- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

No Subject
by Hroller Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:44 PM 1/25/96 -0800, "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri(a)netcom.com> wrote: >it really bugs me how much cypherpunks try to point out the "gotchas" in all >the laws with crypto. when we become *experts* on these laws, and >tell people why they prevent them from doing various things, we >are actually *supporting* them. It's not often we see an active and overt defense of ignorance. Good work, Vladimir! But to really avoid being contaminated by evil knowledge, I recommend the following 12-step program: 1. Admit that you are powerless to get a clue. Print out this message for reference. 2. Unsubscribe from Cypherpunks, and all other sources of information that might be relevant. 3. Unsubscribe from all sources of information that probably aren't relevant, to avoid hostile agents forcing you into unwitting coercion. 4. Read William S. Burroughs books until you begin to see your neighbors as giant cockroaches and slugs. 4a. In the event that you already see them this way, read Burroughs until they look like something else. 5. Join as many religions as possible, so that you have incompatible memes busily protecting you from facts. <steps 6 through 11 deleted until receipt of a note delivered by the proper techniques, to be beamed into your mind later> 12. Seal your head in a plastic bag until you suffocate. This will protect you from such problems in the future. Hope this helps! Signed, A Friend

1 0

Reminder: Jan 28 Bay Area CA meeting, noon - 3 p.m.
by mrm＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bay Area California Cypherpunks Meeting January 28 12 noon - 3 p.m. B21, Sparcy's Cafeteria, Sun Microsystems Inc Directions: Take the Rengstorff Ave East exit from 101. If you're driving north on 101, this exit is labeled "Amphitheater Parkway". If you're driving south on 101, this exit is labeled "Rengstorff". At the end of the exit ramp, turn left onto Garcia. After .4 mile, turn right onto Marine Way. After .1 mile, turn right onto Coast. Building 21 is right there. Look for the big purple and white sign. Agenda: Roger Masterton, a producer/videographer, would like to film a discussion among cypherpunks about 1st amendment issues, for a PBS show named "Freedom Speaks." The show airs nationally on PBS. In San Francisco, currently on KMPT Thursdays at 5 p.m., and starting in March, on KQED. Their web site is http://www.fac.org/ There's a lot of 1st amendment issues to talk about these days regarding the internet, and so the first part of the meeting will be gathering topics. There's the first amendment principles of publishing information in digital form, and the fundamental right of people to carry on a private conversation. The discussion will take whatever organic form it takes, depending on who of us can make the meeting ... See you tomorrow if you're coming. I'll bring bagels again. Marianne mrm(a)eng.sun.com mrm(a)netcom.com

1 0

Re: Denning's misleading statements
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:24 PM 1/26/96 -0500, Thomas Grant Edwards wrote: > >I think the big bait-and-switch is her description of the various >companies falling over themselves to get to _VOLUNTARY_ key escrow to >avoid losing data and protecting themselves against employee problems >versus _MANDATORY_GOVERNMENT_ key escrow to ensure that individuals >cannot hide information from the government. > >Key escrow is good. Key escrow against your will is bad. While I understand your point, I sorta hafta disagree. (or, at least, state my reservations.) If something is technologically IMPOSSIBLE (or, in practice, not available), it won't be mandated by government because it can't be. The moment something exists, it can be forced on people. I'm not saying we should somehow try to prevent people from developing truly voluntary key-escrow systems; rather, I'm saying that their existence should alert us to the danger.

2 1

RSA in 4 lines of Scheme
by Ulf_Moeller＠public.uni-hamburg.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(define(RSA m e n)(list->string(u(r(s(string->list m))e n))))(define(u a)(if(> a 0)(cons(integer->char(modulo a 256))(u(quotient a 256)))'()))(define(s a)(if (null? a)0(+(char->integer(car a))(* 256(s(cdr a))))))(define(r a x n)(cond((= 0 x)1)((even? x)(modulo(expt(r a(/ x 2)n)2)n))(#t(modulo(* a(r a(1- x)n))n)))) ;;;; ;;;; (define c (RSA "The magic words are squeamish ossifrage" 5 114381625757888867669235779976146612010218296721242362562561842935706935245733897830597123563958705058989075147599290026879543541)) (display (RSA c 45752650303155547067694311990458644804087318688496945025024737159778909096647814932594914301288138204957467016445183857236173773 114381625757888867669235779976146612010218296721242362562561842935706935245733897830597123563958705058989075147599290026879543541))

1 0

Re: Open NNTP servers and logging
by Michael Peponis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 26 Jan 96 at 21:11, Stephen Albert wrote: > A little while back there were some very helpful posts about getting started > wit open NNTP servers. Since my regular site runs kinda slow in the news > department I've been having fun poking around and seeing about getting more > current. > > Then it dawned on me. People keep logs. Presumably routine logging would > point right back at my ISP, and from there it'd be not too hard to pin down me > specifically. No, I don't think anyone is particularly *likely* to do that, > but why take chances? > > So...anyone know of open NNTP servers that *don't* keep logs? Or some other > way around the problem? Well, as bad as the lack of anonymity may be, NNTP server logs serve a very usefull purpose, ie finding and eliminating trolls and spammers. Unfortunatly, I would have to go logs given the state of UseNet. Why not just read from the open server, and post anonyomously using anonymous remailers and News-to-Mail Gateways? Regards, Michael Peponis PGP Key Avalible form MIT Key Server,or via finger

