- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Secrecy: My life as a nym. (Was: nym blown?)
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:14 PM 11/11/96 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >This is an interesting topic. I apologize if my questions are too trivial, >but here they are: > > 1) Can a person without an SSN have a credit record? Some > may say that a credit record is a bad thing to have, > but I am still interested in a possibility. If you have a credit history you can have a credit record with or without an SSN. Millions of foreigners have credit histories without SSNs BTW. Millions of people with wrong or false SSNs also have credit histories. The SSA decided a few years ago not to let the credit reporting agencies check the validity of the SSNs in their records with the SSNs in the SSA database. > 2) Will private lenders (such as credit card issuers or > mortgage companies) agree to extend credit to a person > without an SSN or to someone who refuses to give out his SSN? Not if they are in America but those outside America will. False SSN's may work though falsifying mortgage applications (with a federally insured bank) may be a crime. Individuals can also grant mortgages however and are free to do so without using an SSN. > 3) Will the state issue a driver's license to someone who does not > have/does not wish to give out their SSN? Those states that don't require SSNs will of course. Some (most?) states that require SSNs don't validate them. Canadian provinces don't require US SSNs to issue licenses. > 4) Will states' police (where applicable) approve purchases of > firearms if purchasers do not state their ssn (misstating it > may be a crime) on an application? It's been so long since I bought from a dealer. Do the current federal forms have a place for SSN? > 5) Employers are required to pay certain taxes and therefore > they, in my understanding, need to know their employees SSNs. > How can people get around that (unless they do not need to work)? Lie, be self employed, or be employed by a foreign entity. They won't be able to verify until the new Instant Check Right to Work Verification scheme that the Feds are testing breaks wide. Then it's self-employment -- better for you in any case. > 6) Can someone without an SSN obtain various kinds of insurance? Some kinds. Again, the numbers are rarely verified. Over the years, I've only seen one number be bounced back and that was submitted to a bank by a person who did not vet the number for facial validity. If one institution turns you down, go to another. >Say, John Anonymous is a young 15 years old who anticipates to become an >engineer and have a middle class life. He wants to get married, No problem (unless his fiance wants to run a credit check). Even if the marriage license app wants an SSN, just say you're a foreigner with no SSN. Foreigners can still marry in America. Even if you also state on the same form that you were born in the US, you could still be a foreigner who's never really lived here. "My father was the Canadian Ambassador at the time." >have children Still accomplished by unskilled labor totally without an SSN. >drive a car Put hands on wheel and foot on gas. Trivial. Lie or get a foreign license. UK licenses are good for decades. A dozen states (or so) still let you operate a motor vehicle sans public liability insurance BTW and non-drivers, corporations, other entities, in fact anyone or anything can own a car. You can drive a car owned by something/someone else. >obtain insurance Lie. Or get insurance from a nice Swiss company. >work at some big company, A lot less of that going around these days. Giving a false SSN may or may not be caught. Large companies often do credit checks these days but you will probably survive. If you're working at a large company as a contractor or temp of course, your small agency may not have checked you out much. You can satisfy the I9 form requirements for proving right to work by flashing your passport BTW and you can still get a passport without supplying an SSN (in spite of the law). >travel around the world No problem. The ICAO record format for the nice little machine readable strip on passports *does* have space to place a National ID Number, but the standards do not require that a nation issue a National ID Number and fill that block. The UK and the US and others have (so far) not done so. The US legislation (effective January 1988) that the Passport Office's Application ask you for your SSN and forward info on refusenicks to the Treasury Department for a possible $500 fine, specifically says that failure to provide the number shall not be grounds for refusal by State to issue a passport. In practice, Treasury has not fined anyone. >invest in mutual funds or buy stocks Lie, have a corporation or trust you control buy, buy overseas or via Canada, etc. >Reliance on government help is not important to him, so he would not >apply for an SSN solely to get Social Security, welfare and such. > >His parents are cypherpunks and did not obtain an SSN for John. How much >effort would it cost him to live a life outlined above? Less effort that cross country skiing (in calories burned). May even provide similar recreational value depending on John's ideology. DCF "You're real smart. I bet you never forget your Social Security Number. What's your Social Security Number"? -- The Susan Sarandon character in "Atlantic City" "I don't have a Social Security Number." -- The Burt Lancaster character in "Atlantic City"

