- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Blair (I think) writes: > I'm not sure what you mean by "various groups," but I do think that a very > basic net connection, with minimal services (access to government records, > public domain postings, and similar information) should be provided either free > or at a very minimal cost. It is not difficult for me to envision a day when > paper based sources of info (newspapers, magazines, etc.) may be impossible > to recieve in paper format, and when participation in our political system > will depend on having access just as much as it depends, for all practical > purposes, on having a stable residence. Groups which cannot afford net > connection in the future may very likely become a politically excluded group. > Its important that we set the precedent now that these basic services not be > dependant on a certain minimum economic standing. This is what I understand > "fair access" to mean. But how is this any different from providing subsidized or free newspapers or news channels to the population? How is a Net connection any more usable than a free CNN channel? Or C-SPAN, which is in fact subsidized by the cable companies? If we decide that the government needs a subsidized channel or network to make avaiable its laws, its debate, its position, then we have just created a publically-funded propaganda channel for them. (Earlier, I took a position that making government docs available by ftp, gopher, WWW, etc., would be a good thing. I still do, but I worry that the channels would just be platforms for government bureaucrats to pitch their policies and plans. I have no doubt that when the commercial networks are reluctant to carry speeches and press conferences by Clinton, that he'd really like to have subsidized channels that _had_ to carry him. Of course, few would watch, but that's another topic.) So, if we need a National Information Infractructure, why not the same thing for newspapers, television, radio, etc.? Why not guarantee everyone a daily newspaper? After all, they need to be informed. (I don't want to drift into sarcasm about this, as I think Mike Godwin and others are making serious points. But bear in mind that the purported needs for communicating with the public are often the justification for "State Radio" and for the UNESCO-sponsored proposals to restrict the "private press" in many countries. Put it this way, do you really want President Robertson or President Perot to have his won subsidized channels of communication? Perot can of course _buy_ a couple of networks, but that's not the same as an official network.) CNN, the Clinton News Network. --Tim May P.S. I cancelled my entire cable t.v. subscription several weeks back. Too much shit, too little quality, too confusing a monthly bill. I have a sneaking feeling we're going to have about 500 channels soon, with a couple of hundred of them available cheaply enough. -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.

3 2

Re: Is Clipper Almost Dead? (was: Clipper and Tipper on Route 666)
by Clark Reynard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

tcmay(a)netcom.com (Timothy C. May) writes: >I say we increase our attention on the Data Superhighway and try >to kill it as well. Does anyone wish to second the notion? I do. I think it would be very important if we could attempt to sway the Christian right into this; it is certain we probably don't agree on many issues, and the "700 Club" anti-Clipper piece was very effective, good video. If you don't believe me, watch it. They almost seem to agree with us entirely on the issue of cryptography. Perhaps it's time for a _new_ group; the cyphermonks. I nominate St. John the Divine as a patron saint. ---- Robert W. F. Clark PGP Key Available Upon Request rclark(a)nyx.cs.du.edu clark(a)metal.psu.edu

5 6

Usenet: 'Resistance Is Futile'
by Philippe Nave 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Regarding the recent question of whether the cypherpunks list is being gatewayed to Usenet: 1) So what? I have always assumed that anything distributed to a group of _any_ kind may wind up scattered all over the globe and may turn up in unusual places. If the data is sensitive, encrypt it! 2) [Disclaimer: I know just enough Unix to get in trouble..] From what I understand so far, all it takes is one cypherpunk and some magic mail routing code to bounce cypherpunks list postings anywhere else on the planet. If this cypherpunk bounced the traffic off an anonymous remailer, you would never even be able to tell who was feeding the other system. Unless I'm missing something, there seems to be no defense possible against this activity. 3) I agree with the concern expressed by Tim May that we may be opened up to 'disruptive flaming and puerile argumentation.' The only way to avoid this problem [as far as I can tell] is to limit postings to members of the mailing list. That's a tough one. Let us hope that our coffee shop is not overrun by screaming children... ........................................................................ Philippe D. Nave, Jr. | The person who does not use message encryption pdn(a)dwroll.dw.att.com | will soon be at the mercy of those who DO... Denver, Colorado USA | PGP public key: by arrangement.

2 2

Re: Info on Clipper chip and fabrication of it
by doug＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

tcmay(a)netcom.com (Timothy C. May) quoted someone else saying: >VLSI progammable logic (EEprom based?) is used to both >store the keys, and provide some other logic functions, so you can't read >anything if you take the chip apart. I don't think any other exotic >technologies are used. Mykotronix designs the mask- they're fabricated at >VLSI. What about triple layer metal interconnect? If they're serious about making it reverse-engineering-resistant, they'd do that even if it weren't functionally needed, simply to make it STM-opaque. I think (but am not sure) that VLSI has that technology in their current fab lines. I suppose that it's not quite "exotic" by now; maybe that's just assumed as obvious? Doug

