- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> > Subject: Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd) > Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:36:13 -0500 > > I don't agree with your view of states. The inhabitants of a > geographical area are not mere chattels of the governing power. Exactly! By jove you got it! By demanding your liberty but demanding that 'we' go to Singapore or anywhere else and treat them as chattels we have clearly instituted a double-standard. Most parties in this discussion still haven't made that distinction. All we have done is replace their current tyrant with a new one, mainly us. > The right to rule rests on certain criteria which I believe neither > country meets. The harassment of opposition politicians in > obviously trumped up charges disqualifies any country from > calling itself a democracy. Exactly. And by applying pressure on Singapore we only help them keep that tyrany in place. The quickest way I know to make a social institution band together is self-preservation from an outside threat, real or perceived. > I am a cyber-revolutionary and the world has bought into > the chaos of our revolution. I never intended the Web to be a tool > for confirming the present social order which is manifestly > corrupt. ALL social orders are corrupt. The 3 laws of thermodynamics apply to everything including social institutions. 1. You can't get ahead 2. You can't break even 3. You can't quit the game Heinz Pagels (RIP) Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

RE: Libel/slander & crypto relevancy
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote: I have received several private emails inquiring into what possible crypto relevance the recent exchange over libel/slander and the law. It is clear that even in democratic countries like Canada (not know as a freedom of speech protectorate) slander/libel is covered under criminal codes. While it is true that currently these statutes are not heavily used, if at all, this will change as businesses and special interest groups move even further onto electronic networks. Consider the zealous use of the law by the CoS. Ask Julf if the ramifications are not 'real world'. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com Not one to ever let a mention of Canada go unchallenged - even when it is a simple fact or a compliment - I thought I should jump into the discussion. Like the CoS, many companies have threatened libel actions as a means to silence people. The McLibel Two in Britian quickly come to mind. However, also like the Cos, many companies are finding that the net effect of these libel suites are not in their favour even when they win. Some brilliant examples of subversive use of trademarks can be found at the site: http://www.adbusters.org Specific examples: http://www.adbusters.org/Corporate/Greasestick.html http://www.adbusters.org/Gallery/spoofabs.html http://www.adbusters.org/Corporate/Kalvin.html A little clever marketing could go a long way to promoting privacy issues in the public consciousness. Perhaps an NSA Friends and Family calling plan? James

1 0

Re: Passphrase Online...
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>If I am connected to the Internet via a SLIP/PPP connection and I >>type my passphrase while being online (for example, in Private >>Idaho, after getting my mail), could that passphrase be compromised? >>If so, how would that be done? You're much safer if you're using an operating system instead of a kluge like Windows... On the other hand, operating systems make it easier to run applications like telnet servers that allow someone else to connect to your system while you're on line. Some different ways you could be at risk include - someone sends you a keystroke-sniffer program and tricks your machine into running it - so it grabs your passphrase from PI or PGP and sends it in later - someone sends you a keystroke-sniffer program and tricks _you_ into running it, whether they use email, web, etc. - someone logs into your system, guesses that the root password is "trustno1", and modifies your copy of PGP to save keystrokes. (On MSDOS, of course, you don't _need_ a root password.) - someone sets up a web page with an evil ActiveX script that convinces your Internet Explorer to download a new copy of PGP. - someone sends you email with an attachment named ..\..\..\windows\pgp.exe and your mail system is dumb enough to accept the pathname. - somebody sends you email with an MS-Word/Excel/PPT attachment that, instead of having a dumb Concept macro virus, has a macro that does something useful like replace your copy of PGP, and you don't have any innoculation on your MS-Word. - any of the above, where the "pgp" program is replaced with one that's almost identical but uses non-random numbers instead of good randoms, and maybe also leaks out your secret key or passphrase. - any of the above, where your email program is modified to add Cc: janet(a)kremvax.su on outgoing smtp. > Still paranoid? Good! # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: GSM crypto upgrade? (was Re: Newt's phone calls)
by Eric Blossom 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> It is not clear you need signatures in the secure phone case. Eric >> Blossom's 3DES uses straight DH for key exchange with verbal verification >> that both ends are using the same key. > >How does Eric's box display the negotiated key to the user? (I don't >recall the pair I saw having displays). Latest versions have an LCD display that reports the type of crypto being used (3DES), as well as 24 bits worth of SHA-1 of the public exponentials exchanged. Alice sends g^x mod p, Bob sends g^y mod p. Let m = min(g^x mod p, g^y mod p) and n = max(g^x mod p, g^y mod p). compute v = SHA (concat (OCTET_REP (m), OCTET_REP (n))). Display the high 24 bits of v. >Also I thought it would be kind of cute if there were some way for >phones to exchange their signature keys `face to face' as well. Currently, absent some kind of widely deployed public key infrastructure, there are no signature keys used. This also means that the units do *not* contain any long term secrets, just the session key which is destroyed at the end of the call. Eric