1 0

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:34 ìì 13/11/1996 -0500, Mark M. wrote: (in response to): >> Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you >> don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice >> how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain >> American patriotic organizations?) >Governments maintain a monopoly on land, so the "love it or leave it" mentality >is flawed. Virtual space does not have the same limitations as physical >space. Starting your own mailing list is relatively easy. Not at all easy, for a lot of people. Moreover, it's very time-consuming. It's only easy if you are prepared to put up with costs of time, money, and also... service providers (who don't always agree with you)... In a lot of places in the world, starting mailing lists is almost impossible unless you can be _inside_ an Internet Provider Company (and use Unix or whatever they use, in their own machines). >> It is sad to note that this is the leader of one of America's >> forerunning organizations of freedom who says these words. For all >> *his* ideology of free speech, this statement reveals the hypocrasy he >> lives with for all to see. The true litmus test of free speech is to >> encounter speech that you *want* to censor. > >The EFF protects against government censorship, not against "editorial >control", "censorship", or whatever else you want to call it. I don't >see this as hypocritical at all. Perhaps cynical, though? :-) >> Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider >> what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications >> media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership >> and communciation they espouse? > >And just how plausible do you think this is? I believe it is next to >impossible, unless it is the result of government regulation. Man you're nutts. There are very few and quite vast Media Companies in the world, and they're on the verge of becoming monopolies. Even your American President is in reality a puppet of the Trilateral Commission, who effectively also control CNN, the Washington Post, and many many many other things all over the world. And you are saying that control of the media by ownership is impossible? You're far out maaan! :-) Only in America such a naive opinion could actually be _believed_. (here I go again... aga! :-) ) George P.S. Even if you offered me a million dollars I'd stay away from your country. My sanity is much more valuable. :-) (The Immigration Authorities in the U.S. have missed the point: We DON'T want to come to you guys. It's the last thing we'd want!)

3 2

Screw You Packet
by Illuminatus Primus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.theonion.com/onion3315/screwyoupacket.html BACK * 22 April 1998 _________________________________________________________________ WASHINGTON, DC--In an effort to streamline degradation of the American populace and consolidate all forms of bureaucratic hassle into one convenient mailing, federal officials announced Monday that, beginning in 1999, the government will issue all citizens an annual "Screw You" packet. The packet, which is to be distributed in conjunction with federal tax forms, will condense the government's countless methods of abuse into a single handy 9x12 envelope. "The federal government's current citizen-persecution system is inefficient and wasteful," said Sen. Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY), who spearheaded the congressional task force that developed the "Screw You" packet. "This compact packet is not only cost-effective, it's user-friendly and intuitive. Simple instructions and easy-to-remember acronyms make the filing process as quick and painless as possible." The packet's easy-to-understand forms will free citizens of the nightmare of red tape normally associated with federal filings. Filling out and returning the "Screw You" packet is mandatory and easy. Here's how: The first step is to calculate your Economic Mobility Factor using the convenient EMF 1138 calculation sheet included in the packet. Those with an Economic Mobility Factor of 90 or above may mail or fax forms SC0089-L and SC0065-DD to their local Screw You EMF Processing Center. They may also drop them off at SYEMFPC kiosks conveniently set up at post offices and public libraries across the U.S. Those with an EMF between 30 and 90 must submit their forms in person to a Screw You EMF Processing Center Clerk. Such applicants must meet with the SYEMFPCC, and should arrange appointments via the State Application Auditing Appointment Bureau. Once an appointment date has been set by the SAAAB, a Screw You Appointment Confirmation Card will be mailed to you within three to four weeks. Upon receipt of the Screw You Appointment Confirmation Card, applicants will be required to register the appointment with the Screw You Appointment Registry Bureau. Failure to register the appointment within a 48-hour period will result in a fine automatically added to your estimated SYEMF-1138 quotient. The amount of the fine can be determined by using Screw You Fine/ Penalty Schedule 565612, which is available at all local Department of Fiduciary Adjustment branch offices. If there is no DFA office in your immediate Screw You zone, district, state or township, you should contact the Federal Department of Fiduciary Adjustments in Washington, D.C., and ask to speak to a Citizen's Outreach Representative who will look up the predetermined fine on SYF/PS565612. There is a $50 processing fee for any and all telephone queries to the FDFA. Those wishing to charge the $50 fee can do so by making three copies of forms SYEMF-1138, KSJU-387-SK, SKSP-90-EZ, and SC-2389, along with computer code 0100010 and ACC-842, and forwarding them to the Federal Department of Fiduciary Adjustments Postal Processing Center in Colorado Springs, CO. Forms received by the FDFAPPC will be processed and returned to applicants within six to eight weeks. Those who wish to have their forms returned in less than six to eight weeks may file a Fiduciary Calculation Acceleration Form 9056 at their local SYEMFPC. FCAF-9056 forms will be available Monday to Tuesday between the hours of 7:45 a.m. and 8:15 a.m., and are distributed on a first-come, first-serve basis. Completed forms should be returned to the FDFA in Washington, DC. All FCAF-9056 forms that have not cleared authentication via the FDFA in Washington, DC, will be rendered null and void, and will not be forwarded to the FDFAPPC in Colorado Springs. Applicants who misdirect their FCAF-9056 forms will draw a $10 per SYEMF-1138 fine. The fine must be paid within 36 hours, or the applicant will be subject to house arrest and strip-search by the Armed Outreach Response Team, an independently operated division of the Screw You Outreach Consortium. _________________________________________________________________ BACK * 22 April 1998 © Copyright 1998 Onion, Inc., All rights reserved. View masthead for more information. Questions/comments? Please consult our contact information page.

