- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

RE: questions about bits and bytes
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:36 AM 4/11/96 -0400, Blake Coverett wrote: >> At 06:29 PM 4/10/96 -0700, Simon Spero wrote: >> >No, bytes are no always 8 bits - some machines use(d) 9-bit bytes. >> >> I notice you gave no examples. Why is that? >> >> Jim Bell >> jimbell(a)pacifier.com > >In a past life I worked on a Honeywell DPS8 box that had >36 bit words and 9 bit bytes. I'm seeing a few notes of this sort which make such claims, but there is not enough information included to establish that anybody _originally_ called those 9-bit data items "bytes" or not. It appears to me that after the fact, 20+ years later, there is a tendency to call ANYTHING other than a single bit a byte, at least during that time frame. What I'm looking for, however, is an indication that this was actually the term used, THEN, for that data structure.

1 0

Re: Baby-Food Bombing and highly selective quoting
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:45 PM 4/19/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote: >On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, some anonymous FUDder sent us this: > > http://thomas.loc.gov/r104/r104s17ap6.html > >I think the following is a permanent URL, but I'm sure you can't make hard >links any deeper: > > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r104:S17AP6-332: > >Also note that this speech concerns an amendment to S735 that FAILED. >I.e., the language for which the esteemed [snort] Mr. Biden is arguing IS >NOT IN THE BILL AS PASSED BY THE SENATE. > >>[...] >> As some people tell >> it, you would think the FBI and BATF and the local and State police >> are tapping our phones left and right, that they are riding down the >> streets in vans with electronic devices eavesdropping into our >> windows and houses--which they have the capacity to do, by the way. > >Mr. Biden's next sentence, which either Mr. Thompson or the anonymous >forwarder conveniently left out, is "But that is just not the way it >works." Here's a question, however: What, exactly, stands between the way it is supposedly done, today, and wiretapping with none of these "protections." I see nothing in the Constitution which mandates them, at least explicitly, which suggests that the thugs might simply decide, tomorrow, that they are not really necessary after all. Is it possible that the only reason these protections are in place is to provide a window-dressing of caution, to ensure that the disgust of the public doesn't get too great? And another question I've never seen a satisfactory answer for: Why is there not an automatic policy to inform the person tapped, at least after the tap is removed, analogous to the level of information the victim of a search warrant normally gets? Jim Bell jimbell(a)Pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Killing Stan the Right Way
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > When you have been on the list longer, and when you go back and read the > messages from the early years of the list, you will understand that it has > never been the "Cypherpunk Way" to do the work others can do for themselves. That's right. After glancing through some of the early posts to the cypherpunks list one realizes that many of them had to walk ten miles to get to a computer--always uphill and often in a blinding snowstorm. That was back in the days when Americans still knew how to make a big, high-powered car, but cypherpunks didn't use them to get to their computers because they weren't namby-pamby momma's boys like those godless commie A(h)OLs who get their peckers hammered on the cypherpunks list and then complain because they can't get off. Has anyone seen my shoes? I can't find my shoes...

1 0

Re: (political) Privacy, Regulatory Arbitrage, Free Speech
by Michael Froomkin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you for the thoughtful comments. On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. wrote: > I just read your paper and had a couple quick comments, I used to think that > the Internet would be an ultimate promoter of liberal democratic values, > however given recent events in asian countries (which you mention) > particularly actions of China (which you didn't) I am not at all sure that > this will be the case -- of course, one can't prove these things, but I tend > to believe that China could actually clamp down on the freedom of speech > with respect to the following: I agree that the next draft should discuss China more. I think China could probably clamp down very effectively. I am not persuaded it could do so without giving up a very large share of the benefits of access. > > "Like it or not, we live now in an age of completely free speech..." I think > it would be very worthwhile to examine what is meant by "free speech." I > don't think free speech means, if I want, I could say what I want and no one alas, this is beyond the scope of this essay. There's a huge literature on this in the law reviews, though. [...] > > So perhaps the Internet shall provide a mechanism for practical free speech > (allowing some to speak their minds, and the others that get trapped will > get crushed) but it shouldn't be considered a subsitute for political free > speech (in which no one gets crushed). In the case of countries like China, I agree. It's not a substitute. Just an enabler in places that don't choose to practice draconian access control. > the hope is that the practical free speech will enable political free > speech, but based on news reports I am seeing this is less likely than I > used to think, and as you mention in the section of "Mobility of Personal > Data" the capability of this technology to abuse the citizens' and > customers' rights are also increasing, but their isn't an open mailing list > on which everyone can examine the conversation between the organizations > which wish to accomplish this. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.

