehta Phone +91-11-6841172, 6849103 amehta(a)cpsr.org http://www.cerfnet.com/~amehta/ finger amehta(a)cerfnet.com for public key

1 0

BOMB PLANS
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, The Sunday San Francisco Examiner had an article about how simple it is to make a pipe bomb. It was syndicated from the Dallas Morning News. In the article a "federal bomb expert" opined: They're probably one of the more common explosive devices that are encountered. That's because the pipe not only provides a container, but fragments into sharapnel." ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Now I don't know what takes to qualify one as a "bomb expert," but the standards must be pretty low. The reason hand grenades look like pineapples is because it's very difficult to get metal to fragment unless it is scored or otherwise predisposed to come apart in little pieces. What I've been told is that a pipe bomb just peals open at it's weakest place and otherwise stays in one piece. Don't know, but that's what I've heard. Makes sense to me. To put the fear of god in the readers the article dutifully chants the following mantra: Detailed instructions for making pipe bombs and other explosive devices are available for sources as varied as anti-government publications [what about GOVERNMENT publications?], pamphlets sold at gun shows and the Internet. Are we surprised? S a n d y P.S. On an odder note, the same paper had an article entitled, "Two-headed baby born in Tijuana." The article reported, "...the child (sic) had been born with two spinal columns and two heads" One of the more bizarre statements was, "It's not clear whether un-named girl--or girls--are Siamese twins." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

8 8

Re: "privatizing" phones?
by Geoffrey C. Grabow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:26 07/28/96 +0200, Remo Pini wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Date: Sun Jul 28 12:24:57 1996 >> Even if they did change the frequency the call was on, >> it would be a simple matter to decode how the frequency >> change was negotiated, and "follow" the call (also easily >> accomplished with cellular calls). Failing that, there is >> a very limited range of frequencies allocated for cordless >> fones, and simply re-scanning for the conversation is a >> trivial inconvenience. //cerridwyn// >> > >Most of those systems do also change the order of the transmitted data, and >that's not limited to a few possibilities. If it's digital, they usually >encrypt it (only weak, but hey, you normally have to find the key real >time!) >> The key doesn't need to be found in real time! You can always record the call and decrypt it later. If the information deals with an event in the future, you could have plenty of time to crack it. G.C.G.

2 1

call your rep
by L Jean Camp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>the Senate commerce committee held its final >>hearing on Burns's bill yesterday with the appearance >>of FBI Director Freeh and Bill Reinsch at Dept of Commerce. >>The Senate committee would like to hold a mark-up on >>the bill (Pro-CODE) next week, but lack the certain votes of the members >>of the committee to do so. >> >>Expressions of support for S. 1726 to critical Democrats >>and Republicans are needed--especially: >> Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, 224-5344; Bill Frist, R-Tennessee >>224-3344; Spencer Abraham, R-Michigan 224-4822; Ernest >>Hollings, D-South Carolina, 224-6121; Daniel Inouye D-Hawaii >>224-3934; Wendell Ford D-Kentucky 224-4343; James Exon, >>D-Nebraska 224-4224; Jay Rockefeller D-West Virginia 224-6472; >>John Kerry D-Massachusetts 224-2742; John Breaux D-Louisiana >>224-4623; Richard Bryan D-Nevada 224-6244; Byron Dorgan >>D-North Darkota 224-2551. >> >>Calls are needed by Tuesday in order to schedule the mark-up. >>

2 1

Re: Secure drive?
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I assume that when you say that "it does", this means that I can access the >encrypted drive from Win95. If so, can you tell me how. I have a 50mb >partition that's encrypted and if I boot to DOS everything works perfectly, >but from Win95, the drive is always encrypted. I've tried entering my >passphrase prior to Win95 loading... no effect. If I try to enter my pp >from a DOS box, it says that the SECTSR isn't loaded, but MEM says that it >is. Any thoughts? Sort of. Open "Control Panel." Open "System." Click the "Performance" tab. Click the <V>irtual Memory radio button. Check/select "Let <m>e specify my own virtual memory settings." Check Di<s>able virtual memory (not recommended). Click the "OK" radio button. Ignore the warning dialog box which appears and click "Yes." Reboot WIN95 and your encrypted partition should be accessible (if you log into it under DOS before loading Windows), and all your drives will be operating at 16-bit speeds. DCF

1 0

Re: Just some comments on what I've read here
by Scottauge＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-07-29 18:28:06 EDT, you write: > It won't be that expensive...lesse....my WAN, for about 5000 > people and 15000 machines, only runs me about $400,000 US > per month. That's just circuit charges, of course... doesn't > include any of the networking equipment or cost of the > machines....is this a troll or what? > I dunno, are you a nob? As I recall I said the expenses where going to be in the switches (or public networks). Plus I'm thinking the most basic services of telnet, ftp, smtp, and some nnp... Plug two network boards (whether ethernet or X.25 or ATM) into a UNIX computer and you have a router. You cannot tell me that hardware (minus the hardcore ATM/X.25 stuff) is not inexpensive enough to put something together. At least for a few thousand users all sophisticated enough to know how to install a UNIX or Linux system... I'm talking about a club here - not a replacement for the internet. Open up your mind, dude....

