- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

number theory
by nobody＠jarthur.cs.hmc.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > I should point out that the standard argument that picking 'k' > different values for 'a' and then calculating the probability as > (1/2)^k is fallacious. This would be true if the probabilities were > independent, but they aren't. There was a paper on this about five > years ago whose awareness has not been yet widespread. I no longer > have the reference. Okay, my memory has been jogged... is this a paper by Pomerance, "On the distribution of pseudoprimes"? He gave more precise estimates for the number of base-2 pseudoprimes. With his more precise estimates, the chance of a 100 digit number passing the base-2 pseudoprime test is about 1/10^13... I think his work applies only to base-2 pseudoprimes, so my statement concerning the error rate of Miller-Rabin is still correct: for s iterations, the chance of failure is 2^-s. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCUAgUBLar8xIOA7OpLWtYzAQEAmgP2NQx7a3woaZMgT5CeqOFrhqyRcYt3mAPd 9bnf+f19E4Il42e0xw9vQjOMyowB/IkATQf+//ADIFxhE9p+2MOpD8eDr9saGYOV bVwV2/bWtzsHqjsbWRH27/5lEwFXerGfJNSc1ITkZFwp1QwpzmVvn6gkOZ2lf0AJ /q3QneS7iw== =2XH+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: alias in phone book
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > >illegal to use a pseudo in the white pages of the phone book. > It's definitely false, at least here in NYC. A well-known alternative > to having an unlisted phone number (a privilege that the phone company It may be that, under some monopolies\\\crooks\\bums\\\ Public Utility Commissars, the PUC has made it illegal to avoid Phone Company fees, or (far more likely) some Phone Companies don't let you do this, because it *is* a cheap way to get an unlisted number. I haven't heard of any jurisdictions for which this is true, but there are 50 sets of PUCs who make random annoying laws, and a lot of small phone companies as well as the Bells, GTE, Contel, etc. Most phone companies also let you have additional listings, usually for a fee, which are good for things like roommates, spouses with different last names, organization listings that are really your home phone number, etc.

1 0

Aliases (general case)
by dwomack＠runner.utsa.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Actually, it is legal to use an alias for any number of things, including the phone book, *_so long as the purpose is not to defraud_*; thus, using Mother Teresa Charities might be so construed, while using Sam Jones probably would not be. There are prohibitions against using false ID...driver's lic., passport, and so forth...but not against using an alias. This is all after consultation with my attorney... As a side note, it is possible in Texas to file an "assumed name" at the courthouse of the county(ies) wherein you plan to do business...costs about $15, including the notary fees, and lasts 10 years. You can have almost anything for a name....and what would be more natural than having your new "business name" in the phone book? Nice, legal...and cheap (except a business line is a bit more expensive). Can this be done in other states? Regards, Dave

