- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Naked woman decapitates man on Internet!!!
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You just gotta love the headline. Anyone have the URL? Seen on Newspage headlines; I assume the full text is on ClariNet. NAKED WOMAN DECAPITATES MAN ON INTERNET - Pictures of a naked young woman decapitating a man with a saw are available on the Internet, to the consternation of police in Munich who say they are unable to do anything about it. [AGENCE FRANCE PRESSE, 175 words] -rich who thought the associated press was bad

8 8

search engine improvement
by bryce＠digicash.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Keywords: distributed ratings systems, search engines, spiders, spiderspace, idea futures, The Shockwave Rider, John Brunner You know there is a trick that might greatly improve the effectiveness of a search engine at almost no cost to the end user. It is the well-known heuristic of "If Person A likes X and Y, and Person B likes X, then Person B probably likes Y.", combined with passive polling (which is getting information about people's opinions just by watching their actions, instead of by asking them). A first simple implementation would keep a table of the pages that people choose, keyed from the query that they originally submitted. Those pages that people choose most frequently from the list of matching pages (and/or those pages that people "stop" on-- that they do _not_ follow by further searching), would get bumped up a little in the list. This would be massively expensive in networking, storage, and computation, giving those hi-tech Alpha clusters at AltaVista something to do... :^) There are plenty of extras and refinements that could be added (for example, put some keywords identifying your "affiliation" in a separate field. It will only consider the results from other people who entered the same affiliation keywords when weighting your search results.). And there are some good topics for further discussion, such as is it worthwhile to distinguish between "relevancy" and "value"? I don't have a comprehensive list of people who are already working on this area (distributed ratings) (if I did, I might have Cc:'ed them), but I know that many people are. I hope that they and the search engine people get together and make cool stuff soon. There is the interesting issue of whether this will cause self-reinforcing "degeneration", where people (or an "affiliation"-keyed group of people) accidentally overlook a worthy page early in the game, and then, using each other's behavior to influence their own, reinforce that mistake. As a final attribution note: John Brunner thought of this idea idea in his prophetic novel _The Shockwave Rider_ in the 75. There is a wonderful line which I can't find right now, about how it turned out to be a flywheel instead of an oracle, merely aggregating human mistakes and successes. Regards, Bryce P.S. ObCryptoRelevance: Um... you could get paid for your ratings using Chaumian ecash, and even have your ratings popped into the right "affiliation" using Chaumian credentials... P.P.S. CryptoRelevance isn't very Ob anymore, is it? Just as well, IMESHO. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2 iQB1AwUBMhjA+EjbHy8sKZitAQGpIQMAyDcdHUgK9/KhNskvUG8AAbourl1Hg6J5 ZIzo7aTnDq3ZGN9RnqKRkBRRmk4hjN1rFFWvQUYtA3XQQl85scE2XVGG/oURBoTW EU4WwB2oMSsAVGkYHn02B4gFn8gO6hmA =tZn3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3

