- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Bandwidth limitations
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <9311121650.AA03375(a)snark.lehman.com> pmetzger(a)lehman.com writes: > The human genome fits nicely in 1GB. Mere Gigabit networks could allow > you to send your whole genome in seconds -- and fiber can do many > orders of magnitude better than that. > > A complete MRI scan can be sent on a gigabit network in mere moments, > too, and again, fiber can do far better than that. > > If you can send a thousand video signals down your fiber at once, > sending complete plans for a factory to build Fords, and the complete > plans for the cars, will likely take a wink of an eye. Perry, I did understand your remark; I don't think you got the point of mine; give me a fiber and a computer fast enough to use it and sufficient disk space, and trust me, I'll find something to fill it with. Capacity increases to fill the available bandwidth/disk space/ whatever. Just because you don't have the imagination to think of how we'll use an essentially new medium in the future, don't write it off already. Here's one suggestion that is quite sensible given vast resources: instead of linear TV, we have parallel TV. I don't mean dial-on-demand download a program - I mean every single program ever made and every single movie ever made are broadcast down fiber simultaneously; - you want to see the 59th episode of Star Trek, you switch to the 59th episode of Star Trek channel, where it's going round and round as fast as it can be transmitted. Now, you do the sums. How much fiber does *that* need? (When you've done that one, add on the volume of transmitting a high-res scan of every page of every book in the world...) This may seem like an outrageous or stupid application *at the moment*, but I guess the guy at Manchester in the 50's who thought his computer would be enough to satisfy the needs of all our Universities over here would have thought that using the entire resources of his 64K giant machine to play Pacman on was totally insane, yet only 30 years later the same power was available in hand-held toys costing $20. G -- Personal mail to gtoal(a)gtoal.com (I read it in the evenings) Business mail to gtoal(a)an-teallach.com (Be careful with the spelling!) Faxes to An Teallach Limited: +44 31 662 4678 Voice: +44 31 668 1550 x212

1 0

Re: Bandwidth limitations
by Clark Reynard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perry writes: [Elegant refutation of all examples I give in original article.] Point taken. Obviously, I took a few elementary examples, which are quite achievable even today. Perhaps some true bandwidth stretchers: Complete maps of all the known universe, with spectrographic assays, gravitational information, particle densities, motion/vector analysis of areas of high matter concentration, spin and orbital velocity graphs, etc. being zipped back and forth between relay satellites, earthbound observatories, and individuals needing such information. Complete records of all genomes of all humans born after this becomes standard. Copyright information, and rights transfers for all living humans; what portions of the genome are for sale, or if replication is prohibited. Perhaps black market genes will be hid, steganographically, in horrendously large files which appear to be garden variety vr porn. Voiceprints and retina scans for all living and dead human beings. Increasingly-detailed weather maps, down to the molecular level. Of course, what actually will happen will probably be stranger. When we had parchment, we had very narrow bandwidth, with very little to transmit.. Today, we have wide bandwidth, but a lot more ways to use it. I'm sure someone will find a way to use vast chunks of it; until we need come to a new standard. ---- Robert W. F. Clark PGP Key Available Upon Request rclark(a)nyx.cs.du.edu clark(a)metal.psu.edu

1 0

RE*2: (fwd) Netcom adds access in Denver area
by P.V.McMahon＠rea0803.wins.icl.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> these capabilities is far beyond my budget. I can't understand why England > is so far ahead of the U.S. in this regard. Do you refer here to its inexpensive private Internet access services (like demon)? Apologies if there was an antecedent in previous mail under this subject, but I have now deleted it. > No offense intended, but I > always thought of their telecommunications and computing infrastructure as > being several years behind the U.S. What aspect of the UK infrastructure did you perceive as lagging the US ? pvm Ps. I believe that the natural home for this thread isn't on this list.

