- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Tech: Truth about Canon Copiers (fwd)
by jim＠Tadpole.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> If you use non-chemically whitened paper and put MICR (magnetic) toner > into the copier, you can VERY EASILY fool the change machines. Trust me > on this one :) Since 1990, US currency in denominations of $20 and up has had a small, metal-like strip buried in the left-hand side. If you hold the bill up to the light, and look for a verticle line running approx through the 'mint mark', you'll find it. Tearing the top of the bill around the line will let you remove this little bit of foil. The foil is lettered with the denomination of the bill. Collect 'em all! Of course, you don't put twenties in the change machine. Ob (weak) crypto reference: Has anyone else noticed that the NSA has plans to build a largish installation in Dallas in '95? Something like 6 *big* Cray machines. I have it on good word that E-Systems is involved. Jim

1 0

RE: Info on L.Detweiler
by James Still 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Douglas Barnes digs up: >Here's some info folks might appreciate (all numbers area code >303, unless otherwise noted): > [ a whole bunch of phone numbers from everyone and their brothers...] >I had a very productive talk with Gary Edelen who (like me) is not pleased >that state funds are going to subsidize someone's highly disruptive, insane, >quasi-religious rants; he's contacting Scott Douglas, who is apparently the >administrator of record for the lance subdomain. > [...] >Notes: >He is no longer listed with student information or as a staff/faculty >member, nor is he listed with 303 directory; there is no L. Detweiler >listed in Fort Collins anymore, or in Denver/Boulder, although there >is a Jeff Detweiler listed in the 1991 phone book; a call to 498-8278 >got an answering machine, 491-5893 forwards to the Kater Laboratory >Optical Core. > [ more Magnum P.I. daring-do information...] I find it very ironic that a list dedicated to the preservation of personal privacy, seeks to exterpigate one of its own through White Supremacist tactics of hassling the "enemy's" employer. I recall a week ago or so, someone posting something to the effect of: "There's a lot to learn from the Nazi methods of rooting out Communists...." Disturbing coincidence or Illumanati plot? Perhaps. Then again, maybe its just a mob mentality to storm the castle and burn the Frankenstein monster. No thanks, keep the torch (you'll need it, those castle's get very dark at night). Its none of my business whether or not L. Det wants to post "quasi-religious" rants or even if he wants to leech off of alt.erotica every day with his "state-funded" account. My business is the preservation of the freedom of speech, even if I don't agree with the speaker... I apologize for seizing the moral high ground in so smug a fashion, but the precedent that this behaivor is setting is too disturbing to ignore. Now, continue to pave and flaaaame away me paranoid kin....! --- still(a)kailua.colorado.edu ---------------------------------------------

1 0

BAN Detweiler(WHAT A LOON)
by nobody＠pmantis.berkeley.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I THINK ITS TIME TO TAKE DETWEILER OFF THE MAILING LIST, HE IS CLEARLY ABUSING THE PRIVELGE OF HAVING US AS AN AUDIENCE. ANY OTHERS ON THIS SIDE OF THE ISSUE?? ANON