Re: Creative Wiretap Arguments [Was :Re: Put up or shut up]
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:37 AM 10/9/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, jim bell wrote: >> Maybe you're missing the point? Even if you accept the idea of wiretapping >> telephone lines, one of the things that _isn't_ settled is how law is going >> to start treating ISP's. That, let me point out, IS NOT settled law, and in >> fact it hasn't really even started, so those lawyers who have a knee-jerk >> tendency to accept precedent don't have any precedent to accept! (unless, >> of course, they "pre-accept" the assumption that what the government can do >> WRT ISP's is somehow identical to what they do with telephones.) > >I disagree. There is lots of potential precident. The entire concept >that data voluntarily turned over to a 3rd party is not entitled to 4th >amendment protection (i.e., pen registers) is just the one that happens to >jump to mind. Given that the "constitutionality" of pen registers is pretty intimately tied up with the ADMITTEDLY illegal usage of wiretaps before 1968, that hardly qualifies as a settled issue. (I say this from the standpoint of "what really oughtta be" rather than "what those nine morons will accept.") BTW, it is unclear why this argument ("data voluntarily turned over to a 3rd party") couldn't "automatically" be applied to telephone audio itself. After all, in order to get the audio to the other end, you have to convert it into varying electical signals, which are "turned over to a 3rd party", the telephone company. The distinction between these two forms of information is pretty flimsy. (Chances are excellent that the only reason for any distinction between them at all originated back before 1968, when wiretaps themselves were considered illegal, and the cops wanted to be able to justify what they probably called a "minimal" violation of privacy short of being able to hear the audio itself. Now that the wiretaps themselves are called "legal" I suspect that the cops will have reverted to the assertion that this information is essentially identical from a warrant standpoint.) Another possibility is that this is simply a holdover from the time when automated switching of telephone lines was essentially unknown: To make a telephone call, you "had to" tell the operator the number you were calling, and thus presumably you'd "voluntarily" turned it over. However, that presumption evaporated once automated switching took over, and there's no requirement that the telephone switch makes a permanent record of any given phone call. "Naturally," the cops would have argued that the advance of technology (automatic switching) would "make futile law-enforcement access" (much as they are now claiming the advance of encryption will do) and would have argued that the new technology shouldn't prevent them from knowing who is making phone calls to whom. Isn't it interesting that when an advance in technology allows the cops to do something they hadn't been able to do before, they accept it as if it's a done deal, whereas when technology starts taking away an ability they howl "like a stuck pig." Sounds pretty selfish to me. > The fact that the government has had to deal with >the breakup of ma bell and cooperate with several different phone >companies now suggests to me that not much of a leap is required to >include ISPs. Constitutional arguments that ISPs are somehow different >from phone companies and therefore not required to comply with wiretap >orders? Good luck. All of which are still monopolies, at least in their defined areas of business. And customers have no choice of who to deal with, as a result. Thus, phone companies never had any motivation to satisfy their customers by fighting wiretap warrants in court. Etc. ISP's are not monopolies, they are not common carriers, etc. ISP's, quite simply, are entitled to write their OWN rules about how they deal with customers. One the whole, I'd say there are plenty of differences between a plain-vanilla telephone company and an ISP. >I know its fun to make the argument that ISPs and E-mail and NetPhone are >all new technologies and so it must be unconstitutional to regulate them >but the amusement in these cases stems from a wish that it was so, not >fact or reason. I didn't mention, "unconstitutional"; it's possible that it's simply "illegal", as in, "there's no law yet which allows "ISP-tapping." In the same sense as wiretapping was illegal before 1968. BTW, I'm not saying that "normal" wiretapping can't be done on an ISP. In other words, arguendo the cops would only be entitled to connect to the phone line(s), as in an ordinary wiretap. But that might be pretty damn ineffective, given that even a typical small ISP probably has a hundred or more phone lines to monitor. In other words, there's no single point where the cops can clip on the clip leads and get the data they want. Which raises the issue, "Is the ISP required to install 'wiretap-friendly' capability?" Apparently not, if the cellular phone industry is any precedent: For awhile, cops couldn't easily tap cell phones because no such capability had been designed into the cell-site software. Such an omission was not considered a violation of law. >> I contend that an ISP should be entitled to enter into a contract with his >> customers in a way which obligates him to structure his business to minimize >> his ability to cooperate with police when given a search warrant. > >"I content that a phone company should be entitled to enter into a >contract with his customers in a way which obligates him to structure his >business to minimize his ability to cooperate with police when given a >search warrant." Yeah. Good luck. It looks like you're not very perceptive. Notice I said "minimize his ability to cooperate." As far as I'm aware, telephone companies are not required to keep many of the records they currently keep. If they contract with a customer to not keep those records, the inability of the cops to get those records is not any sort of violation of law. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: FC97: Anguilla, Anyone?
by Will Rodger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Yup - I did get the July blurb - of you do send me one, make sure it's updated. Will

1 0

Not content with the CDA, Sen. Exon derails Pro-CODE
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

********* Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 17:54:52 -0500 To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu From: declan(a)well.com (Declan McCullagh) Subject: Not content with the CDA, Sen. Exon derails Pro-CODE When the White House wanted to derail pro-encryption legislation, they knew where to turn: to the infamous author of the even more infamous Communications Decency Act. Last month Sen. Jim Exon (D-Nebraska) wrote the attached letter to Sen. Pressler, chair of the commerce committee, days before the ProCODE pro-crypto bill would have cleared its last hurdle in committee then moved to the floor of the Senate for a vote. Because of Exon's threatened "several amendments" that would defang the bill, the markup never happened. Thanks to Exon, it didn't have a chance. But don't blame the retiring senator from Nebraska. Not only are your electrons wasted, he's not the true culprit. It was the White House, in thrall to the Justice Department: Gore advisor Greg Simon made the calls to Exon's office that prompted this letter to Pressler. -Declan http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/top/ Background: http://www.hotwired.com/muckraker/96/36/index4a.html ****** September 9, 1996 The Honorable Larry Pressler Chairman Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee 243 Russell Senate Office Building United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Pressler: I understand that the Senate Commerce Committee may have a markup this week to consider the so-called Pro-CODE computer encryption bill. As you know, the computer industry has had a series of high-level discussions with the President, Vice President, and the government's national security experts. I am hopeful that these discussions will produce substantial and meaningful reform in the current export regime for encryption software. Given the national security and law enforcement implications of the proposed legislation, to rush into a mark-up before these concerns are resolved would be a mistake. If the measure is taken up on Thursday, I would expect that there would be several amendments. With best wishes, Sincerely, Jim Exon United States Senator cc The Honorable Fritz Hollings ###

1 0

Re: Guerilla Internet Service Providers (fwd)
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:43 1/4/96 -0600, Jason Rentz wrote: >Previous exchanges deleted... >> >>With a tightly focused beam (light is easy, I don't know about lower >>frequencies), you can prevent interception except by very obvious physical >>devices. (e.g. Someone in a cherry picker truck.) You may be able to >>avoid the need to encrypt the link (and all the paranoia about key >>management, advances in factoring etc. that that implies.) >> >>Bill > >The problem with this comes when you start creating links between much >taller buildings like in San Fran. Any give building over 30 stories might >sway a foot or so at any given time. Combine that with the other building >and you might get a few feet of movement. (movement not including during an >earthquake) :) (1) No single communication technology is appropriate for every problem. (2) A technical fix could include having the receiver send steering orders to the transmitter. This solution would, of course, be a long way from the low tech scavenged lens and 1/2 meter cardboard mailing tube technology I was thinking of. Bill

1 0

PGP & Zimmerman on Tonight's CBS News
by David Lesher / hated by RBOC's in 5 states 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I caught only part of a LONG (by network news standards) piece on crypto with PRZ, Jimmy SuperFed Kellstrom and Scott Charney. If CBS news is yet to air in your area, it is well worth your time to see, and perhaps record. Phil came off very well. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

Re: 2047 bit keys in PGP
by Cedric Tefft 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Scott Brickner > To: Cedric Tefft > Subject: Re: 2047 bit keys in PGP > Date: Thursday, January 04, 1996 3:41PM > > Return-Path: <sjb(a)universe.digex.net> > Message-Id: <199601042141.QAA15905(a)universe.digex.net> > X-Authentication-Warning: universe.digex.net: Host localhost didn't use HELO > protocol > To: Cedric Tefft <CedricT(a)bart.datastorm.com> > Subject: Re: 2047 bit keys in PGP > In-Reply-To: (Your message of Thu, 04 Jan 1996 14:12:00 PST.) > <30EC5109(a)ms-mail.datastorm.com> > Date: Thu, 04 Jan 1996 15:41:51 -0600 > From: Scott Brickner <sjb(a)universe.digex.net> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > Cedric Tefft writes: > > If his algorithm effectively cuts my keyspace in half, I need to make it > >twice as large as I would need if my attacker's best algorithm were brute > >force. > > Um. No. If his algorithm cuts the keyspace in half, you only need to > make it one bit larger. > You are correct. I'm afraid I was thinking one thing and typing another. What I meant to say is that the attacker has an algorithm that effectively cuts my keySIZE (instead of keyspace) in half, i.e. his algorithm requires him to try on average only 2^1023 keys (instead of 2^2047 for a brute force attack) to crack my key of 2048 bits. Thanks for pointing this out. "Who needs encryption when their thoughts are unclear in plaintext?" - Cedric

