- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: PBS show
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:30 PM 6/13/96, jim bell wrote: >At 10:31 AM 6/13/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: ... >>The comments about the floppies (" VERY SMALL capacity floppies (which were >>very slow as well") is even more off-base. > >The original Apple II floppy held ONLY 90 kilobytes on a 5" floppy. How did >they do such a bad job? And the cost of these floppies was very low--I seem to recall $150 or $175. In those days, when 8" externals weighed 50-70 pounds and cost a few thousand dollars, this was a notable achievement. Remember, the standards of 1978 are not the standards of today. The "standard" then, for personal computers that were affordable, was an external cassette recorder ("TARBELL" standard). Go back and look at issues of "Byte" or "Interface Age" or "Dr. Dobbs" to see what was really available. Given the low cost of the Apple unit, it's a marvel they could do it at all. The "IWM" was the key. Just plain good design. And "only 90 KB" is also misleading in implying Apple was behind the times. The IBM PC launched 3 years later had a built-in cassette port and only offered 180K diskette drives (later upgraded to 360K). Really, blasting Apple for poor design and for not providing higher-capacity floppies, when the competition was doing far worse, is laughable. >The design for the Z-80 was completed and in Intel's hands. Intel didn't >want to build the Z-80, they wanted to focus on peripheral chips, so they >let Shima go and start Zilog. Your history is flawed. Faggin and Shima did not have a completed Z-80 design when they left; if they did, Intel would hardly have let them take it with them when they left! As the Gen Xers would say, "Duh." Read up on some of the histories of the time. Intel never chose to focus on "peripherals," they chose to build both. (If anything, EPROMs were the profit center in the mid- to late-70s, not either processors or peripherals.) At the time you are apparently referring to, the mid-70s, Intel had a huge effort started to develop the "8800." While this was ultimately a failure, it is supremely stupid to use 20-20 hindsight without looking at more issues. All development efforts and companies involve lots of decisions, lots of tradeoffs, lots of hurt feelings, and lots of apparent mistakes. Arguing that Apple could have introduced a high-capacity floppy in 1978, or that Intel should have developed the Z-8000, is just plain pointless nonsense. We could all speculate about how some company should have done things differently, knowing what we know now. The rest of Bell's points are just typical PC-microprocessor flame material. Use what you want to use, just don't rewrite history to fit your theories. I won't comment further on this thread. --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

Re: US law - World Law - Secret Banking
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"ml3e+(a)andrew.cmu.edu" "Michael Loomis" 26-APR-1996 07:40:10.88 > I have been reading this list to get an idea where Declan gets some >of his lunatic ideas and what Rich Graves says when he is not up to >Holocaust fetishism. Despite Timothy's claim to the contrary, it seems >that the basic point of this list is some libertarian notion that tax >evasion is a good thing. Well, actually it's on a lot of other things also, including ones that those against censorship (I assume you're on the fight-censorship list, and thus encountered both Declan and Rich?) should favor. Examples include anonymous remailers and web pages (the deceanse (sp) project). Moreover, anonymous digital cash has applications to fighting censorship. Applications include paying someone to remail information or to put it on the web. c2.org, for instance, accepts even the present semi-anonymous digital cash and offers anonymous web page hosting. >While I am not clear how serious of threat, if one at all, to a system of >fair taxiation, That depends on how one defines "fair." >since much of the talk could be simply bluff, I have been made glad for the >first time for the War on Drugs. This silly war--tragic in terms of its >economic cost and its assault on liberty--at least has forces some >government agencies to take you seriously enough to figure out how to derail >your plans of tax evasion. Most of the tracking and other mechanisms discussed are even more of a threat to liberty - most significantly privacy, although there are other ones involved as well - and, indeed, to economic efficiency. A lot of the proposed and/or instituted regulations can also be used to discourage various politically unpopular but economically efficient operations; an example is "capital flight." In other words, unless you really want to live under a set of laws as restrictive as those in Communist China, support the cypherpunks. -Allen