7 7

Identities vs. Accounts
by an31122＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fellow cpunks, The schemes proposed by Detweiler et al. can only verify that a real person OWNS an account, not who's USING it. We can only track a message as far as the computer or account from which it was sent. There is simply no way to verify that the person who sent the message is actually the owner of the account. I've seen otherwise intelligent and responsible people tape their passwords right onto the front of their terminals. We can concievably prevent the creation of fraudulent accounts, but not the improper usage of valid ones! "WiReD" article aside, it's possible that Tim May, Eric Hughes, and Nick Szabo are real people who have never HEARD of the cypherpunks, and don't know that their accounts are being used to post here. Detweiler might be plotting to kill the wrong person entirely. The Tentacles laugh heartily at that when it made the news. It could be Henry Kissenger and the Queen of England who are behind the whole thing (as Mr. Larouche has suggested). Why assume that ANYONE is telling the truth? Perhaps Detweiler itself is a creation of the CONSPIRACY intended to throw us off the trail. Back to the real world: Personally, I let my wife send mail from my account. She simply dosen't use the computer enough to warrant creating a new account. As far as I know, she sends only to her friends and parents. She may, however, be posting in my name to alt.sex.bestiality. I've no way to know, and there is no possible way for the people of that group to know because my account is valid and I use it. If they try to backtrack and arrest me because messages apparently from me have advoated killing anyone who posts to the list, I can convincingly deny any knowledge of it. More generally, what if I keep my computer on my desk at home and somebody breaks in and steals it? If, by chance, the person who ends up with it knows anything about PGP, then my key is compromised. If I'm on vacation when it happens then it may go undetected for weeks. Let's say that I send all of my mail from my Apple Newton, but one day on the subway someone hits me on the head and takes it. They can then use the thing to send mail for probably two days before I can get all of my accounts cancelled. What if I don't use the thing much and don't even realize that it's been stolen for two weeks? THE POINT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

2 1

Re: BAN Detweiler(WHAT A LOON)
by owen＠autodesk.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: nobody(a)pmantis.berkeley.edu > Subject: BAN Detweiler(WHAT A LOON) > > I THINK ITS TIME TO TAKE DETWEILER OFF THE MAILING LIST, > HE IS CLEARLY ABUSING THE PRIVELGE OF HAVING US AS AN AUDIENCE. > ANY OTHERS ON THIS SIDE OF THE ISSUE?? > ANON one psuedonym, one vote .. I assume :-) I vote we keep Detweiler , and get rid of you. ( justa joke! :-) LUX ./. owen

1 0

ENCRYPTED FILE SYSTEM
by Mike Ingle 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"thomas.hughes(a)chrysalis.org" wrote: >Subj: ENCRYPTED FILE SYSTEMS >>> ObCrypt: I'm looking for info on designing a distributed encrypted >>> filesystem. Any pointers? >in the "PC" world, look for DISKREET (with Norton's Utilities). >it simple, "Stacker"-like, and user friendly. >it seems to offer "feeble DES" > and "even more feeble DES" >it's speed is almost negligable when in use. > (which doesn't say very much for the "stength" of the encryption.) No, don't use Diskreet. Use my Secure Drive. Beta now if you want it, and release with source soon. Uses IDEACFB, protects a hd partition and floppies, takes only 2K ram, and is very fast. Reasonably user-friendly. You have to create a D: partition to use on a hard drive. >If the NSA is paranoid over PGP, what will they think of plug in pirate >PROMS for USR Couriers that will create obscenely secure connections? > (although the encrypted connections might not fly along at full speed, > that tis but a small price to pay...) What's the CPU in a Courier? Is the hardware well enough documented to hack something like this up? I once burned a rom for a friend's courier, from a file which he had, to give it V.32 instead of just HST which it previously had. Not sure where the file came from. An SRAM also had to be installed. --- MikeIngle(a)delphi.com

