- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Secure drive under Win95... a better way.
by Geoffrey C. Grabow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

After much fiddling, I've found (IMHO) a "good" way of using secure drive 1.4a under Win95. After doing the partitioning and encrypting, put the following in your AUTOEXEC.BAT file... cd\utils\secdr14a sectsr login D: /S @choice /T:N,1 @if errorlevel 2 goto ContinueLoad :EnterPP login D: @if errorlevel 1 goto Again @if errorlevel 0 goto ContinueLoad :Again @choice Try again? @if errorlevel 2 goto ContinueLoad @goto EnterPP :ContinueLoad cd\ cls abviously you have to replace the D: with your drive letter, and the directory at the top with your SECDR14a dir. Then, in Win95 you have to turn off 32 bit disk access. To do this without losing all the speed of virtual memory, do the following... right-click on My Computer click on Properties, Performance, File System, Troubleshooting and check the box labeled: Disable all 32 bit protect-mode disk drivers. Re-boot. If you have a CD-ROM drive, you will have to load the DOS drivers in order to be able to access it. Granted, this is just a kludge until Secure Drive is re-designed for Win95, but I've tried a dozen different combinations, and this gives you all the SecDrv security under Win95 (except being able to lock/unlock after Win95 starts) and sacrafices the least amount of system performance. Enjoy! G.C.G. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Geoffrey C. Grabow | Great people talk about ideas. | | Oyster Bay, New York | Average people talk about things. | | gcg(a)pb.net | Small people talk about people. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------| | PGP 2.6.2 public key available at www.pb.net/~wizard | |----------------------------------------------------------------------| | That which does not kill us, makes us stranger. - Trevor Goodchild | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: "An who shall guard the guardians?"
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:46 AM 8/1/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: > >The Latin maxim "And who shall guard the guardians?" has some relevance to >the headlong rush into converting the U.S. into even more of a security >state than it is now. > >The investigation in Atlanta is now focussing on a rent-a-cop who may have >planted the pipe bomb and then "discovered" it. Check the usual Web news >sources for more details. Whether he is the bomber or not is not the point, >which is, "who watches the cops?" The timing of the revelation of the investigation's interest in Jewell, the rent-a-cop, is highly suspicious. We have now learned that (contrary to previous reports that the bomb exploded 18 minutes after the warning was given by telephone), in fact the 911 people wasted about 10 minutes trying to figure out the address of the park. Even though this story did indeed get reported by the media, a little, "as if on cue" the interest in Jewell was leaked. It gives the media something to talk about other than the known official screwup. A coincidence? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Let's Say "No!" to Single, World Versions of Software
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:51 PM 7/31/96, Mark M. wrote: >On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote: > >> We won't do this. Our domestic version will always contain the >> strongest crypto we can provide. > >Then what is the concern about anonymous arms-traffickers uploading the strong >crypto version to foreign FTP sites? I recall you saying that the State >Department might revoke Netscape's "permission" to provide a domestic version >if it was exported. I believe the issue involves Netscape's _method of distribution_, that is, its placement of Navigator on a publically-accessible site with various "checks" of who is trying to download it. This is something the State Department could theoretically get involved with, due to the ITARs and the way they are worded. Actually approving of disapproving a piece of software for sale to U.S. citizens is not currently possible. (Though this is worrisome, speculatively. Various other weapons, such as nukes and CBW, are in fact prohibited for sale to private citizens unless approved. And sales of various guns are limited. So, if "crypto is a munition," the same could perhaps apply. This runs into the "crypto as speech" issue, of course.) --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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