1 0

Re: OS/2 encryption utilities
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I thought the following from CuDigest should serve to illustrate some of the discussion recently on this subject. -Allen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computer underground Digest Sun Apr 21, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 32 [...] Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 10:50:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Doc_Holliday(a)AWWWSOME.COM(M. Steven McClanahan) Subject: File 3--Canadian "criminalization of technology" [...] Speaking as one who had a Power Macintosh with a 2 gigabyte hard disk drive and all my backups subpeonaed in a civil case, I can tell you that the other side is not likely to want or accept your help in determining what is on your mass storage devices and/or in learning how your systems work. I had to stand by while the attorney corrupted all the data on my hard drive trying to beat my PGP encryption. Then he did the same thing to my back ups. Despite my protests I would have GIVEN them the key to decrypt the data - he didn't trust me. This is in a CIVIL case, imagine how they would feel in a CRIMINAL matter. They spent days trying to get past PGP and could not. Even if they had, all they would have gotten was copies of email between my wife and I. The downside was it took me two weeks to reconstruct my hard drive, time which the courts refused to order the attorney that started all this to pay me for. (They did sanction him after he threatened to punch me during a deposition for refusing to reveal my sources - which were protected by attorney-client privilege - which I thought was interesting; apparently he could waste all my time, but he couldn't hit me.) The court decided my data had no value and that having to rebuild my hard drive was a "minor inconveneince" compared to the "interests of justice." Since it is a no win situation, extending cooperation is problematic. It probably won't do any good. My experience told me most people in law enforcement have not advanced, technologically, past the level of an Atari 2600 and are completely baffled by complex systems. Based on what they did with a Mac system, I doubt they would even be able to access anything now that I use a SPARCstation 4. An attitude seems to have developed in the prosecution of computer crime that "the ends justifies the means." As the voters have gone along like sheep and surrendered many civil rights in the prosecution of drug related crimes, they are similarly doing in the prosecution of computer crimes having to do with the Internet and claims of "child porn." This is extremely dangerous as. If you look long and hard enough on any system,and systems accessible to it, you can, eventually, find something that will offend someone. Therefore, applying the rule that "the ends justifies the means," everyone who connects to a computer network is thereby "criminalized." The frigthening part is that, whether or not the innocent victim is doing anything illegal, the reams of good press such actions bring for prosecutors and police just encourages them. After it is all through and nothing illegal is found, law enforcement still looks good in the press, (because the public has been whipped up into such a frenzy they preceive any action as "good"). The victims of such harassment are always "guilty" in the eyes of the public, simply because the government took any action.

1 0

Clyink Encryption Units
by creal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cylink STX-2400X Voice/Data Encryption Units - Easy hook-up to phone (4-pin modular plug) - 198 bit key - Clear/Secure voice/data - keyed lock - SEEK key exchange or manual key loading - User's manual - ac power supplys These are the same as the STX 9600X currently sold by Cylink at $3000/unit except the data transfer rate is 2400 bps instead of 9600 bps. Good voice recovery. Like new condition. Asking $450.

1 0

Re: Gov. archives - NSA (fwd)
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

New ideas about where the "totally new russian crypto" proffered by "mailsafe" might come from: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 12:13:22 -0500 From: Brian Durham <bdurham(a)metronet.com> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: Gov. archives - NSA http://www.nsa.gov:8080/ Interesting information about Soviet one-time pad ciphers and about crypto-related documents from the WW2 era that are being declassified.

1 0

[;)] v2.0
by Dave Del Torto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<http://www.well.com/user/ddt/info/jet-reply.html> (v2.0)