1 0

Re: Just some comments on what I've read here
by Ryan Russell/SYBASE 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

And my point is that you obviously have no clue about running a sizeable net. It looks like you are trying to propose Fidonet. Go ask one of them how much it costs for them to run a node. Any sort of dialup service is pretty much going to limit you to store-and-forward items. Any full-time links attempting to mesh "a few thousand" users is going to quickly exceed my paltry $400K. You might want consider using the main Internet, and looking into encryption... Ryan ---------- Previous Message ---------- To: Ryan.Russell, cypherpunks cc: From: Scottauge @ aol.com @ smtp Date: 07/29/96 06:49:45 PM Subject: Re: Just some comments on what I've read here In a message dated 96-07-29 18:28:06 EDT, you write: > It won't be that expensive...lesse....my WAN, for about 5000 > people and 15000 machines, only runs me about $400,000 US > per month. That's just circuit charges, of course... doesn't > include any of the networking equipment or cost of the > machines....is this a troll or what? > I dunno, are you a nob? As I recall I said the expenses where going to be in the switches (or public networks). Plus I'm thinking the most basic services of telnet, ftp, smtp, and some nnp... Plug two network boards (whether ethernet or X.25 or ATM) into a UNIX computer and you have a router. You cannot tell me that hardware (minus the hardcore ATM/X.25 stuff) is not inexpensive enough to put something together. At least for a few thousand users all sophisticated enough to know how to install a UNIX or Linux system... I'm talking about a club here - not a replacement for the internet. Open up your mind, dude....

1 0

You know it's getting late when...
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Last night on (as I recall) the CBS evening news, I heard a comment by a reporter that further reinforces my opinion that "they just don't get it." The reporter was talking about terrorism versus the amount of "security" applied, and he was pointing out that Americans know the bombing had occurred in Saudi Arabia "despite the fact that political opposition there is practically illegal." (fairly close quote) Huh? "despite the fact that political opposition there is practically illegal"? "Despite"? Suggesting, apparently, that the more oppressive the rule, the LESS likely violent opposition is expected to be? I suggest a rewording: "the bombing in Saudi Arabia occurred BECAUSE OF the fact that political opposition there is practically illegal." Ostensibly, one of the reasons for having a free and fair political system is so people will not be inclined to throw bombs and plot violent revolution. Grandly ignoring this, that reporter seems to take the diametrically opposite tack: A totalitarian government can best avoid bombings and violence. Where do these people learn their political theory? One frequent line among reporters is that terrorism used to always be something that occurred elsewhere, not in America. Yet another thing that "never" seemed to happen is when nominally patriotic, even conservative people talk of throwing out the government due to oppression. (Such an activity is thought of as primarily the function of the young, usually the liberal, as in the civil rights and anti-war demonstrations of the 1960's.) I wonder when it will occur to these reporters that there may actually be a connection there somewhere! If anyone out there still doubts that the time for my "Assassination Politics" idea will never come, I claim that it's later than you think. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: International Standards
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 29 Jul 96 at 6:38, Duncan Frissell wrote: > Mr. Freeh, [..] > clearly impossible -- but to prevent such high-level code > from becoming the international standard, with architecture [..] > Looks like the fibbies (FBI) haven't been reading the "Proceedings of the > IETF". Strong crypto is already an international standard. Methinks they regard as international standards what's built into something like MacOS or Windows. 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

RE: A Libertine Question
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:19 PM 7/29/96 EST, jbugden(a)smtplink.alis.ca wrote: >I suggest that it is more economical to provide for a minimum quality >of life- if only as a form of insurance for myself. Think: Rawls. > >The alternative is to have garbage collectors to "take care of" those that fall >behind. Think: Soylent Green. > >Better twisted than bitter, as Tiny Tim Cratchet used to say. > >James But many of us believe that coercive "solutions" to life's problems whether right or wrong are no longer possible because technology is in the process of making individuals and small groups "ungovernable" by force. If this is true, whatever the morality of coercive solutions, they will not be able to be applied to the real world. Thus if we designed the Internet (Ver.6) rather than Louis Freeh, his opinion of our design is meaningless. Perhaps the communitarians in the audience will have to fall back on disfellowship as the ultimate sanction (like the early Christians). They won't be able to apply any more advanced weaponry. DCF

1 0