1 0

HARDWARE MAILING LIST ON-LINE
by jdblair＠nextsrv.cas.muohio.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The hardware off-shoot of this list is finally on-line! You can subscribe to the list by sending a subscribe request of the form: SUBSCRIBE cp-hardware <name> to listproc(a)nextsrv.cas.muohio.edu I have decided to call the list 'cp-hardware'. While perhaps this is somewhat more boreing of a name than punk-net, or the like, it is more descriptive of the list as a whole. Thanks to all of the people who sent me mail requesting to be on the list- your're requests are why I've set the list up. However, I decided it will be simpler for people who are interested to send the subscribe request themselves. This should eliminate, or rather minimize errors. So, if you sent me a request previously, you still need to send a request listproc. The intention is that the list will be a forum for discussion of hardware issues related to computer privacy, as well as dicussion, design, and hopefully construction of several projects. If the list gets going sufficiently well, I'll set up an anonymous ftp site for the storage of archive, schematics, and anything else that is related. When you subscribe, you will get a welcome message which describes what I see the list could be. Your feedback is appreciated. A short (very short) informational file can be requested by mailing INFO cp-hardware To listproc(a)nextsrv.cas.muohio.edu, although the welcome message is I think more descriptive of the list at this point. so, punks, why stop at writing code? Let's build hardware! -john

1 0

Privacy/Property
by Dark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mr. Godwin - -> I note that the ruling against INS would probably not occur today in the post-Feist world. <- Conceeded. Mr. Godwin - -> I don't see how this reads as Brandeis's having a reservation about privacy. Perhaps the premier legal theorist about privacy issues in the last 100 years, Brandeis is simply noting that privacy isn't a given--one must actively work if one is to preserve it. This is perfectly consistent with cypherpunk philosophy, IMHO. <- I concur, and add that this is a long cry from reading any "Right to Privacy" into the law. If indeed Brandeis is asserting that privacy isn't just "given" (Your assessment with which I agree) then isn't this a reservation about a existing "right to privacy"? It's possible, Mr. Godwin that the only level we differ on is semantics and definitional? I like the cypherpunk approach, very much. Self empowerment is a rewarding and self regulating regime. I would like to see broader remedies available for privacy enforcement. You can't sit on your porch with a shotgun all day and keep trespassers off. It's a well accepted premise that a determined attacker will always prevail, given enough resource. Or at least cause lots of problems trying. It would be nice if this were an option, but not the ONLY manner of protection. No? Cypherpunks is about change of attitude as well not so? - -uni- (Dark) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLOPi4RibHbaiMfO5AQG5cwP9HbYSlZuJlRVcyScCFVIjMui8m1MxoAfj G9pzvCqZN5PTSaZfMVFxSHcgqRSDiEpILdPZs7mI1+1vdZCNkNPcwHbBvVxuxIf+ IY0tavhtXBAll14c4RA1zq/82OlDqkBcBC+P8FtE1Juf+6MfRZwmrXjmpiWhsCNu Cg/l8xpdfVM= =h4K+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Dinkelacker II
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <9311121302.AA07765(a)anon.penet.fi> an12070(a)anon.penet.fi writes: > WHO is ARTHUR CHANDLER?! Dunno, but if I'd remembered your ID about it three days ago I could have told you who S.Boxx was :-) ... I found a nasty bug in penet.fi whereby putting a return-receipt-to line in mail to an na01234-style ID caused that person's mailer to tell you who they were :-) (I did of course tell Julf within 24 hours, and it's now fixed. He wasn't too amused at being woken up by a phone call at 1am Finland time ;-) ) However, this isn't to brag; it's to warn anyone with an anon ID to look through all the mail they've received on their anon accounts (if they've kept it) and see if any of it has a Return-receipt-to field in it. If it does, your ID will have been compromised. I know a lot of Mac mailers put these in automatically, so a lot of you might already have been compromised by accident. G -- Personal mail to gtoal(a)gtoal.com (I read it in the evenings) Business mail to gtoal(a)an-teallach.com (Be careful with the spelling!) Faxes to An Teallach Limited: +44 31 662 4678 Voice: +44 31 668 1550 x212

1 0

"Root Canal" questions
by David Sobel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Root Canal" questions >In the latest CPSR update: >> "Each FBI Special Agent in Charge's contacting key law >> enforcement and prosecutorial officials in his/her territory >> to stress the urgency of Congress's being sensitized to this >> critical issue; > >Isn't this a violation of the Hatch Act? Either on the part >of the agents, or on the part of the "key" officials directly >"sensitizing" Congress, or both. The Hatch Act applies only to "partisan" activity (i.e., electoral). There is, however, a very real question as to whether or not the activity we've uncovered might violate 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1913, which prohibits the use of "appropriated funds" for lobbying purposes. I'm in the process of looking into that. There's no way to read this material without concluding that the Bureau was undertaking an orchestrated, agency-wide lobbying campaign in support of the "Root Canal" initiative. BTW, anyone have ideas about that name!? David Sobel CPSR Legal Counsel

