- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Cyber PsyOps
by Jeff Davis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Black Unicorn sez.. >What you seem to be looking for is change NOW. >THIS SECOND. If this is your time table, I hope you like bloodshed. Change is happening now. This is not something an individual can instigate, it just happens in predictible cycles. I'm just spitting in the ocean with my $0.02. I am committed to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution of the United States of America. Maybe Marbury v. Madison (1803) was a fuck up. Reversing that decision is a plank of the Libertarian platform. The Constitution has provided amending provisions, and we can always rectify the errors of shortsightedness. Article XXI Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. I opperate under the ASSUMTION that anything I release publicly, (email post cards included), is available to the intelligence community. Here's a little personal Hx for you and cypherpunks. I find it rather Pynchonesque. Between a high school friend of mine, Peter Anthony Zellner, and I, we have 3 Social Security #'s. Two of them are consecutive and are mine. The US Navy spent a years worth of investigation, (NIS), to find out why Pete's SS# didn't work. He was given an "N" designation for Navy until they got it straightened out. My mother has testified under oath in a court of law she signed my elistment papers when I was 17. When I was 18, my draft classification was 1-H. On 18 February 1983, an Air Force Lt Col stopped by my place in Denver on his way to a conference at Keystone that became SDI. I refused a mission and was cashiered on the spot. End of story. I can offer circumstantial evidence and personal corraboration that the above is true. FOIA is useless. I always draw a blank- (which is indicative of an active file). In the Fall of 1984, at the bequest of Robert Bragg, Petty Officer 1st Class, NIS ran a check on me. The reason is because FTS clearances are "Q" clearances, and I gave Bragg the proper cue. Bragg informed me that NIS considered me questionble. There are a lot of very bright people doing some important work on this list that is far beyond my technical expertise. I don't have to write it, however, just learn how to use it. I offer mainly social philosophy and social activism.In consideration of this, I have no intentions of disscussing the above any further. One may believe it, or disbelieve it. I don't care. If one tends toward disbelief, I'm sure the above will be used in an attempt to discredit me. If my personality and activism is disruptive to cypherpunks, I can always shut up and just read the damn thing. I have no intention of becoming involved in a Detweilerian flame war. Especially with Black Unicorn. I'm trained to determine potential harm of a classified leak. I can tell by Unicorn's response that he is informed to an extent, yet has a limited paradigm of intelligence access by which he/she makes his/her judgements. Carry on cypherpunks. If rebuttal to my statements cloggs the group, I will do all I can to minimize it. I can always sit here and read the damn thing. -- PGP PUBLIC KEY via finger! JAFEFFM Speaking & Thinking For Myself! * eagle(a)deeptht.armory.com email info(a)eff.org * *** O U T L A W S On The E L E C T R O N I C F R O N T I E R **** ***** Committed to Free Public Internet Access for World Peace *****

2 1

RE: Shot 'Round the World
by greg＠ideath.goldenbear.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Blanc Weber writes: > From: Greg Broiles > "... we don't need to demonstrate good behavior to convince it/them > that we deserve or can be trusted......" > ". . . to bolster their flagging confidence, they need a good kick in > the teeth." > "There is no rational argument that can force the non-trusting to trust." > ". . . the point may be to create a state of irrationality, not a > particular rational conclusion." > . What you would be aiming for here, apparently, is neither their > psychology nor their intellect. But actually if you are not intending > to communicate at all, then all of things which I mentioned are > irrelevant. I would leave you to your own devices. The only message I think is worth communicating is "We're doing our own thing. You will not be able to stop us because of [ .. reasons ..] so don't bother trying. Have a nice day." and I'm inclined to think even that is unnecessary. Terrorism and psychological warfare could be considered a form of communication; it is, after all, intended to create or maintain a particular understanding on the part of others; but it is not communication in the same way that a letter is. I don't know anything at all about what Jeff is up to, so he'll have to speak for his own (actual) motives and purposes; I was hoping to point out that what he's up to can seem more useful when it's not considered in the context of a rational discourse within polite society. > "Perhaps this discourse about "images" isn't useful, and it's time to > talk about capabilities." > . What image do you get of the engagement of your capabilities under > normal circumstances vs under a totalitarian regime? I've got no idea what you mean by "normal circumstances"; if your point is that totalitarianism sucks, I agree. I could chatter on about how I think things ought to be, but I don't imagine most folks give a damn. I believe we have a right to work towards a social/political structure (or lack thereof) where our capabilities are fruitfully and fully engaged, whether or not bureacrats and dictators find that convenient. (Of course, they may have already found the state where *their* capabilities are best engaged .. :) > What sort of picture is created in your mind by the statements about > human nature, "endowed ...with inalienable rights", among which are > included "Life, liberty, Pursuit of Happiness", and what do you suppose > George thought about that? Uhh .. a right to privacy (and to the use of strong crypto) whether or not that makes other people nervous or damages their fragile confidence? > Some questions I would ask in regard to this warfare business: > What sort of a win would you be aiming for, which served the purposes > of rational discussion poorly? For how long would you be expecting to > live in the company of those whom you drove to irrationality? And how > would you go about the business of returning everything back to a > viable, liveable state, supposing you achieved victory? The usual pattern is destabilization, then a power grab by whatever group is correctly positioned - either revolutionaries or the local military. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Personally, I'm inclined vis-a-vis the NSA and TLA's in general to let sleeping dogs lie, at least for the moment. Other folks (Grady, Jeff) see opportunities differently; I encourage folks who think leverage and timing is on their side to take advantage of opportunities as they occur. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLapGn33YhjZY3fMNAQHmZAP7BscprSqPUr4cIW+nxRv1z/Ym8l2qcF0N Wav2xXK8R2D7ZlYb1fwTw+6Q85Z8fjh/8RXaWkfJzBLvcAj9dxIE+fYc8+USfAfV SfCev9f8QcZ9hYNzkoU4CiwmAftGsZzpoEFVl/N9jjd+YEAbO6ChI5UeBY6+/yeu Q5hVFg6fap0= =y8mJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Clipper Chips in video descramblers
by koontzd＠lrcs.loral.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Recently someone posted reference to GI (General Instruments) getting authority to use Clipper chips in descramblers. One wonders about motivation on their part. ITAR already exempts the use of crypto in video descramblers where the crypto cannot be used for other purposes. DES is already used in descramblers such as the Video Cypher II, and can be exported under commodity jurisdiction. It is unlikely that anyone is going to spend the money to break DES keys and redistribute pirate authorization. The chances of discovery are too large. So, what is their motivation?

