- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Cypherpunks Reported:
by Stanton McCandlish 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <tmpCrIDG5.364(a)netcom.com>, <tmp(a)netcom.com> wrote: >austin ziegler (fantome(a)delphi.com) wrote: > >: Again, the reporter calls cypherpunks "a largely >: anonymous group of programmers," a "sinister" depiction. I see cypherpunks >: as being brazenly *open* (for the most part) about the fact that they >: despise Clipper and Skipjack. And while I *can* program, I am not a >: programmer, per se ... what about those of us who are cypherpunks because we >: value our privacy? > >I certainly haven't run into very many self-proclaimed cypherpunks. [hand raised here] >they >are pretty dense on the cypherpunk list (cypherpunks(a)toad.com) but are >far more diluted when you shine a light on them out here in Usenet. >sort of like running cockroaches. Puh-lease. Lets excerise a little basic logic here, Boxx. If the cypherpunks list is a list for cypherpunks, don't you think you'd find a lot of them there? And if, perchance, the cypherpunks are not an overwhelming majority of the net.population, don't you think you'd expect them to be "diluted" on the net at large? Come now, the same dilution argument can be made for archers, or dance instructors, or finger-painting fanciers. I don't think the cockroach metaphor is justified in any of these cases.

1 0

C-punx Corallary (sp?)
by cjl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If a thread on the C-punx list lasts long enough, the initials L.D. appear shortly before the invocation of the N*zis, usually posted by L.D. himself -) (blind lemon smiley) C. J. Leonard ( / "DNA is groovy" \ / - Watson & Crick <cjl(a)welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> / \ <-- major groove ( \ Finger for public key \ ) Strong-arm for secret key / <-- minor groove Thumb-screws for pass-phrase / )

1 0

How do *I* use PGP?
by TheElusiveMatthew 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It has been my belief that there isn't an effective way for me to use PGP, but with all the hubbub, I thought it might be worthwhile to verify this. My internet access is through a personal account provided by my employer. It is on a machine used exclusively by employees of the University of Illinois (no student accounts). My primary access to this account is through my IBM xt (dos 3.3) at work. This machine is occasionally used by others and is outside of my control. I also use many of the public access Win/Mac machines on campus. I have no pc of my very own. Is there an effective way for me to use PGP? -- Matt Hewn <matthewn(a)uiuc.edu> -- Information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth. Truth is absolute.

1 0

Re: Legal Deffinition of Encryption?
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:17 PM 11/9/1996, Mark M. wrote: >On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Benjamin Grosman wrote: >> I have absolutely no idea: this is a very interesting problem. Not for just >> compression and encryption differention legally, but also, well, ANY other >> data form. If one defines a new format for saving data (i.e a new image >> format), and then exports this technology from the USA, is this exportation >> of munitions due to it's unknown qualities? Or what? >> I know that in Australia there have been problems defining electronic data, >> especially pictures (usually porn), for the purposes of prosecution. >> Because, really, a pornographic picture is no more than 1's and 0's arranged >> in a different way by a different algorithm. >> Thus I think it most likely that the law would try and approach it from the >> direction of the algorithm that saved the data and the intent with which the >> algorithm was written. >> Otherwise, I don't know. > I can't define encryption, but I know it when I see it. They way it will be forbidden is by outlawing the execution of the algorithms. The algorithms (the secure ones anyway) are well defined as is executing them. The legal system has dealt with greater ambiguities than this. An analogy to the drug laws might be useful. We don't outlaw all drugs that cause you to have weird visions and to act strangely. That would be hard to define and would cover a number of legal drugs. Instead, the specific chemicals are forbidden as they are discovered. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

3 3

Let us attack Clipper
by Ben.Goren＠asu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