2 1

Anonymity and the US Supreme Court
by greg＠ideath.goldenbear.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Adam Lake's question about the legality of pseudonyms sent me trolling about Westlaw today, in search of some case law supporting the rule I learned (somewhere .. sigh.) - that pseudonyms are OK as long as there's no intent to defraud. No luck there yet, but I did find an interesting passage in an opinion which found a LA city ordinance void which required that any handbill have upon it the "true name and address" of the persons responsible for it. "Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all." It later says "Even the Federalist Papers, written in favor of the adoption of our Constitution, were published under fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes." Cite is _Talley v. State of California_, 362 U.S. 60, 64-65, 80 S.Ct. 536, 538-539 (1960). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLas8qH3YhjZY3fMNAQGHogP+KZKWULNE7wftUNKGVJmdaJ4zpjaVywfS IQqpu0duzbORLyKVIV4ZtAGrAnItMV/ZDNwg2KyDoHasUUNKQeBMKYXp+4KpxFL2 flreCRCe/ZqKQ4+EJzNQXT4HtQglbDO3Tl3aM411urnhFLhTCorrbTW4NChhd3S8 6TIdKCFnD4Q= =Bp6d -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Pseudonyms and Reputa
by dork39＠wov.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: dork39(a)wov.com Hf> This is true, but the main purpose of this technology is to prevent Hf> users from creating large numbers of pseudonymous accounts. No Hf> technology can stop people from cooperating in an on-line forum, and Hf> the use of friends' or family members' accounts is also very hard to Hf> prevent. So collusion at some limited level will always be possible. Hf> But at least it should be possible to prevent the massive use of nyms. Hang on a mo. I'm new here and so I don't know how this started. If you would be so kind, what is the "problem" here about "massive use of nyms?" Seems to me that is a kind of self-limiting bookkeeping job for the user of nyms: like which ones are for what. Have you guys ever tried to DO a system of nyms for any important purpose? It is NOT a whole lot of fun: much more resembling hard work. You see I think there are plenty of reasons that reasonable people would agree are valid for some people to use nyms, even large numbers of nyms. For example I know a lawyer who uses a lot of nyms (and anon PGP keys) to create "clusters" of people involved with individual legal cases. It strikes me as a very well organized system for a good purpose. The people involved in a given case can all talk to each other about it, and outsiders or people in other cases don't get to peek in, or even know what the group is about or who's in it without going to a LOT of trouble. Since Phil is going to release the story to the Wall St. Journal anyway, I guess I can mention that the encryption method of CHOICE for the valiant fighters against SLORC in Burma (who are the worst kind of bad guys by any measure) is PGP and they are, of course, ALL using "nyms" and sterilized anon keys and so on. They are by FAR the heaviest PGP users in this part of the world. Full time trainers and the works. But you can surely see how they might not want to tell the thugs where to come to get them and their families for a course in extended torture. Now you guys with "ID" fetishes are seeing this as a PROBLEM? Excuse me very much, but I think I need to see a LOT of explaining about that. Note this principle: people with a NEED for anonymity are NOT going to want to get permission from, or even talk to, some Central Authority first. There is no way that you or anyone else is going to be able to decide if any use of anonymity is "legitimate" or not. If there are "problems" with that, it seems to me that your efforts are best directed into figuring out how you can live with it, and not about how you can "control" or "prevent" it. (Hey I am ever so sorry to hear how some people used nyms to cheat in a game. But somehow my reaction was "so what?" and to bang my [Enter] key right smartly. There are people in the world without the time or inclination to play games. Perhaps sometime in the next century I might personally get enough slack and curiosity to take a look at some computer game myself--who knows? But, you know, even if I do, I kind of think I will have a real hard time working up a lot of anxiety about possible cheating.) In the meanwhile not only do I support nyms and other anonymity, but I intend to use plenty of them, and will resist any attempts to preclude that in every way I can. GENERAL ADVICE TO ALL ONLOOKERS: Since it looks like self-appointed "ID police" are working hard to prevent you from using anonymity, I suggest that if you ever think that you might ever have a NEED for anonymity at any time in the future, that you take a little time off and set up a supply for yourself of nyms and so on and embed them in the system before these guys get their prevention systems in place. Do that NOW, because this kind of thinking is a THREAT to you.

1 0

Prime number tests
by nobody＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, there is one prime number test which NEVER fails, and that is that (n-1)!+1 mod n is zero for all primes, and non-zero for all non-primes. ;-)

1 0

Re: CyberPsyOps and Media
by schirado＠lab.cc.wmich.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is it really fucking necessary to write long, involved essays expounding on the exact reasons one is placing someone in thier killfile? Not only is it unnecssary, it's extremely rude.

1 0

Re: Prime number tests
by Peter Murphy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Would you be able to show me a reference? Peter Murphy <pkm(a)maths.uq.oz.au>