1 0

Re: Futures Doomed
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:53 AM 4/26/98 -0400, John Young wrote: >More on the future of money in the NYT today, "Crime's >New Cash of Choice," the Euro, which plans larger >denominations than the mobs' favorite $100 US. If the >Euro catches on, it says, the USG could lose billions in >interest-free loans on stashed C-notes, unused except >in the underground -- which the US turns a blind tax eye >to because more revenue comes from the seignoriage. Why haven't the undergrounders adopted the SF1000 note (just under $700 these days)? Nice denomination. DCF

1 0

Re: Dossier on Tim May is Easily Obtainable
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:11 PM 11/13/96 -0600, Rick Smith wrote: ... >Records retrieved from [SOURCE DELETED] also show that the young Timothy >Christopher May exploited his interest in physics for destructive purposes, >like elaborate pranks involving fictious weaponry and national security >information. [INFORMATION DELETED FOR NATIONAL SECURITY REASONS -- ORCON >U31 -- OADR FOR RECLASSIFICATION] > >However, more careful investigators have uncovered evidence to suggest that >this was not entirely a prank. Records from [SOURCE DELETED] indicate that >the young Timothy Christopher May purchased a huge gap magnet from Edmund >Scientific Company and also produced science fair project titled "Ball >Lightning: A Stable Plasma?" Investigators suspect the timing of these >events is not a coincidence. ... Ball lightning? Plasma weapon? Could I have a copy of the schematics? I've long been interested in obtaining (purchasing, building) a plasma weapon. (I'm also been interested in obtaining a EM pulse cannon, but that's a different story.)