1 0

Re: Bank transactions on Internet
by stevenw＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On FPGAs: > And it is rather unlikely that one could make a high clock speed >high performance hardware based key cracker work without traditional >high speed logic debugging tools such as a fast logic analyzer (if we >are talking 5-10 ns clock especially) and a 1 ghz or so digital scope. >These kinds of gear, though sometimes available after hours to engineers >working for more liberal companies or schools, cost many thousands >of dollars and are not garden variety items available to any hacker. Probably not necessary. Simulators do just fine. And the FPGAs themselves top out at 50 to 80 MHz. > And finally, depending on the technology of the part being >used, there may be a significant cost in the order of at least hundreds >if not thousands of dollars for a specialized programmer capable of >programming ("burning") the FPGA with the interconnect patterns generated >by the software. These tend to either be specialized to one kind of >part and maybe modestly cheap (hundreds of dollars) or universal and >several thousands of dollars (such as DataIO gear). Easy to access. They are everywhere. The EPROMs are about $6 each and are serial. You could build a programmer at home. > And at least in my experiance (I may be unusually stupid and >careless and clumsy or may not be) even if the parts are a few times >reprogrammable (as CMOS FPGAs often are these days) one can assume >that one will fry, or break the pins off, or reprogram one time too >many the FPGA or FPGA's before one gets the design working. This >means that it would be realistic to assume several parts would be >consumed by the prototyping effort, they may not be cheap and this >adds up too. While there are OTP FPGAs out there (typocally Altera), many are in-circuit programmable *any* number of times since they use SRAM internally not EPROM cells to program the configuration. The latest twist on FPGAs is to add more RAM internally and have them reprogram themselves on the fly, hundreds of thousands of times a second. This cuts the logic requirements down for desidhns that don't need all of the logic all of the time. > So whilst someone working with these parts as part of their job >or schooling might well have access to all the required resources on an >informal basis and be able to build a key cracker in evenings or >weekends for little more than the cost of the chip and a PC board to >hold it, it should be realistically noted that the actual cost of >equiping a lab from scratch with the required resources is more on the >order of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars rather than $400. True, but $400 is probably not far low. > I must hasten to add that high density FPGAs have many many >legitimate uses in prototyping logic and producing products in small >volumes too small to justify the tooling costs of doing mask programmed >gate arrays (which tend to be significantly faster and easier to design, >but cost $5-100K NRE to set up custom masks for fabrication). The >current generation of them make it possible to build logic systems in >one small chip that a few years ago would have been large PC boards >full of PALs and other logic. My employer uses FPGAs in all new designs for production. They are *very* common for products that sell into the thousands per year. Mask-programmed gate arrays have the major disadvantage of very long lead times, usually a more pressing requirement than saving $30 per board over several thousand boards. Companies now make boards that contain just FPGAs wired in a grid. They are sold as general-purpose logic engines with software to implement circuits as hardware simulations. I'm sure that these would do just fine, though they are costly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Weller | Weller's three steps to Greatness: | 1. See what others cannot | 2. Think what others cannot stevenw(a)best.com | 3. Express what others cannot

1 0

UnderNet:
by Erp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ya ya ya, this is probably an inappropriate thing but hey, I haveta ask.. I just heard about the UnderNet hack tonight... anybody have any information on that? If so thanks for the reply.. Later ---- Erp PS: I hate Elitests (spec the type that think they are such because they watched Hackers when it first came out)

2 1

Re: washington post notices archives
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:39 PM 4/11/96, Andrew K. Bressen wrote: >we here at HKS.net have today received a cease and desist >letter from the washington post regarding editorial copy >of theirs that was evidently posted to c'punks and then >abosrbed into our c'punk archives. > >Once the archives are restored (RSN) we'll probably manually edit out >the messages from the archive. We're trying to get the post to give us Several relevant points for lists like ours: 1. Expect more and more of these sorts of copyright "cease and desist" (or, as I like to say, "decease and cyst") orders, as newspapers and magazines use search engines to find their stuff. Expect some "automated searches" to be done routinely, even offered as services by third parties. ("Find infringing copies...make $1000 a week in your spare time.") 2. What does removal of infringing articles mean for follow-ups? If I reference a WSJ or NYT article that someone has quoted or forwarded, is my follow-up expunged also? 3. And what of the "Cypherpunks Archives on CD-ROM"? Too late to simply remove a single article...does the entire production run go into the landfill? (I haven't heard much about the "enthusiasm du jour" of the "Cypherpunks CD-ROM," but this always been a concern, that legal issues would have to be resolved, including the getting of releases from several hundred or more parties.) 4. Suppose the HKS archives were actually offshore, in the Cayman Islands or in some place that doesn't recognize copyright law in the same way most Western or Berne Convention countries do? 5. Suppose access to such archives is done via Web remailers, and the location is not easily determinable? (To be sure, lots of hits means traffic analysis will reveal the location....the same general problem with "reply-blocks," of course.) It sounds like the Washington Post is discovering the brave new world. Expect an article or two on this. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Extreme Profits! Simple Business
by 57290970＠worldnet.att.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