1 0

Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by mkj＠october.segno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Income tax is the Godzilla of taxes. It is THE TAX when it comes > to the US. (Perhaps VAT has a similar status elsewhere, but both, > as pointed out, are subject to crypto-anarchistic subversion.) > > > ...taxes existed, and governments sustained themselves perfectly > > well, long before these systems arose. > > But at nowhere near the voracious levels of modern states. This is a point I hadn't considered. If the govt doesn't know where most of the money is, they can't "harvest" it nearly as efficiently. Although they will almost certainly try to extract as much as possible from the poor, you can't get blood from a stone. Hence the size of current governments will undoubtedly have to shrink. Most other arguments put forth so far in this thread, about how people "won't stand for" certain government behaviors and so forth, I don't find convincing. Modern military technologies, especially in the U.S., make the prospects of a sucessful popular uprising dubious. When you cut off someone's air supply, even the nicest, gentlest person will go into an unrestrained, murderous frenzy. I expect something similar will happen to even the most "civilized" governments within the next few years, as popular crypto begins to cut off their money supply. As I see it, only those relatively few citizens who can afford to flee will dare to resist. Which brings us to the "flight of capital" issue. Will nations be able to compete freely for the loyalty of the rich? Or will the most powerful nations form effective coalitions, and perhaps simply bomb "rogue" nations into the stone age? The more I contemplate my "simple" question of yesterday, the more I find myself getting into deep waters which I feel ill-equipped to navigate. I rapidly run up against such imponderable questions as, "What is government?" and "What is wealth, really?" Only one thing is certain: We live in interesting times! At any rate, I thank everyone for their thoughtful responses. --- mkj

10 13

Re: code vs cypher
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

** Reply to note from hochiminh(a)alpha.c2.org 04/26/96 8:31pm -0700 = Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com> writes: = = pm> tm> Timothy C. May writes: = pm> tm> Well, I was not invited to join the elite and secret = pm> tm> coderpunks list, = well, apparently that was not a problem. = pm> It is neither elite nor secret. It is fairly high signal to = pm> noise. = pm> I think only about one in every fifty or so cypherpunks = pm> messages has any content at all worth mentioning. = = Agreed! I wasn't "invited". I simply requested access and = was quickly welcomed to the list. = yes, and that was the intent. I do not think the intent of those of us who formed Coderpunks "conspired to form an elitest group." The basic problem was simple --even code topics were politicized in cypherpunks which resulted in scores and days of "re: " messages until someone finally prefaced it with [NOISE], or changed the subject. = pm> tm> but I still have some thoughts on coding and, = pm> tm> especially, on the opportunities offered by Java. = pm> tm> Sorry if this interferes with discussions of Rabbi = pm> tm> Heir and Morris Dees. = = pm> You have no right to grumble about the situation here. = pm> It is exactly what you wanted. Here you were, a person = pm> of some personal gravitas and moral authority, and you = pm> put your stamp on the "post whatever you like; don't let = pm> the grumbling censors stop you". Well, as you sow, so = pm> shall you reap. Its your fault, more than anyone else's. = = TC May was not the first person to substantialy digress from = chartered topics but he certainly "ran with the ball" when he = got his chance to expose his ignorance and intolerance of = other races and religions (the cypher-relevance or "charter = topicality of which always escaped me). I was discouraged = by the encouragement given to the murder advocating moron, = Jim Bell to post his insance littany. = as to jim bell, does this imply you believe in censorship? I think you are mistaken with your implication that tcmay is a racist. Bigotry, etc. is usually created in the mind of a reader who jumps to conclusions. I am somewhat older than tim, and I find the politically correct revisionism even more humourous (and very intellectually cheap): vertically challenged, horizontally challenged, mobility challenged, mentally challenged, or whatever the current fads are. and, to top it off, I am disgusted with the high and mighty moralism of the revisionists. I fully agree with EEO, but I thoroughly disagree with quotas and preferences. I have more than an even tendency to call a spade a spade, and I may live where guns tend to outnumber our many children, but the only way a stranger can be bounced from my table is to interfer with grace --and there are some, as they are attending for the extra plate which is always set, who would protest that my prayer offends them. does anybody still have manners? tim finds humour in many things --and, he has the courage to challenge the politically correct revisonism which is being shoved down our throats by a bigger and bigger, but certainly not better, creeping vine of vipers we call our government, which is nothing more than a ship of fools. = pm> If Cypherpunks has become a cesspit, well, its YOUR cesspit, = pm> Tim. Its the list you always strove to create, but it appears = pm> that you now don't like the smell of your own wallow. Well, = pm> sorry. Deal with it. = = Well put, Perry! well, the premise may be correct on what cypherpunks drifts into with the endless political back and forth --the open forum; however, the creation of the cesspit is not one party's fault --we _all_ have contributed to the problem --which is compounded by direct, on-line connections. so, how about a little moderation in all things? -- Overseeing first-rate programmers is a managerial challenge roughly comparable to herding cats. cc: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>