1 0

response to tmp
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- tmp offers some thoughts on a "position" paper by Hal Finney: >> The level of anarchy will inevitably increase as larger numbers of >> people acquire net access. > it seems to me that the cypherpunks already have a name for the kind > of anarchy that can happen when somebody uses pseudonyms to harass and > cause trouble. that word is `detweiler'. do you really know what I don't think Hal is implying all the new people that acquire net access will harass and cause trouble. > hal argues below that `you already know nothing about the people you > interact with on the net' and that `anonymous remailers introduce no > more problems than are already present on the net'. these seem to me > to be flawed arguments. here's why. > [story about going to a party] > 1. [do we really want an online environment where identity is as > transitory as a nym on IRC?] > 2. [it seems that identity is intrinsic] > 3. [anonymous remailers] But see, you are taking things to extremes. Anonimity has its purposes; in some situtations it is valuable, in others it isn't. I should be able to be anonymous if I so desire. 1. Do you want a real life where identity is permanent and accessible to everybody? Where you carry an assortment of cards totally indexing your life and all activities, so in case you meet new people they can quickly be brought up on the sum total of your existence? 2. Identity is instrinsic. How true; by the way, what is yours? I find it incongruous for you to be railing against anonymity and privacy when you yourself hide behind them. 3. Anonymous remailers are just PARTS of a solution; the rest involves digital signatures and reputation systems. I say anonymity is valuable, and to this end, anonymous remailers are valuable. Part of the reason I am loathe to get involved in a detailed discussion with you is that I suspect you are like David Sternlight or Larry Detweiler ** of course, not that I am implying you are either of these people but I have found in the past the both have a tendency to ignore various questions they find "inconvenient" for example, I once cited several instances of real life cases of pseudonymous activity (whatever Mr. Detweiler called them) and another that demonstrates the value of anonymity. Mr. Detweiler swept these under the rug and by and large ignored them! Of course, since I am not implying you are Mr. Detweiler, after all, he is of a philosophical camp in which anonymity and identity hiding is bad. He certainly wouldn't rejoin this list under a name any other that his real one. Thus I conclude you aren't familiar with my previous examples. > but is it the case that all cypherpunks can say they have never > tried to censor anyone by notes to sysadmins, i.e. of detweiler? I think you are confusing censorship with association. Just because I no longer wish to read Mr. Detweiler's rants and raves, and report activity such as various threats to his sysadmin, doesn't mean censorship. > the cypherpunk vision seems to split the world into two groups: > those people i trust (my friends) and everyone else (whom i completely > distrust with intense paranoia). this is a very xenophobic and > chauvinistic philosophy at heart. You need to get off your extreme analogies. For certain interactions, dividing the world into "trusted" and "non trusted" partitions is necessary; for others, it isn't. I don't see the cypherpunks vision as dividing everything into the extreme case. > for example, it seems to me you cypherpunks have a very important > agenda, but you seem to be extremists. the important goal is `defining Hah, you should examine some of your opinions, I find them just as extreme in the other direction. Always citing the worst case scenario, the extreme position, etc. > so what the cypherpunks might consider is a less extremist > elucidation of what `privacy' means. for example, cypherpunks, what > information should a bank be allowed to have on you when you go in to > request a loan? what should companies be allowed to do with credit > histories, and what rights does the individual have to influence them? I agree with this summary, these are concerns all of us have (privacy, etc.) > if you continue to insist that `nobody should know who i am' i fear > you will be bypassed by more sophisticated groups that have a less > polarized view of issues of identity and privacy. and it will The point of anonymity is to allow you to express these "unpopular" views without fear of reprisal. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLawB7oOA7OpLWtYzAQGkbQP/V8pFmSgppjJHp4ZiyXa8H9dabadJZjEz qYpkTjiQtEbxZJOSPKFbIvBeqFDVSXIpIFmP8HIUJny/Q3Gv5dK7GLTmPzBDGjpl sIwEartietpwjdl0H7s5AOfMSMrD+UKwpvsW5gqAXuR1ec0fBdICS9oKCdZDQeFO y0z3RZuvrF0= =Nef2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Clipper Chips in video descramblers
by Dave Banisar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There was also a recent news item that they were being investigated for anti-trust actions. Sounds like a pretty good incentive to me.... -dave > Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 14:51:19 -0400 (EDT) > From: Joe Thomas <jthomas> > Subject: Re: Clipper Chips in video descramblers > To: David Koontz <koontzd(a)lrcs.loral.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > In-Reply-To: <9404121822.AA28517(a)io.lrcs.loral.com> > Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9404121422.A8147-0100000(a)access1.digex.net> Mime- > Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Precedence: bulk > > On Tue, 12 Apr 1994, David Koontz wrote: > > > Recently someone posted reference to GI (General Instruments) getting > > authority to use Clipper chips in descramblers. One wonders about > > motivation on their part. > > Maybe they were "suitably incentivized..." > > Joe >

1 0