- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Inter-Patch Voice Network
by J. Kent Hastings 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- [ From: J. Kent Hastings * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Cpunx, This may be old hat, but now that PGPfone is available, why don't we start an "Inter-Patch" Network using PGP and ecash? Here are features to consider: * Computer users generate pre-paid phone cards for non-geeks. * Rate is say, 2 cents per minute, for near-real-time voice. * "Voice Mail" service is not subject to telco utility regs. * PIN#s can be changed by users, who can also confirm value. * Thus a user can sell remaining time on a card to others. * A local participant to the target number is selected. * Ecash is instantly delivered in exchange for communications. * Perhaps a 50 percent split, 1 cent per minute for example. * Bad participants are removed from the network. Kent - -- J. Kent Hastings Assistant Director of The Agorist Institute zeus(a)pinsight.com, http://www.pinsight.com/~zeus/agorist/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMOn0hTTxxI221vktAQHs3AQAj/uI2xYGSfE9iSVttCncBrS7yDAUaecX +s1U8zF29zx4a/zq6yUOOJncxS7GWXavUhNLcjuruH7f9tHO1Sam8XcT59rwVlvv P+xnrV/NwaDW0q+TxWjnNhVgTJePC6Hq+6bLRiod+hOTuawkJ3vx50CmDoEKC1Fk HrNqiRLzNQc= =O3Bo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Foiling Traffic Analysis
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 23:21 1/2/96, Carl Ellison wrote: >This is merely a technical means for producing anonymous communications. > >Anonymity = conspiracy? Poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans is eager to allow warrantless searches of their homes and property to aid the War on Drugs. Every non-CP person that I tell about remailers asks me "This is legal?". Meaning that they would expect it to be illegal. Surely a prohibition against anonymous remailers and especially against DC nets is a small prize to pay for perceived security against the Four Horsemen... Inevitably, a DC net or the Token Ring approach described earlier will be used for illegal purposes. Once, not if, that comes to pass all participants will be guilty of conspiracy and their property subject to forfeiture. No trial needed and it will happen to the applause of the general public. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

1 0

Re: Guerilla Internet Service Providers (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:37 PM 1/2/96 -0800, you wrote: >> It seems to me that phone line costs are turning into a floor price for >> Internet access, when they shouldn't really be. The main asset telephone >> companies have, right now, is in RIGHTS OF WAY. Put an ISP in a business >> park that allows you to run your own dedicated copper pairs, and you've >> bypassed $25/month/line business phone line charges. >> >> At some point, individual urban and suburban blocks could easily be >> "guerilla re-wired" for ISP access without serious trenching, etc. The >> phoneco would still be involved, but in a far lower-profit mode, as the >> supplier of a single T1 to a multi-block area. > >For the "last mile" to the ISP user, wireless could be a better bet. >Have antenna, will surf. Yes, you're absolutely right. It would be great if some entrepreneur could buy a T1, put up a 2000 MHz (or somewhere around that; whatever frequency was allocated appropriately) local "cellular" data system which would be able to connect to up to, say, 100 simultaneous or so local users using modems little more complicated than a current 900 MHz cordless phone. Okay, maybe all this stuff is already being worked on at a few dozen or hundred companies around the globe, but I can't wait... >(Not speaking for Qualcomm, etc.) > >Peter Monta pmonta(a)qualcomm.com >Qualcomm, Inc./Globalstar Question: Is this the "Qualcomm" that does the Internet access software, or the "Qualcomm" who builds the wireless amps/filters/hardware/etc? Or is it all the same company?!?

1 0

Re:US calls for measures against Internet porn
by Mark Neely 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> WASHINGTON DC (Reuter) - The US called Sunday for improved >management of the Internet to prevent people seeing pornographic >material on the world computer network. Perhaps it is a result of many self-interested parties who have hyped the Internet to the hilt, but it never ceases to amaze me how people think that as soon as you connect a PC to the Internet, suddenly, all this information and computer wizardry _leaps_ down the phone line and _jumps_ out of your screen. It can be clearly demonstrated (even to US politicians) that the Internet is not a passive media - users must go out and find what they are looking for (especially pornography). You cannot "stumble" upon pornography, as you might by, say, channel surfing on cable. You can't tell me that someone who fires up their Web browser and points it to http://www.playboy.com, or clicks yes to a request that they acknowledge that they are over 18/21/majority and agree to access adult material doesn't know what they are getting themselves into... Mark ___ Mark Neely - accessnt(a)ozemail.com.au Lawyer, Professional Cynic Author: Australian Beginner's Guide to the Internet Work-in-Progress: Australian Business Guide to the Internet WWW: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~accessnt

3 2

Re: Guerilla Internet Service Providers
by Mark Grant, M.A. (Oxon) 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 2 Jan 1996, Jay Holovacs wrote: > Commercial satallites have land based corporate owners. Remember the > success that Alabama had a few years ago pulling the plug on a New York > based softporn tv satellite distribution system. They simply went after the > assets of the satellite companies and got quick cooperation. About ten years ago a group I was involved with were thinking about putting something into space as a publicity stunt. One company we talked to claimed they could put 1 kg into orbit on one of their sounding rockets for about $ 30,000 (that's a 1 kg satellite, not $ 30,000 per kg). How small can you build a "data haven" satellite ? Looking a few years into the future, you could probably stick a stripped-down Linux laptop with solar cells and a stripped-down satellite telephone as a Net link on top of a slightly larger rocket and charge for on-orbit storage using ecash... Using remailers it should be pretty-much untraceable. Mark