No, not with words, as we're all so fond of doing. Instead, I suggest that the NSA or others provide free access to an EES system on the 'net, for any and all to attempt attacks. They could hook up a workstation or two with a couple Tessera cards, and provide anonymous login access. All functions should be permitted as they will be in a final implementation. This is an inexpensive way that EES advocates can permit access to the system for analysis. It would be only for research purposes--there'd be no way to encrypt a phone conversation, and anybody would have to be stupid to encrypt sensitive data with an NSA-owned machine, even assuming you could get the data to the computer securely in the first place. To the NSA agent who is surely subscribed: if Clipper is so great, prove it. If you won't disclose the Skipjack algorithm (but why not if it's secure?), at least provide access to test its implementation. b& -- Ben.Goren(a)asu.edu, Arizona State University School of Music net.proselytizing (write for info): Protect your privacy; oppose Clipper. Voice concern over proposed Internet pricing schemes. Stamp out spamming. Finger ben(a)tux.music.asu.edu for PGP 2.3a public key.

2 1

DECLINE AND FALL
by bmorris＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com LL> If capital flees a country, the population will be less LL> productive, dissatisfied and vote the politicians out of office. So LL> policies that favor capital in some sense also favor labor. LL> Anyone else care to take shots at his argument or support it? Hot money ( investing money ) is always going wherever the best yield is, and ignores national boundaries. While this isn't capital investing money, a big inflow/outflow to/from one country, especially a small one, probably will affect the politics. With global banking, and stock and commodity markets effectively open 24 hrs a day, this trend will increase. For instance, the stock market of Turkey zoomed up last year, and is zooming down now. The hot money was there last year as is leaving now. This is undoubtably affecting their internal politics. * RM 1.4 B0037 *

1 0

Chaining Help?
by Mark Terka 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Could someone give me some advice on chaining? I'm thinking of bouncing a message fisrt thru hacktic and then soda (as you can Usenet post from there) but need some tips as i seem to have trouble getting the encryption sequences correct. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Terka | werewolf(a)io.org | public key (werewolf) at Toronto,Canada | dg507(a)cleveland.freenet.edu | pgp-public-keys(a)demon.co.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Card Playing Protocol
by kentborg＠world.std.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Oh, GREAT! Tim says (roughly): "Go for it, too bad you are doomed to lose interest shortly." Geeze, I hate people who make generalizations which are, well, likely to be borne out yet one more time. (I *hate* that!) <Mutter grumble hrumph errrrrrah, phooy!> So I am either supposed to put my tail between my legs now, or take this as a challenge to "Follow through this time.", or let it soon die quietly and hope Tim takes mercy and doesn't rub my nose in it. Grrr. I *hate* reality. So here is where I am: 1) I am wondering whether a "digital deck of cards" is a good choice. 2) If it is, I am wondering how the protocol would roughly be framed (Fundamental card operations, etc.), with an eye towards what the cryptographic protocols can offer. 3) Then, if things make sense, appear tractable, and (drum roll) I haven't gone onto fresher blue-sky ideas, I figure out how to start building the damn thing. 4) And if I ever get to building it I will start first with the little pieces (the cryptographic fragments) which might be useful individually when I lose interest in building the larger beast. I assume that I will have to do real work at each of these stages--though I welcome any help. Both now when the talk is still cheap and later when the bits hit the disk. So far I am at step #1, nudging towards portions of step #2. I refuse to be shamed about abandoning step #3 until I have at least embarked on it. (Then you can make fun of me.) Just producing a complete RFC-quality protocol would be something not to be sniffed at. In fact, I am prepared to stop there and *still* feel smug. (So there!) As for getting people to want to use this digital deck of cards, I rely on my passion for good user interface design combined with the continuing popularity of card games. (And people's continued interest in playing games with other people rather than just computers.) So I am currently at step #. Is the Card Playing Protocol a good choice for being: 1) cryptographically interesting 2) tractable 3) "harmless" 4) appealing to users? Comments? (You too Tim.) And Tim, don't worry about my eyes becoming glazed over with images of Donald Trump. I don't like The Donald. Gambling is boring. (Besides, generalized transactions are far more appealing to a megalomaniacal fool like me. How CPP applies remains for me to understand...) -kb, the Kent who is going to be Cometing tomorrow, handy annual open house at JPL this weekend, etc. -- Kent Borg +1 (617) 776-6899 kentborg(a)world.std.com kentborg(a)aol.com Proud to claim 32:00 hours of TV viewing so far in 1994!