RE: Violation or Protection? [OLYMPICS]
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: tcmay(a)got.net > >If the Centennial Park is a public place, not a private one, as I believe >to be the case, then it seems to me a person is within his rights to turn >down the offer to be inspected, frisked, interrogated, etc. ........................................................ But if the park was a private one, would it make any difference? Between the "right" of being left alone, and the "legitimate needs" of law enforcers to frisk suspicious looking characters - whether in public or in private places - it seems rather difficult to draw that dividing line between allowance and forbearance. I mean, either it is, or it isn't, a "right". When could it really be okay to violate that definition. How are the law enforcers to do their job if they can't intrude into your shopping bag, when it's a critical National Emergency. This is what Denning is always referring to. .. Blanc > >

1 0

Re: ANNOUNCE: 2nd trip to National Cryptologic Museum (fwd)
by root 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is it a bar where you can smoke ?? ( the legal stuff ) >>>>> Forwarded message from tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) At 5:15 PM 7/31/96, Zorak Ramone wrote: > Following the lecture, we will be going over to Henckles (10 minutes >from the museum), a local resturaunt reported to be a favorite hangout for >NSA employees. Henckles has amazing sandwiches as well as good beer on tap. Jeez, first they tap our phones, and now they're tapping our beer! --Klaus << End forwarded message Charles E. Sparks In God We Trust, All Others we Encrypt Public Key at: http://www.clark.net/pub/charley/pc_1.htm

1 0

Re: Photo IDs (Re: A Libertine Question)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:09 PM 7/31/96, William Knowles wrote: > >What about one of those camouflage passports from Britsh Honduras >that they sell in the back of the Robb Report for $300? > >I personally doubt that your basic $4.75 an hour airport security >guard knows about that. All of the I.D. checks I have received have been at the ticket counter, to receive my boarding pass. The airport security guards have never asked me for any form of I.D., picture or otherwise. (As has been commented upon by many analysts, it's likely that the airline companies are enforcing the picture I.D. rule so as to stop the practice of people buying discount tickets and then selling them to others. Specifically, many corporations buy tickets in advance of knowing who the actual business traveller will be. The airlines are causing many who arrive at the ticket counter to "upgrade" to a full-fare ticket under their real name.) The "security" implications are a joke. More pablum fed to the gullible. --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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Photo IDs (Re: A Libertine Question)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:12 PM 7/31/96, Duncan Frissell wrote: >was allegedly requiring *two* pieces of ID for flights. If they are talking >about two pieces of photo -- government-issued ID, I wonder where the 80% of >Americans without a Passport (x the 90% of Americans who are not government >employees) get the second piece of ID. [Is it a violation of something if >you Heil Hitler od Sieg Heil the airline clerk when they ask to see your ID. >It's not a threat, it's an expression of honor.] Yeah, this "two photo IDs" is strange, given that: a. many ordinary people have only one form of photo I.D., namely, their driver's license (and many don't even have that) b. terrorists and other such persons are _very_ likely to have multiple forms of I.D., though of course not in their "true name." Hence, the policy looks ineffectual and just a sop to public relations. And just what is a "true name" for the purposes of this law, anyway? Birth name? And what is that? What about people who marry, change names, etc.? Given that there is no "standard" for photo I.D.s, will my Official Cypherpunks Card count? I can easily make my own photo I.D.s, or even order "fake I.D.s" from various mail-order outlets advertising in the Usual Places. If I show up at the airline with two photo I.D.s, one showing me to be "Security Officer Mickey Mouse" and the other showing me to be "Mickey Mouse, Internal Security Agency," will I be violating any laws? --Mickey Mouse (I just changed my name--if you don't like it, FAA, fuck off)