2 1

Re: 2047 bit keys in PGP
by netdog＠dog.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I really don't see the point of using a key larger than 2048 bits. Any larger >key would actually be harder to factor than brute forcing the IDEA keyspace. >Very little security would be gained from using a key larger than 3000 bits. >Of course, one can always argue that improved factoring methods would require >that an RSA public key be longer than 3000 bits to have equal security to >IDEA. However, I doubt that factoring methods will improve that much. nobody will ever need more than 640K or RAM? i wouldn't underestimate the ability of technology to grow at a pace that is beyond our wildest dreams-especially with this network serving as a virtual office/lab. of course, ymmv. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> the Forest will always be there...and anybody who is Friendly with Bears can find it. - A. A. Milne

3 2

Re: Compuserve *hasn't* banned newsgroups
by David R. Rorabaugh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>I pointed my copy of Free Agent at CPCNET's open news server >>(198.70.185.5) and grabbed a list of groups sure enough, there were >>the seasoned citizens in all their glory. And I was checking out >>those binaries via CompuServe. I suspect that CompuServe doesn't care much what goes over their network (they will claim "common carrier" status) as much as they care about what they themselves provide. The groups in question ARE gone from CompuServe's news servers. - -- David R. Rorabaugh Systems Operations Specialist Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin, L.L.P. The opinions expressed are my own. - -- - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMOlXuioZzwIn1bdtAQGgAgF9GOa8Sl3mu6wDt70k6Ij3ZBAfi0j+9i1f bxC/+g1qecXUCL//wPwiTToTjyLouUaW =vXmL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Guerilla Internet Service Providers (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:08 AM 1/3/96 -0600, you wrote: > >> As a ham, too (N7IJS) I recognize your implicit selection of 2m or 450 MHz. >> But I gently object to this, for reasons that I think will be obvious. > >I was thinking of the itenerant frequencies around 151 MHz, but the >bandwidth would be limited. I wasn't thinking of amateur frequencies, >but my fingers sometimes have a mind of their own ;) Interestingly enough, my primary objection was NOT really commercial encroachment on an existing amateur structure (though that is an important consideration!); rather, it was the fact that because we're talking really short-range communication (way less than a kilometer, in most cases) using frequencies below a gigahertz would be a counter-productive shame. Here, we WANT "line of sight"! And, of course, the bandwidth issue is inherently better: It would be FAR easier to get 100 MHz width at around 2.5 GHz than under 1 gig! >> First, technology has been marching on in the last 10-20 years, and >> communications frequencies of 2 GHz and more are technically do-able and >> comparatively empty. (and with modern IC technology, even easy) > >I'd love to see plans (or used commercial gear) able to do this - I've >got a point-to-point application that I'd love to set up ... I get a free (bingo-card) magazine industry magazine called "Microwaves and RF," which is sort of the EDN for the high-frequency communication crowd. You'd be amazed at the level of technical (chip) development there. Chip sets that do frequency synthesis/full RF/IF on surface mount chips. Jim Bell, N7IJS (BTW, I use Eudora, and I have PGP. Could somebody explain how to PGP-sign messages, ideally EASILY?)

1 0

Windows Eudora and PGP
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:43 AM 1/3/96 -0800, Jim Bell wrote: >(BTW, I use Eudora, and I have PGP. Could somebody explain how to PGP-sign >messages, ideally EASILY?) I use Eudora as well. It is not as easy as I would like. You have a couple of options: 1) Use cut-and-paste into Private Idaho. Private Idaho will allow you to paste back into Eudora. (Or you can send out from Private Idaho directly.) This option is useful becuase it supports nyms and chaining of remailers. 2) Get one of the standard Windows PGP shells and paste into that. After signing, you will have to repaste into Eudora again. These seem to be the only options. I am not certain if there is a standard DDE or OLE interface that could be used to feed message information back and forth between Eudora and some other app. There have been a number of promises of Eudora/PGP integration, but nothing has materialized yet. There are no easy answers I know of... If you need a copy of Private Idaho, I can point you to a web site or bring a copy along to the meeting on the 20th. Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "Governments are potholes on the Information Superhighway." - Not TCMay

1 0

Re: Guerilla Internet Service Providers
by Jeff Simmons 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jim Bell writes: >It seems to me that phone line costs are turning into a floor price for >Internet access, when they shouldn't really be. The main asset telephone >companies have, right now, is in RIGHTS OF WAY. Put an ISP in a business >park that allows you to run your own dedicated copper pairs, and you've >bypassed $25/month/line business phone line charges. > >At some point, individual urban and suburban blocks could easily be >"guerilla re-wired" for ISP access without serious trenching, etc. The >phoneco would still be involved, but in a far lower-profit mode, as the >supplier of a single T1 to a multi-block area. That's assuming the phoneco cooperates. Punknet is a 'Guerilla ISP'. Twenty of us share a 128k ISDN line, distributed via high-speed modems. It's been running fine for over a year now, but Pacific Bell has evidently decided to get rid of us. How? Simply by refusing to either repair or replace our 25 pair trunk line, which is rapidly degrading. We've offered to replace it ourselves, but according to them, it's illegal. Right now, we've got three dead lines, and two others that only will do 1200 baud. We've been told that what they're doing is probably illegal, but it's the old problem: Where does an 800 lb. gorilla sleep? We're fighting this like all hell, but who knows? After they get rid of us, I wonder who's next ... - -- Jeff Simmons jsimmons(a)goblin.punk.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMOnOnuL8IP70uJJBAQF3EwP9He5bWGBRcYv3LZDAB7XJt34zr+Pi/WWp a2NjFdDuxxc7VwO1tcSvqq+PX23OtJnay9yWkcpRBUissyJ5CPzqGQv4dX8vqN0R F1EK8zTSuEnQpiMVSqduknusVeQYOq2tP6b+iDtGKgCu2veDSLS10SY82qOPmQ8j OjxkfDcxJjI= =xJeV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0