2 1

Windows remailer source code
by Bob Bridgewater 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Please could you tell me if you know of any remailer source code that will run under Windows NT3.51 to enable me to set-up a remailer myself. Somebody told me that one has been announced recently and you may know where to find this. Any suggestions would be welcome. Bob Bridgewater bob(a)bridgew.demon.co.uk

1 0

Re: [NOISE] Re: Guardian angels, the decency brigade, and
by Declan B. McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message begins here ---------- From: sethf(a)MIT.EDU Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:37:48 -0400 Message-Id: <9604270337.AA22787(a)frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU> To: angels(a)wavenet.com Subject: Re: Guardian angels, the decency brigade, and cyberseraphim Cc: fight-censorship+(a)andrew.cmu.edu, mnemonic(a)well.com, cp(a)panix.com I have been researching the issue of ratings for some time, and thinking of getting a SafeSurf rating for a few pages as an experiment, so this "patrolling" is pretty interesting: "Gabriel" writes: > The answer is yes. So how can Safesurf be sure that sites registered with > them are indeed genuinely kidsafe? Simple - someone has to go and check > out all the sites who register with Safesurf. Now, would you be kind enough to tell me what happens next? Suppose you check out a site and find it is in your opinion not "kidsafe". What do you do in that case? This is not clear from your message. If the essence of the the SafeSurf system is "voluntary" ratings, are you not substituting your own standard? After all, in reference to Declan McCullagh's point about the fight-censorship archives, you say: "Why ask? Clearly a site with a message like this would not be suitable for children to read. That would be an adult site rating." Clearly then, you have some standard you are applying, which seems in this case be roughly "any archive which contains any message with any sexual content, no matter what the context or proportion, does not qualify as "kidsafe" in the CyberAngels view." So, in reality do we not have two standards here, the site's "voluntary" one, and the one the CyberAngels apply to the site? Only if the two coincide will all be well. Thus, is it not reasonable to ask that the CyberAngels at least make clear their criteria? I collect items such as this (ratings systems), I would be very interested in what the CyberAngels have come up with. ================ Seth Finkelstein sethf(a)mit.edu P.S. I don't know if you're a recent recruit or not, but Curtis Sliwa has a checkered history at best. Given the fabrications in the Angel's past, what can we expect in their future? References: AUTHOR: Goodstein, Laurie TITLE: Guardian Angels' Chief Clouds His Reputation SOURCE: Washington Post SEC,PG:COL: A, 3:1 DATE: Nov 29, 1992 ABSTRACT: Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels, has admitted that some of his 1980s exploits were fabricated to get publicity. AUTHOR: Gonzalez, David TITLE: Police Union to Sue Sliwa over Hoaxes SOURCE: New York Times SEC,PG:COL: B, 6:6 DATE: Nov 26, 1992 ABSTRACT: Ron Reale, the president of the New York City transit police union, said Nov 25, 1992 that his group would file a lawsuit against Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the Guardian Angels, on the grounds that he had injured the union's reputation by faking crime-fighting exploits in order to garner publicity for the Guardian Angels. AUTHOR: Gonzalez, David TITLE: Sliwa Admits Faking Crimes for Publicity SOURCE: New York Times SEC,PG:COL: B, 1:4 DATE: Nov 25, 1992 ABSTRACT: The Guardian Angels' founder and leader, Curtis Sliwa, admitted in a New York Post article on Nov 24, 1992 that he faked six of the group's early crime-fighting exploits to gain publicity. Some former and present associates contend that even more of the group's activities were publicity stunts. TITLE: Curtis Sliwa's Confession SOURCE: New York Times SEC,PG:COL: A, 32:1 DATE: Nov 27, 1992 ABSTRACT: An editorial wonders why so many New Yorkers got taken in by Curtis Sliwa, the Guardian Angels' leader who recently confessed that he and his Angels fabricated several exploits in order to gain public support.

1 0