1 0

Re: ITARs effects
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Adam Shostack writes: > >: Peter D. Junger wrote: >: | >: | : This implies that putting something up for FTP == export. Holy >: | : shit. >: | >: | That has always been the position of the Department of Defense Trade >: | Controls with respect to the ITAR, the only difference is that now >: | it is going to be in writing. >: >: My understanding is that they choose not to continue >: per^H^Hrosecuting Phil for putting the code up for FTP. Thus, this is >: a change. Or did Phil not put the code up for FTP? > >Phil probably did not put up the code, [snip] > In my case the >government's lawyer has made it quite clear that they would consider >putting cryptographic software on a web site as a violation, and I >don't think that for this purpose there is any distinction either in >the government's mind or in reality between an FTP site and a web >site. > These changes are all aimed at making it harder to make money from strong crypto and therefore reduce its common availability worldwide. They do little to keep it from circulating worlwide, what ever its country of origin as anonymous posting to a newsgroup is still straightforward. Look for more shareware and commercial crypto source to circulate in printed, rather than machine-readable, form to take advantage of freedom of speech rules. -- Steve

1 0

Carto international money-laundering/embezzlement case
by rcgraves＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> wrote: > > Further (and at the risk of being identified with a particular > political slant, which I don't have), this "newspaper" is actively > collaborating with other international interests to put the nail in > Free Speech, via the Holocaust issue. Carto of Liberty Lobby fame Apologies for replying to a crank whom most people are already ignoring, but I've got lots of material relating to the case of Legion v. Carto, which Dale summarizes quite wrongly, at http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~llurch/potw2/legion/ Cypherpunk relevance: HUGE. Money laundering, reputation control, data and tax havens, libertarian and Nazi fantasies, criminal cults, and a dog named Fido. Judge Maino: | I believe that I could appoint a platoon of lawyers and accountants | to look into this case and I would still not be much closer to answering | the following questions than I am today. The reason the truth will never | be fully known is because the parties, all highly intelligent and | capable, seem to have spent their lives forming organizations and then | transferring money between these organizations to avoid problems with | their opponents or the government. A good example of this is Ms. Farrel. | She gives up U.S. Citizenship, takes Columbian citizenship, and resides | in Switzerland to avoid taxes. She keeps her assets in the U.S., England, | Switzerland, Germany, Singapore and Japan. She sets up a Liberian | corporation, Neca, to take charge of her assets for the Legion which is a | Texas corporation doing business in California. Far from Dale's preoccupation with "international joo interests," it's a case of two neo-Nazi groups suing each other over the mismanagement of an inheritance. Stir in a little CoS interest (they want to cover up Marcellus's involvement with Holocaust denial and to associate recent legal actions against the cult in Germany with the Holocaust), and it's a veritable cornucopia of fruitcakes bashing each other, all over money for which no clear accounting can be made because it was always kept at least partly underground. Would that we could all do so well. The judge's letter on how he saw the witnesses is *very* entertaining. It's legion-vs-carto-letter.html in the above directory, but by all means, read it all. If you have soft copies of anything The Spotlight or any other pro-Carto rag has to say for itself, I'd be delighted to archive them, too. - -rich -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBVAwUBMrT+85NcNyVVy0jxAQHhewIArARpR1DeaX+dKeyB+nAbL0otSEbtfO+I kRrfJMG6rR9TrMXPcRpj/ViWXvqEPOMNJoUXjv3xGfT6MoXcsuPFhQ== =f60U -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1