3 2

Re: Privacy != right?
by owen＠autodesk.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Only under certain, very limited, circumstances, and again this is not a > right but an entitlement, since it by definition infringes a right. If > you don't "get" the distinction, try on this simple example: you have a > right to swing your arm (and please note that it, like the right to > privacy, is another of those rights not specifically enumerated, but > covered by the 9th Amendment), but I have an entitlement to not be hit in > the face by your swinging arm. My entitlement supercedes your right, but > only under certain circumstances (e.g. when my face is in imminent danger > of being struck by your arm, or has already been struck - assault, and > battery respectively, if intentional - but I cannot use my entitlement to > demand that you _never_ swing your arm) Ok, but this is a limited view. How about the individual who stands N+1 units away from you, where N is the length of their arm, and repeatedly swings at you. Even though you both know that the +1 satsifys your *entitlement to not be hit*, it certainly seems to be an assault of some sort. So, OK, you have the right to turn away, but now the attacker moves to a new position, maybe only N +.5 this time, and each time you move he countermoves. You are still in no imminent *danger* . But you are being subjected to unwatned harrasement. In such a case it is reasonable to demand your privacy from being subjected to the harrasers atentions. Now add to this the factor that the perpetrator hides behind a pseudonym, and has taken measures to insure he escapes any accountability for the hostility and willfull harrasement. He uses multiple accounts to bypass Kill files and filters, while rationalising his campaign as his right of free speach, god-granted vigilantism against crypto-sinners, and merely a graphic representation of his humble opinion. this is essentially what has been going on in soc.motss for years. This is essentially what is going on in cypherpunks with the Detweiler situation. I am seeing exactly the same range of individual responses to Detweiler as i see in soc.motss to *dark knight* and *artimus* and *Ralf*. I don't think this is a coincidence. On cypherpunks, the list management has the right to cut him out of the list, and thus stop him from receiving list-messages. However, he can still mail to the list and continue to offer his opinions on it, even if he is not a recipient. Sorta like standing on one side of a wall and lobbing grenades over the top. Trust me, I understand the progression of these things, i've seen it happen over and over. I have grown a thick skin, but I also keep notes. So OK , the list management can hack filters to *not re-transmit* messages from his account, getting past such filters is easy. In fact forging account adresses is easy, so the next step is to send his opinions from forged adresses, say - as Hal Finney, Or Perry Metzger. There is no accountability for this sort of thing, and until there is these systems are unsuitable for anything but conversation. I happen to want more than conversation out of my network connectivity, and I recognise that there is a price for everything. _rhetorical question ... no need to answer to anyone but yourself..._ Do you want gummint types setting the fee schedules, or are you gonna get busy .... LUX ./. owen

1 0

MISC; self terminating thread
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: an12070(a)anon.penet.fi (T.C.Hughs) From: an12070(a)anon.penet.fi (Eric May) From: an12070(a)anon.penet.fi (S.Boxx) From: an12070(a)anon.penet.fi (L. Detweiler) From: an12070(a)anon.penet.fi (The Flaming Hypocrite!)

1 0

Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?
by norm＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

de Sola Pool's book 'Technologies of Freedom' gives an excellent description of issues of monoloplies and their motivations. He describes a scheme that I think was adopted in Boston. The scheme was to grant a cable monolopy but require the cable owner to lease half of the cable capacity to a competitor at some prespecified price. There was thus competition between suppliers of programs. The arguments for a natural monopoly were accommodated (Space on the phone pole, cost of laying cable) and yet competition was achieved. That was one of the few books that I have read that actually changed some of my opinions on economics. The author described why rational, non corrupt regulators might grant such a monopoly. He did not imply that such monopolies were not corrupt.

1 0

Clipper Chip questionair
by Ammar H. Dashti 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am a student at St. Edwards University and currently working on a senior paper on the Clipper Chip. I have this questionair to ask who ever is interested in this subject to answer some questions. this is some kind of survey. If anyone is interested please answer the following questions and e-mial your answer to me before this Monday (11/22). I really appriciate your help (thank you) 1. What is your position on the Clintons adminstrations proposal about the Clipper Chip (pro or against)? and Why? 2. If you oppese it. the proposal is a voulantary one why do you oppose it? and if it's going to cut down on crime (as the government claims) why do you oppose it? 3. If you agree with it. what do you have to say about it being a bottleneck for fast systems? and what about the potential abuse by the Feds.? once again I appriciate the help. PLEASE SEND YOUR ANSWERS TO THE ADDRESS BELOW -- Ammar H. Dashti (512)-444-0664 dashti(a)acad.stedwards.edu ooooooooo ooooooooooooo oo[ -- -- ]oo \ * * / \ ___ / \ / !

1 0