* Comapany Pays you $20 a signup! Pay one time $39 to Join! Pay Checks Twice a Week! This Is Instant Cash!!!!! Just get 12 Friends to your Free Self Replicating Web Site! 12 x $20 = $240 How long will it take you? I'm doing 3 per day! 3 members x 7 days x $20 = $420 Week! ALL OVER THE NET! How would you like to make a weekly Pay Check? "WEEKLY" Every time I look in the mail box another Ad-Net commission check is there, and each time it gets Bigger and Bigger! You get a FREE self-replicating web-site! Company projections are 50,000 new distributors by April! Already people under me in my downline have received up to 20 people in spillover in only 2 weeks!!! If you have not joined, you need to do so Now!!! This is the "Grand-daddy" of all MLM Lead Programs. Over 500,000 networkers either know or they have heard of this company. Cost is ONLY $39 ONE-TIME Out-of-Pocket! Reply with "money" in the subject for info and to signup.

1 0

Re: Contempt charges
by Moltar Ramone 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Message-Id: <199604100152.DAA25396(a)spoof.bart.nl> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > From: anonymous(a)nowhere.goucher.edu (Senator Exon) > Comments: Please report misuse of this automated remailing service to > <remailer-admin(a)remailer.nl.com> Oooh... forged headers... forged to indicate they're coming from _my_ school. I wonder who _this_ could be... perhaps someone who has expressed anger at me on the list? Perhaps just a random choice? Perhaps me? (Not me, that I'll tell you...) > Borrowing inspiration from May, a page from Scheier and some code from > Gutman... Techniques from Detweiller, and lousy law from Jim Bell (I _wonder_ who might have posted this... :-) ) > Hard disk space being cheap now, Bob creates several distinct disk > partitions and uses Peter Gutman's Secure File System, or equivalent, to > encrypt all of them. [ ... ] >Practically, Bob cannot be forced to reveal the pass phrases to any >alleged remaining secret data, since this might not exist. To further >encourage this belief Bob might associate innocous data with a first pass >phrase, mildly embarrasing data with a second, and so on, and then, after >revealing the first, gradually allow himself to be be coaxed into revealing >the second and disclose a third only after the rubber hoses came out. > >Since all of the partitions have similar content, no statistic should >reveal which is which. Bob might have a bit refresher routine >periodically nibble read and rewrite the whole disk so that no >electronic characteristic exists that reveals record age. Sure, this will effectively hide the data; so will a plain old encrypted partition... >No doubt, a judge might whimsically keep Bob in jail for a while, trying >to assure that he has revealed all of the pass phrases, but the judge >can never be certain, even when Bob has disclosed everything. This >situation creates doubt that Bob is in contempt, even when he is, and >makes a prison term relatively pointless, unless for revenge. But that's what a contempt charge is _for_: "You're not treating me with respect, so I'm going to punish you." It might be described as being for a particular reason (ie supressing evidence), but each of those reasons ultimately boils down to lack of respect. In addition, were I handing down (or prosecuting) the contempt charges, I'd claim that the statement (even if it was made in public) that the individual didn't know all the keys in the first place was a lie, and that, by repeating the lie, they were purjuring themself. I am not a lawyer; however, I suspect that neither was the anonymous poster. In fact, I think I have a pretty good idea of who it was: someone on the list who: (1) Has recently been claiming that contempt charges were worthless, and that people should start ISPs, and pool money for insurance. (2) Has (probably) used this technique (at least once) before to create the appearances of support for one of his/her ideas which really has no support. (3) Might _possibly_ be upset with me (due to the headers...) I can't think of _anyone_ who meets THAT description, now can I? ;-) Jon ---------- Jon Lasser (410)494-3072 - Obscenity is a crutch for jlasser(a)rwd.goucher.edu inarticulate motherfuckers. http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/ Finger for PGP key (1024/EC001E4D) - Fuck the CDA.

1 0

Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:27 PM 4/9/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >At 07:08 PM 4/9/96 -0700, Bill Frantz wrote: >>At 3:21 PM 4/9/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>>And the rest of us are tired of seeing those non-responses! >> >>I wish to state that Jim Bell does not speak for me. > >Tell me, what is the most exciting, interesting, and imaginative usage of >"Yadda Yadda Yadda" that _you_ remember, Bill? This will be my last post on this subject. Since Jim Bell ALWAYS has to have the last word on any given subject, he will continue to try to read something into my statement that is not there. I can not get much clearer than: I have not authorized Jim Bell to speak for me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0