1 0

Re: Are we gatewayed to Usenet?
by Dark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This brings up the question, In the event _the net_ were centralized, and not a disperate entity, how might selective distrubution be affected? -> I would reccommend that if certain sites become a problem by attracting flamers, communists, liberals, or government authoritarian types, that we could remove them on a case-by-case basis. <- In the event this became a problem, how might a theoretically "private" or "psuedo-private" (constructively private?) newsletter/mailing list be restricted. Even today, what recourse do we have to keep the circulation of the list minimal, and (egads) filter the readers such to keep bandwidth low and flame / agitator disruption to a min.? Doesn't this smack of censorship, and if so where's the line between censorship and exclusivity, and is cypherpunks even really exclusive? It was nice before the summer when the list was a little less well known and it had that "private feel" that I think T. May was talking about. Is there a basic conflict between impact power of the list as a political sway force and that personal feel?

2 1

Clipper/ Dead?
by Dark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: nate(a)vis.colostate.edu (CVL staff member Nate Sammons) -> This is welcome news, indeed. I can see why AT&T would be pissed -- if it gets out that the Clipper/SkipJack/Capstone combo is a major step towards Big Brotherism, then their whole "You Will" commertial series will not be accepted as well as I think it has so-far. <- Time to pat myself on the back. :) Way back just before Clipper was announced loudly, AT&T (who knew very well at the time that they were going to actively back Clipper) was running the individual plan ads. You know the ones, with Aretha Franklin chanting out "Freedom....Freedom...FREEDOM." Individual plan? Freedom? You Will? AT&T knew all along it might be a damage control project. Same way Dow Chemical began running ads before their new project on Binary weapons was outed. What you have here is a company that is trying to portray itself as a maverick in liberating technology that talks out of both sides of its corporate mouth. I mentioned it at the time too here. (You heard it here first.) :) -uni- (Dark)

1 0

Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?
by doug＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)eff.org> said: >First of all, EFF's Open Platform says outright that the government is not >going to build the data superhighway. Check again if you don't believe me. Ah...do you mean "should not build", or do you really mean that it contains a discussion outlining the logic behind predicting that they *won't* build? >The only question is whether you get something like what the interactive >cable companies promoted at Hackers--just an enhanced version of the Home >Shopping Network--or whether you get something like the current public >switched network, in which individuals can use a phone line for whatever >they like. <shudder> I skipped that session because I was already bored to tears with the prospect of "playing football from home while watching it on tv" and by that of 500 pay-per-view-channels. Were they really boosting HSN-type stuff? How completely evil! I'm still dismayed by the recent FCC decision that HSN channels are included in the category of (paraphrased) "for the public good". Was this due to corruption, or merely a sharp drop in collective FCC IQ? Doug

2 1

How long before Mr. Hughes CENSORS me?
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

2 1

Info on Clipper chip and fabrication of it
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <9311092013.AA09822(a)vangogh.VIS.ColoState.EDU> nate(a)vis.colostate.edu writes: > Last I heard, hte model of the ARM series used in the Newton (the > ARM 610 processor) cranked out about 30,000 Drystones and used > _very_ little power. Oh boy, wait till the guys on comp.sys.acorn hear about this! I can tell why the arm was chosen: it comes as a drop-in circuit that manufacturers can use in their own designs. Not many of the other low-power fast CPUs are available like this. And its very small, and blindingly fast. 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

smuggling currency
by Dark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -> Interesting scenario. I buy one of these babies for $100,000 in Switzerland. I arrange to have it not yet "turned on." (Many of the new prepaid phone cards must be activated before they can be used.) I enter the US carrying a card worth $0. I order it activated. Suddenly I have a $100,000 cash card in the US without having imported $100,000 into the US. <- I wish it were so, Looks to me like this violates the following: 18 USCS 1001 18 USCS 1956 31 USCS 5316 The basic thrust is this: You can't transport a monetary instrument worth more than $ 10,000 without filling out the appropriate customs report. The real killer here is the title 31 code. Which reads liberally enough to bite you. Specific language reads something like "...shall not construct a transaction to evade reporting requirements...." The fine provision allows for $500,000 or twice the value of the monetary instrument. Hefty indeed. I think they take this seriously. If you bring the money in with the intent to avoid taxes, you have a second count, and could be in it for up to four times the amount you smuggled. I like the thinking, the court is less likely to. All your transaction does (unfortunately) is delay the importation of the "currency" until after the plane trip. You're still required to report the transaction, the card just makes it easier to get away with it. - -uni- (Dark) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLOHKfhibHbaiMfO5AQFlBwQAvubWG5DkEdILWMae3JGD4NG+fQaxcIpz T6GALRxZLRBxKGVpSYPLNH9j/4ys3c5Q/2mIc7RIa4ew4hb7Tlv9mKEnoi+7fMcs ihc6umAtJs+nMNTuL1qguw9hwtwslDt/jrPc+UefBw09ZIcsTiQ1WGOeRripwxw5 7tHsWSR9swY= =HYhE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0