2 1

alias in phone book
by Adam Lake 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have recently been participating in a thread concerning anonymity and pseudonymity on the Internet. Somebody was complaining about trying to find somebody and they were logged in with an uncorrelatable alias. (Fishman = Don Johnson????) The person was asking for a rule that everyone log in with an alias that DIRECTLY correlated them with their "real world" (relative term) pseudo. Yuch!!!!! What I was wondering was if any of you law hacks out there new anything about the following comment regarding phone books A professor of communications has brought up the fact that it is illegal to use a pseudo in the white pages of the phone book. Is this the case? Help!!!! lake(a)uenics.evansville.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Remember the last time you called her, she forgets Pray to her, she will remember that she will remember that ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 5

MacPGP and AOL(again)
by fhalper＠pilot.njin.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have figure out a way to distribute MacPGP on AOL. I uploaded a listing of where to get MacPGP and in the file description I said that I would e-mail individuals that wanted MacPGP but didn't have Internet access, along with sprea ding the word around. I will only have to mail it originally to myself and then forward it to others as they request it. Any comments or suggestions are welcome. Reuben Halper Montclair High~r MyPublicKey.asc

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Earlier, somebody indicated that large primes of the form 2^(2^n)+1 exist... actually, it is conjectured that beginning with F5, all are composite. This person is probably confusing Fermat numbers with Mersenne numbers (see my earlier post) - large Mersenne primes exist, but not all Mersenne numbers are primes. Also, it was suggested that 2^128+1 is prime; this is false. You can almost do the calculation by hand using Fermat's Little Theorem. But with Mathematica: PowerMod[3, 2^128, 2^128+1] = 47511664169441434718291075092691853899 This is not 1 so 2^128+1 is definitely not prime. > The key property of them is if n is a Carmichael number and n=p*q*r, > then (p-1), (q-1), and (r-1) divide (n-1). > I wonder if Carmichael numbers always have some small factors. Well, many Carmichael numbers do have small factors, but not necessarily. If you derive the formuals for creating Carmichael numbers, you can use them to create Carmichael numbers with prime factors, arbitrarily large if your patience is willing. For example (with just a few minutes of Mathematica time) p = 600035641 q = 1200071281 r = 1800106921 n = 1296230964879005767193383441 p,q,r are prime n is a Carmichael number And incidentally, Carmichael numbers can have more than three prime factors, for instance 7 * 13 * 19 * 37, the smallest Carmichael number with four. > I should point out that the standard argument that picking 'k' > different values for 'a' and then calculating the probability as > (1/2)^k is fallacious. This would be true if the probabilities were > independent, but they aren't. There was a paper on this about five > years ago whose awareness has not been yet widespread. I no longer > have the reference. Well, for our purposes, we only care if the probability is lower or higher than (1/2)^k. Maybe you can be more certain than (1/2)^k in which case you are even happier. So this is "fallacious" because the probabilities aren't independent... so, what, are we talking larger than (1/2)^k or smaller? If smaller, then (1/2)^k is an easy to calculate upper bound. Earlier, I said: >> Failure depends on how many iterations you perform (n iterations = >> 2^-n chance of failure) and the values of the base you choose. >As I pointed out before, this probability is not correct. The trials >are not independent, so you cannot just multiply them together. Okay, this paper you keep referencing - does it apply to primality testing based on pseudoprimes (converse of Fermat's Little Theorem), or other methods, such as Miller-Rabin? The above passage (the double quoted one) applies specifically to Miller-Rabin, a test which has no "bad" inputs - e.g. there exist numbers which will always pass pseudoprime testing, but there do not exist numbers which always pass Miller-Rabin. For M-R, the chance of failure depends on the number of iterations. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLar5AYOA7OpLWtYzAQEyLQP/Wb6m+S0pBQrkqPVrbUgkLCgoT5fmLuKC +0zZ6plve65CuUSalI//L+kZmfaf2WiJnAow1V58i7YJQwMKnds3KomZKbMMpzzb Y3wbQvuNc+T0kSi7uMeJG0vuzgwjgCYzAI0Xqv2i7hkMN1wejqax8tSK0ZKualrr SEJKeTKmBvA= =RwAS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

No Subject
by anonymous＠extropia.wimsey.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: Any cypherpunks building encrypted phone? Hello everyone! I'd like to know if anyone on the list has made any attempt to construct a true encrypted phone, something at the level of the AT&T DES phone. I think that it ought not to be too difficult to build a couple, using existing modems and basic hardware design. If all the commercial phones are going to be Clipper-based, we'll have to build the real ones ourselves. Lady Ada, Queen of Engines

5 4

Alias in phone book
by jimn8＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I doubt it's illegal to use an alias for the white pages. Pac Bell listed me as "Spaceman Spiff" in the '87 or '88 Palo Alto white pages. Only a few people bothered to call and see if there was "really" a Spaceman Spiff at my number :) The reasons for the strange name were: I didn't want to pay for an unlisted number, and Spaceman Spiff was my pseudonym on a BBS that discouraged use of real names. Of course the law may have changed; Pac Bell may have let my request slide by accident; I'm not a lawyer etc. Just supplying a point of information on the subject, - Jim Nitchals (jimn8(a)netcom.com)

1 0

Keay's story (hitting the street as we speak)
by sfexaminer＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Posted to relevant usenet groups: This story will appear on the front page of the San Francisco Examiner today (4/12/94) in the 3-star and later editions. Keay Davidson is writing a follow-up story for tomorrow: if you were involved or can offer other assistance, please call (415) 777-7793 collect or e-mail sfexaminer(a)aol.com. Hackers retaliate by leaking manual By Keay Davidson` EXAMINER SCIENCE WRITER` Computer hackers waging what they say is a war against government electronic snooping have distributed over international computer networks a copy of the supersecret U.S. National Security Agency's employee manual. The NSA manual, which was sent to dozens of news organizations Tuesday, was distributed ""to embarrass the NSA'' and prove that even the U.S. government's most covert agency can't keep documents secret, said Grady Ward, a software designer from Arcata in Humboldt County. Ward said the document initially appeared on a Texas-based hackers network late last week, and he helped redistribute it over other electronic networks. ""The intent is to embarrass the NSA and demonstrate that even their own security manual can be distributed,'' Ward said. NSA officials said the document is an unclassified employee handbook. Anyone seeking a copy of it would need to file a Freedom of Information Act request, said NSA spokeswoman Judi Emmel. The identity of the person who initially obtained the document and how it was obtained was not clear. The manual warns employees to safeguard the document: ""While you may take this handbook home for further study, remember that is does contain "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY' information which should be protected. ... Appropriate administrative action will be taken to determine responsibility and to apply corrective and/or disciplinary measures in cases of unauthorized disclosure.

1 0

number theory
by nobody＠jarthur.cs.hmc.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > I should point out that the standard argument that picking 'k' > different values for 'a' and then calculating the probability as > (1/2)^k is fallacious. This would be true if the probabilities were > independent, but they aren't. There was a paper on this about five > years ago whose awareness has not been yet widespread. I no longer > have the reference. Okay, my memory has been jogged... is this a paper by Pomerance, "On the distribution of pseudoprimes"? He gave more precise estimates for the number of base-2 pseudoprimes. With his more precise estimates, the chance of a 100 digit number passing the base-2 pseudoprime test is about 1/10^13... I think his work applies only to base-2 pseudoprimes, so my statement concerning the error rate of Miller-Rabin is still correct: for s iterations, the chance of failure is 2^-s. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCUAgUBLar8xIOA7OpLWtYzAQEAmgP2NQx7a3woaZMgT5CeqOFrhqyRcYt3mAPd 9bnf+f19E4Il42e0xw9vQjOMyowB/IkATQf+//ADIFxhE9p+2MOpD8eDr9saGYOV bVwV2/bWtzsHqjsbWRH27/5lEwFXerGfJNSc1ITkZFwp1QwpzmVvn6gkOZ2lf0AJ /q3QneS7iw== =2XH+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0