1 0

Instant check system
by kone＠COURIER1.SHA.CORNELL.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Miller asked about the "Brady Bill" instant check system. In the House version no deadline is set for the nation wide system. As for fingerprints, it is one of the ways the bill authorizes to check back grounds. My over payed earrend boy, Congressman Hinchy, got a copy of the bill for me and two of my Cornell pre-law friends looked it over. We still don't know what they want in the end. (not counting the total ban.) The bill did refer to an "individual number" a lot. It is not clear if the "individual number" is your SS number or the serial number of the weapon. I personly like the idea of instant check, if my privacy can be preserved. The last thing I want is either a convicted "rights-violator" with a weapon or someone keeping track on what I buy or don't buy. I have been trying to keep my life out of as many records as possable, and am a bit worried by the vage instant check program. (is visiting a srink for depresion a sign of mental instablity?) Ther should be a way for individuals to check on their own record, as often as they want, yet not alowing for others to check. i.e. the sellor types in your number (public key) and the confuser says OK or NOT OK. You type in your private key and see your arest record and such. One final item, I do agree that weapon ownership is not the issue we should talk to, but how can we protect our privacy yet keep "rights-violators" from open access to weapons. William Kone "I have trained over a thousand young men to eat, sleep, and shoot with their weapon. But, I still get worried the first time I give them the rifels."

4 3

Re:Bandwidth limitations
by VACCINIA＠UNCVX1.OIT.UNC.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Perry writes: >The human genome fits nicely in 1 GB. Mere Gigabit networks could allow you >to send your whole genome in seconds -- and fiber can do many orders of >magnitude better than that. The human genome has approximately 3 x 10^9 base pairs. Each base is represented as the following binary code: G=1000, A=0100, T=0010, C=0001. Thus the human genome represents about 3 gigabytes of info (uncompressed), as Perry said easily transmitable by fiber optics. When you all do finally get your genome sequenced, the last thing you should do is let anyone see it (perhaps only small segments of it). I can think of no better use for cryptography than to keep citizens genomes to themselves. Would you give anybody a crystal ball which tells of your past, present and future? Some of us write genetic code and, IMHO, one's own genetics are a source code which should not be freely distributed. Scott G. Morham !The First, VACCINIA(a)uncvx1.oit.unc.edu! Second PGP Public Keys by Request ! and Third Levels ! of Information Storage and Retrieval !DNA, ! Biological Neural Nets, ! Cyberspace -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLONRDD2paOMjHHAhAQHKTQP9ExGhcllgQrSVLPaucpEM+1/6HSUcyf71 OC4dloljbhV2S0qu1VnutiyPHa/OwZyDu0prXA1Xt+8q17CVsMKgmp38xVO/i1fy JOrw+9EOUE4K13HLGiH0GPE07gow8MoaYqIGN4a6gqHFDoejOi27zNoAz/gulVr9 0xNUIWSfE28= =Cvzf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

The Depravities of Cypherpunks
by jazz＠hal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Also, I have mail from Mr. Jason Zions (jazz(a)hal.com) also complaining >that I violated Mr. Metzger's privacy in revealing his mailbomb to me >to the list as a whole. This strange code of cypherpunk chivalry I am >not familar with. It's not chivalry; it's copyright law. The creator of a message owns the copyright to that intellectual property; the recipient owns the copy of the message, much like one who buys a recorded album owns the copy of the work. The message you quoted contained the statement "Do not forward/reproduce this message" or words to that effect. That is a clear statement by the copyright holder which limits any redistribution rights that might have otherwise become yours upon receipt of the message. Given the nature of the communication (i.e. mention of potential email bombing), I believe you'd be within your rights to share the threatening content of the message with upstream mail host admins who might play a role in preventing such an occurance; but no further. It's also common courtesy. You can have significant disagreements with a person, yet still honor their simple requests. Jason

1 0