2 1

Re: [NOISE] Re: "Gentlemen do not read each other's bank statements"
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>tenuous-at-best connection to cypherpunks material - using a currency >backed only by the supply of ones and zeroes requires a market mechanism >to encourage the issuers not to overdo it.... Aggregious plug time. The above comment is *not* so tenuously connected to my e$ lists. I've been sending juicer bits of this particular discussion on to e$pam, my e$-filter-list of other news and mail groups, where the above comment in particular is germaine. If you want to continue your discussions on e$pam's discussion list, e$, you will be welcome. Subscribe to e$ by sending, in the the body of your message to majordomo(a)thumper.vmeng.com : subscribe e$ I've been sending other money related stuff to e$pam, from places like the AustrianEcon (Hyek, Mises, et.al) list, so people on e$ are at least *interested* in intellegent comments about money of all kinds, in particular the kind made of 1s and 0s. e$'s unmoderated, and has, as they say in the money business, "endogenous" traffic. ;-). Most of it originates on the list itself. Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Reality is not optional." --Thomas Sowell The NEW(!) e$ Home Page: http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/

1 0

Re: Crypto Exports, Europe, and Conspiracy Theories
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"rsalz(a)osf.org" "Rich Salz" 26-JAN-1996 04:39:43.50 >I believe that one minor reason is the PKP chokehold on public-key patents. It has slowed down adoption within the US, and the RSA licenses for example tend to get very "interesting" when it involves places where their patents don't hold. ---------------- Speaking of other countries' non-recognition of algorithms as patentable, are David Chaum's patents on digital cash enforceable outside of the US? Thanks, -Allen

1 0

Re: [rant] A thought on filters and the V-Chip
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"alano(a)teleport.com" "Alan Olsen" 26-JAN-1996 16:31:41.98 >The purpose of all the ratings, and the filters and all the other stuff is not to "protect kids". It is to protect the prejudices of the adults. They do not want to see it anywhere in the world, not just inflicting some sort of imaginary harm on their children. I expect the first people to use the "reversed filters" will be the kids themselves. (Behind the parents back, of course.) I have known too many adults that believe that by restricting their kids access to information, they can prevent them from growing up. In these parent's minds, such information is what makes them want to hump their little brains out. Biology has nothing to do with it in their limited way of thinking. Cluelessness does not just cover computers with these people. It also covers any other topic that required more than two brain cells to understand. ----------------- Strongly agreed. Why should parents be able to determine what information their children receive? Are children the property of the parents? I can see some rights of parents over children, since they have responsibilities over their children also (and thus need the rights to fulfill those responsibilities), but censorship is not one of them. No study has ever shown actually harmful effects from viewing pornography. Crypto relevance? A lot of the same people wanting to restrict children's access to information are also against cryptography, anonymnity, etcetera- see the "CyberAngels" for an instance. Incidentally, they also tend to want to restrict people (or at least minors) from viewing other information opposing them. "SafeSurf", the censorship-by-rating site that the CyberAngels are associated with, has as one of its categories of stuff to restrict access to any advocacy of illegal drug usage. Translation- NORML and anyone else working for drug legalization. Of course, the anti-some-drugs biases of the Guardian Angels are well known... -Allen

1 0

Feds on Internet Banking
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Evidence that the Fed has noticed Internet banking. It looks like they're more concentrating on electronic checks than on digital cash, though; I may be mistaken in that, however. Any of the lawyers on here know much about banking law? -Allen Reuters New Media _ Friday January 26 2:01 PM EST _ Boston Fed Minehan Warns Of "Virtual" Bank Danger NEW YORK - Federal Reserve Bank of Boston President Cathy Minehan is warning against potential risks of "virtual" banking -- or electronic account systems handling electronic money. Minehan stressed that the regulatory community has just begun to consider these issues and that much work needs to be done before it even knows all the questions to ask, let alone what answers to give. "Legislation and regulation of new payments system alternatives could be unwise right now, but that does not mean that participants in such systems should not oversee them or that central banks should not be concerned" Minehan said in an address to the Goldman, Sachs Conference on Risk Reduction in Payments, Clearance and Settlement Systems. "'Smart' card technology is now being used to store electronic 'notes' authorized by the card-holder's bank that can be used to transfer value between banks, consumers and merchants," she said. "These electronic 'notes' flow over the Internet and give authorization for funds to be withdrawn from a bank account and paid to another party electronically," Minehan said. "This can come close to being a new form of currency in that the potential exists for the value on the card to remain in circulation, transferring from card to card, and one endpoint to another, without necessarily being converted to a more traditional form of money," she said. [...] "'In this regard, it is especially intriguing to consider how the 'virtual' bank might be regulated," said Minehan. "Some maintain that virtual banking is just a new form of bank which all the usual rules and regulations apply," she said. Copyright, Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved

1 0

Re: "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail"
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:39 PM 1/25/96 -0500, Jay Holovacs wrote: >I might suppose that a significant reason why the nuclear arms race did >not come to blows was the balance of espionage between NSA/CIA/KGB etc. >With accurate information on your enemy, one is less likely to be >panicked into a preemtive strike. On the other hand, with inaccurate information concerning enemy capabilities and will, one is more likely to believe that the enemy is incapable of destroying you from the grave, or lacks the necessary will to destroy the world in response to a small "surgical" nuclear strike. They called it the peace of fear, the peace of terror, and the pax atomica. They did not call it the peace of the NSA --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1