2 1

Re: Photo IDs (Re: A Libertine Question)
by Chris Adams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 31 Jul 96 14:27:54 -0800, tcmay(a)got.net wrote: >>was allegedly requiring *two* pieces of ID for flights. If they are talking >>about two pieces of photo -- government-issued ID, I wonder where the 80% of > >Yeah, this "two photo IDs" is strange, given that: >a. many ordinary people have only one form of photo I.D., namely, their >driver's license (and many don't even have that) >b. terrorists and other such persons are _very_ likely to have multiple >forms of I.D., though of course not in their "true name." > >Hence, the policy looks ineffectual and just a sop to public relations. And who really thought a response just days later would be anything else? >And just what is a "true name" for the purposes of this law, anyway? Birth >name? And what is that? What about people who marry, change names, etc.? >Given that there is no "standard" for photo I.D.s, will my Official >Cypherpunks Card count? Now *that* might be another way of generating Cypherpunks revenue! (1 card per FPGA paid for the DES cracker... Or maybe every $15 toward the CPLDF or PRZ) # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> - Webpages for sale! Se habla JavaScript! # Automatically receive my resume or PGPKEY by sending email with a subject # of 'send PGPKEY' or 'send resume'. Capitalization counts so be careful! # Web site: http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htm

1 0

Re: fbi, crypto, and defcon
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> Okay, so their boss is part of the law making process, subject to the checks >> and balances that exist between the three branches of US government. They >> are in a position to supply their boss with data and I am personally >> impressed with their grasp of some of that data (it sounds to me like they >> are telling their boss that hackers like the ones at Defcon are not the >> problem). It was interesting how the Agent made the point that the FBI was there to enforce laws, not make policy. Then his Boss's role in the law making process was brought up, the Agent said "but any of you can do the same thing, you all have a voice" etc etc. Then he refused to answer political questions based on the fact that he was there as a representative of the FBI, failing to see that his Boss is also a representative of the FBI when recommending legislation. (Again, I realize he was "under orders" not to discuss it, I wish he wouldn't try to justify it with obviously faulty logic.) > I think what they are really saying is that they would love to >bust most hackers, but since they can't they might as well use some of >them to catch the bigger fish. If they truly did believe in the laws they >are supposed to uphold they wouldn't associate with hackers (who commit >computer crimes) at all. A more cynical view is that they are there to protect some of the biggest institutions of "organized crime" (ie: Congress, At&t, Microsoft, etc) who are ripping people off on a daily basis from the other organizations who refuse to play by their rules. //cerridwyn//

1 0

Re: A Libertine Question
by John Brothers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:01 AM 7/31/96 -0700, Greg Broiles wrote: >At 04:50 PM 7/30/96 -0700, Mike Duvos wrote: >>Alan Horowitz writes: >>> On Mon, 29 Jul 1996 jbugden(a)smtplink.alis.ca wrote: >>> >>> > Think of how many of our laws are being enacted that tacitly make being >>> > poor or indigent a crime. >>> >>> Horseshit. This is a poorly-disguised re-tread of one of the standard >>> lines of the Patrice Lumumba University brand of leftist agitprop. >(* Other people (apparently not "strong libertarians") buy into all of that >suspicious crap about the Bill of Rights and people being allowed to be >themselves even if other people find it upsetting or non-decorous. Speaking as a strong libertarian, I can assure you that Alan Horowitz is completely off-base. My gut feeling is that he is trolling this entire thread, so I will attempt to make my response as civil as possible. Strong libertarians recognize that my right to walk the street is in no way superior to anyone elses right to walk the street. Strong libertarians recognize that it is not against the law to smell bad, or to have rotten teeth, or in other ways be un-appealing. "They have no right to live in Seattle, they should move somewhere they can afford". That statement is ridiculous. No one has a 'right' to live in a certain place. In fact, Mr Horowitz, you don't have a right to go to downtown Seattle and not be accosted by the homeless. If you don't like it, move to somewhere the homeless ain't, and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Apparently Mr. Horowitz is one of the tiresome "legalize everything that doesn't offend me, ban everything else" libertarians. Here's a clue to a true libertarian thought process: You offend me, Mr. Horowitz. Your attitude by itself is enough to make my throat clench in distaste, but the fact that you call yourself a libertarian is exceptionally galling. From your e-mail, you show no understanding of what it means to be a libertarian, and libertarians are extremely ill-served by your preposterous claims. But I will defend to the death your right to make them. --- John Brothers Do you have a right not to be offended?

2 1