2 1

Re: FCPUNX:Small 'Hard' Problems Wanted
by mpd＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Eli Brandt <eli(a)gs160.sp.cs.cmu.edu> writes: > (I'm getting this this through fcpunks, so my reply is > going to you. If you reply, you can cc cypherpunks if you > want.) Ok. [snip] >> ... I plan to test it on reduced round DES, full 16 round >> DES, and some RSA problems of various sizes. > These are all in NP (though not necessarily NP-C), so you > can certainly solve them with SAT, but I'd be *very* > surprised if SAT were an efficient way to do it. If > SAT-reduction beats the number field sieve at factoring, for > example, you've got a major research result. Actually, I would expect any AI algorithm which has some notion of convergence to beat all of the "combination of congruences" factoring methods, which are essentially exhaustive searches, albeit it under the image of some useful transformations and homomorphisms. SAT (boolean satisfiability) does not seem to illuminate factoring or other cyptographic problems in any obvious way. Even a prime implicant covering of a typical strong cryptographic function would be mondo huge in terms of memory. Crypto problems map pretty nicely into circuit problems, however, and circuit satisfiability seems to be a nice wedge with which to attack a number of the most popular ones. Of course, you can go back and forth between circuit and SAT problems, but thinking in terms of circuits allows you to add the correct additional variables to a problem which would be gigantic if you did the output directly in terms of the input bits. I will wait to see if this thing munches through DES of various rounds before claiming any "research results." >> I already have C code to map RSA and n-round DES problems >> into an appropriate circuit satisfiability problem > How big a SAT problem does an n-bit RSA or n-round DES > problem turn into? Well - the typical DES S-Box requires between 130-155 2-input logical operations to express its 4 bit output in terms of its 6 bit input if you basically construct it in the obvious no-brainer way without attempting any clever optimization. Throw in a few XORs, and you can wire 2 round DES in about 2,500 one and two input logical operations, and the full 16 round DES takes about 25,000. I'm sure this can be improved upon greatly, if someone wanted to tweek the wiring diagram. What I've done to convert DES to a circuit satisfiability problem is to make a logical network with (56+64+64) input bits and 1 output bit. The input consists of (key,plaintext,ciphertext). I pass both the plaintext and ciphertext through the IP, and do half the rounds on each with the appropriate subkeys. Then I XOR opposite 32 bit sections between them, OR it all together, and complement the output. This yields something which lights up if the key maps the provided plaintext into the provided ciphertext and outputs zero otherwise. When it is instantated with a particular plaintext/ciphertext pair, this diagram can be munched by the previously mentioned algorithm to yield a possibly non-empty set of keys. RSA is a little bit more messy. Given a modulus between 2^k < N < 2^(k-1), you can construct a circuit which when instantated with the modulus bits will light up if and only if the larger of the two distinct primes is input. The way I do this requires only two multiplicative operations, one being a modular reciprocal of an odd number modulo 2^k, and the other being a multiplication. Both of these are wired as N^2 algorithms, using successive approximation, although near-linear algorithms probably exist. As a data point, a circuit which lights up when RSA-140 is input can be done in about a million NANDs. Someone has offered me some time on a 64 meg ultraSparc to try some RSA problems, but I am going to debug the C version on DES first. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

1 0

Cypherpunks Shooting Club II
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Last Sunday, only four Cypherpunks participated in the first field trip organized by the Cypherpunks Shooting Club. Though I dare say that we had loads of fun. Anybody interested in participating next Sunday is encouraged to contact me. A wide range of firearms will be provided. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred Member JPFO. "America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization"

1 0

The Key for the IPG 200 Megabytes at NETPRIVACY.COM
by wichita＠cyberstation.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In response to the numerous requests for us to post the key that we used to produce the almost 200 megabytes of raw encryptor stream at our web site, we are pleased to provide the ASCII values of same as follows: OFFSET 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 237 55 181 123 98 190 172 218 32 95 1 76 254 70 151 109 109 115 87 146 142 2 233 129 176 197 154 22 122 168 96 9 3 115 234 241 54 78 120 81 33 128 196 4 177 8 69 53 71 116 0 245 126 158 5 29 239 80 219 86 236 193 50 7 31 6 84 188 5 215 175 213 222 4 180 144 7 187 162 205 215 60 144 120 75 195 66 8 178 81 212 56 123 177 189 113 101 91 9 211 194 48 171 17 64 197 118 148 24 10 32 67 114 171 26 131 19 149 121 32 11 235 112 114 45 28 80 37 142 138 15 12 229 228 155 214 66 246 174 195 224 215 13 116 233 106 209 66 233 175 229 244 245 14 74 81 136 163 100 21 114 240 48 184 15 124 151 145 74 34 33 14 70 132 37 16 82 253 70 97 72 20 106 41 162 30 17 136 18 105 227 219 232 121 49 119 218 18 6 97 193 180 228 204 92 158 116 222 19 145 91 34 200 199 235 178 116 103 196 20 79 104 90 22 69 212 91 65 171 133 21 92 208 76 127 37 83 92 140 27 249 22 229 22 132 205 5 67 203 8 196 141 23 136 80 68 156 228 38 254 97 170 179 24 43 152 124 172 91 52 79 94 248 131 25 202 82 36 41 11 229 As explained at the web site, that key is expanded to an 8192 byte key and used as described therein. www.netprivacy.com In order for those few who have not had the opportunity to check it out, we will leave it up another week and then take it down and put up a new shorter one, maybe a 2,560,000 byte one permanently and a monthly 2,560,000 byte one where we publish the key each month. Of course, no university, coderpunk, or cypherpunk, or any collection of same, has broken the system, nor will they ever. As most of you now know, it is absolutely unbreakable. We have had over 100 universities, IBM, Microsoft, Intel, hundreds of other corporations, several dozen different government agencies, and thousands of other individuals to download the data and look at the algorithm. Of course, like everyone else, they have been benighted, even if some of them will not own up to it. Several people have requested me to provide a narrative description of the algorithm explaining why the raw encryptor output stream seems to be so remarkably random. I am preparing such a document and it should be ready next week, or the week after. I will post it accordingly. Thanks so very much, Don Wood