3 2

Re: National ID cards are just the driver's licenses...
by frissell＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:41 PM 7/15/94 +0100, Graham Toal wrote: >I'd love to take part in a list for discussing practical ways of >assuring privacy. I've been doing it myself for years. How about >asking Robert Hayden to start up a specific mailing list for it? >(Some name like 'obfusc', for obfuscating database entries etc...?) >- description: 'discussions of practical real-life ways of improving >personal privacy.' How about "Hardcore Privacy" > >Also, you tend to mention things in dribs and drabs... in fact, didn't >you do a sort of mini privacy-101 some years ago by posting little >snippets of advice in your .sig file every post? Do you have >any collected files with _lots_ of this stuff in it already that we >could read? That was me. I'm kind of lazy about pulling everything together in one place. DCF "Give me a rule, I'll give you a work-around."

1 0

Re: Card Playing Protocol?
by kentborg＠world.std.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jamiel(a)sybase.com wrote: >What about implementing a Multiplayer Game Protocol? Cool, but only to the extent it falls out nearly for free, being too general is an enemy of actually getting results. Besides, it seems a better application of any urges to be general would be to work with *any* transport medium from an alt.games.moves to IRC to email (AOL, Compuserve, etc., in addition to Unix mail) to TCP/IP to pagers. So let's tag things and leave room for expansion with new tags, but let's build one thing first. Don't get me wrong, I would love for it to be general--like become the basis for general purpose transactions--but the very fact that that occurs to me warns me that it is best to make version 1.0 first, and then 2.0, etc. Plus, being general about allowing new tags will certainly tweak the ITAR police. Ben.Goren(a)asu.edu wrote: >Just so people know: complete protocols for poker can be found in >Schneier. All you need is a snazzy GUI. Do you *really* think I would propose such a thing without a handy place to crib from? Some people! Hell, I might have to write some code here, and I'm lazy. Oh, it would be nice to be bit more general than just poker. Just a deck of cards, places to put them, the ability to reshuffle and rearrange stacks on the table, play cards from your hand, etc. The enforcement of plays is through the same technique as with a real deck: other players are watching. The cryptographic aspects are the interesting ones, not implementing any particular game. Besides, I'm lazy, remember. Ben.Goren(a)asu.edu also wrote: >And, with ecash, you can even do all your betting. Noooooo! This is a political move. It should be nothing more wicked than a deck of cards. (To some people that is bad enough. Maybe there would be a Rook option...) Just a deck of 52-cards (and how many for Rook?) and a table on which to play. And that worries me. What are the fundamental operations with cards? Can everything be modeled as different stacks on the table? Some have special privilages: I can see my hand, you can't; the top n-cards of some stacks are visible to everyone; some stacks are visible to all (playing a trick). Any player can manipulate any card--though if you grab one from my hand I might get upset, every player will see the manipulation. Some cards are face up (or once were), some are face down (shuffled with the whole deck or a subset). Interesting realization: there is a set of card tricks which can be performed in this environment and a set which cannot. I suppose there would then be a set of magicians who are willing to perform with this deck and a set who will not. (And how many will use magic tricks as proof of having factored RSA-XXX?) Where to put the information about face down cards: To make slow interactions possible, is there a way every player can have all information--but can be challanged that cards have not been peeked at? And how to keep you from checking my hand in poker after I--maybe--bluffed you into folding. Hmm, there is a tension here. Looks like I need to carefully read pages 78-81. -kb, the Kent who is practicing looking innocent and saying things like "Who me?? MUNITIONS??? All I wanted to do was to play gin rummy. With my mom in Minnesota." -- Kent Borg +1 (617) 776-6899 kentborg(a)world.std.com kentborg(a)aol.com Proud to claim 32:00 hours of TV viewing so far in 1994!

1 0