1 0

Re: A Disservice to Mr. Bell
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:19 PM 11/13/96 -0500, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: >Jim Bell writes > >> There are, I think, two reasons that the equity court system (and their >> sleazy lawyers, both on and off the bench) are worried. First, what they >> have now is, effectively, a monopoly on "justice." The re-emergence of >> commonlaw courts would provide competition that has been long gone. >Think >> of it like any monopoly that suddenly has to accept competition. > >A bunch of self selected whackos running a kangeroo court does not mark a >return to "commonlaw courts". As for the "self-selected" issue: In almost all areas of human endeavor, things are (often? usually?) done by people who are "self-selected." I suggest that there is simply no reason that even "self-selected" courts cannot work. And for the "wacko" part: To a great extent, the people who would tend to oppose the re-emergence of commonlaw courts are those who are the ones who most benefit from the monopoly (oligopoly?) on justice which has developed over many decades. Judges, prosecutors, and lawyers of course profit directly. But psychologically, people wedded to a statist philosophy would have their precious worlds overturned. They're not happy. Also: The reason for an (apparent, implied) association with extremism is, simply, because the system has been suppressed (actively or passively) for so long that it tends to be the "extremists" which most notice the possibilities of a commonlaw court. This is quite analogous with the fact that the label "extremists" was almost certainly applied to the revolutionaries who proposed the American Revolution, the abolition of slavery, giving the vote to women, pushed civil rights in the US during the 50's and 60's, etc. By definition, people proposing a change in the status quo are "extremists," if they weren't they wouldn't be proposing a change, huh?!? And this goes back to the "self-selected" issue above as well. While the main work of commonlaw courts, today, is the reversal of the abuses of the equity court system, as the commonlaw courts become once again well accepted they will simply not need to stand out and look "extreme" as they may look to you, today. > Such courts do not exist within the constitution >of the United States. Unlike the UK the US has a written constitution, if >it isn't written down on paper then it does not exist. You're obviously confused. 1. Commonlaw courts predate the US Constitution by a few hundred years. The former does not depend on the latter for authority or credibility. 2. The US Constitution is, at most, a statement of the authority of the FEDERAL portion of government. It is, arguably, only a statement of the powers granted to the Feds by the people; it is most certainly not intended to be a statement of every right retained by the people. (In fact, the 9th and 10th amendments make it clear that non-enumerated rights exist.) No authority over commonlaw courts (such as appointing judges) was given to the Feds by the people. 3. The Federal Constitution only references states, and I don't think it references state Constitutions at all. Yet clearly state Constitutions exist. Clearly, it isn't correct to say "if it isn't written down on paper then it does not exist." For example, people are not "written down on paper," yet they exist... > The structure of the courts, You should have said, SOME courts. Not "the courts," implying ALL the courts. Notice that the US Federal Constitution (at least, to my recollection) does not describe or regulate state courts, or for that matter local courts. Just Federal, which is as was intended. Given this, there is no reason to assume that commonlaw courts need to be described, authorized, or regulated by the Feds. If your argument is, "if it isn't defined by the Federal Constitution it doesn't exist," then you'd just destroyed your own argument. >the legislature and such was the principle task of the constitution, >that is why the bill of rights is a set of ammendments - they were an >afterthought. This has absolutely nothing to do with the commonlaw court system. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Worrying...
by Benjamin Grosman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Isn't it worrying that so many people can happily devote their time to trying to annoy others?

1 0