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> > Subject: Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd) > Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:36:13 -0500 > > I don't agree with your view of states. The inhabitants of a > geographical area are not mere chattels of the governing power. Exactly! By jove you got it! By demanding your liberty but demanding that 'we' go to Singapore or anywhere else and treat them as chattels we have clearly instituted a double-standard. Most parties in this discussion still haven't made that distinction. All we have done is replace their current tyrant with a new one, mainly us. > The right to rule rests on certain criteria which I believe neither > country meets. The harassment of opposition politicians in > obviously trumped up charges disqualifies any country from > calling itself a democracy. Exactly. And by applying pressure on Singapore we only help them keep that tyrany in place. The quickest way I know to make a social institution band together is self-preservation from an outside threat, real or perceived. > I am a cyber-revolutionary and the world has bought into > the chaos of our revolution. I never intended the Web to be a tool > for confirming the present social order which is manifestly > corrupt. ALL social orders are corrupt. The 3 laws of thermodynamics apply to everything including social institutions. 1. You can't get ahead 2. You can't break even 3. You can't quit the game Heinz Pagels (RIP) Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:47 PM 1/27/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: ... >You misunderstand AP, yet again. AP doesn't really take votes, it merely >totals donations. It is an essential element of the AP system that even a >tiny minority should be able to kill individuals who are seen as threats, as >long as this capability is universal. True, the smaller the minority the >more uneconomical such an action would be for them, but it would be well >within the ability of 1% of the population to avoid a another Holocaust by >getting rid of those pushing for it. > >In the current political system, in the US for instance, 51% of the >population is able to screw the remaining 49%, just as long as they can >maintain the majority. Or, perhaps even more accurately and ominously, a >tiny fraction of the population (the current leadership class) is able to >screw the 49%, as long as they have the un-thinking backing of the remaining >and relatively uninvolved 51%. > >AP disables this system. AP turns government into the moral equivalent of a >pick-up football game: Nobody is being forced to play, and everybody and >anybody can simply "get up and leave" whenever he wants to. The moment the >"rules of the game" to make an individual's continued participation >unsatisfying, he can leave. > ... In our society, which, if I remember correctly, 10% of the population control 90% of the wealth, AP would only lead to 10% of the population being able to screw the remaining 90%. At least as it is, it takes a simple majority. As for the murder of the rich, here is a scenerio. A collection of poor pool their capitol to have a tyrant killed. The tyrant assembles a counter-wager saying that anyone able to prove thier ability to kill him without harming him, and who can show they got through will get 110% of the poor's bid. The household is told that a standing bounty has been placed with a collection of individuals, on the head of the trigger man involved in the tyrants murder. The poor can not hope to match the tyrants bid as they only have 10% of the wealth, the household knows that thier participation in an attempt on the tyrant will get them killed. Even if the attempt was successful. The people from the outside who would benefit from the bounty benefit more by taking the tyrants offer and then trying again, i.e. tiger teams.

1 0

RE: Libel/slander & crypto relevancy
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote: I have received several private emails inquiring into what possible crypto relevance the recent exchange over libel/slander and the law. It is clear that even in democratic countries like Canada (not know as a freedom of speech protectorate) slander/libel is covered under criminal codes. While it is true that currently these statutes are not heavily used, if at all, this will change as businesses and special interest groups move even further onto electronic networks. Consider the zealous use of the law by the CoS. Ask Julf if the ramifications are not 'real world'. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com Not one to ever let a mention of Canada go unchallenged - even when it is a simple fact or a compliment - I thought I should jump into the discussion. Like the CoS, many companies have threatened libel actions as a means to silence people. The McLibel Two in Britian quickly come to mind. However, also like the Cos, many companies are finding that the net effect of these libel suites are not in their favour even when they win. Some brilliant examples of subversive use of trademarks can be found at the site: http://www.adbusters.org Specific examples: http://www.adbusters.org/Corporate/Greasestick.html http://www.adbusters.org/Gallery/spoofabs.html http://www.adbusters.org/Corporate/Kalvin.html A little clever marketing could go a long way to promoting privacy issues in the public consciousness. Perhaps an NSA Friends and Family calling plan? James

1 0

Re: mouse droppings
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:49 PM 1/24/96 -0500, j. ercole wrote: >One issue, "mouse droppings" --- "a trail of every site they visit and for >how long [on the www], was highlighted as an example of existing privacy >regulations falling short of consumer expectations. Apparently, the >amorphous public is shocked, *SHOCKED* I tell you , to discover that their >service providers are selling the personal preference information to the >highest bidder. More info in article. > >Would some rocket scientist speak to this terrifying mouse droppings issue? Jeff Wienstein and others have provided, or are working on, various technological solutions to this problem: Meanwhile the FTC wants to solve this privacy problem by checking out every persons computer to make sure you are not keeping any privacy violating information in your files. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Re: Best Computer School?
by Rick Osborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:32 PM 1/28/97 -0500, Derek Atkins wrote: >This is really exagerating. You do not need a 4.0, 1600, etc. to be >admitted to MIT. Sure, you need good grades, but a 3.6 average and >1350-1400 SAT scores is perfectly adequate to be admitted to MIT. I disagree and can speak from experience. I was denied admission to MIT even thought I had a 3.82 GPA, 1440 SAT (one try), and had taken 9 AP tests with two 5's, four 4's, two 3's, and one 2. As for being well-rounded, I was on several academic teams, sang in Chorus, acted and stage managed in Drama, and played Tennis. The only thing I didn't have that the next MIT applicant had was money. I made the mistake of letting them know that I was dirt poor and would need full aid/grants/etc, and to quote "The Great Escape" it was "Zzzt! To the Russian front!" >For what it's worth, I wanted to go to MIT my sophomore year in high >school, too Lucky you. It had been a dream of mine since I was an annoying overachiever of 6. Sux to be white trash, I guess. MIT may be a great school, but they tend to be snooty assholes for the most part. (DISCLAIMER: Not all MIT grads/attendees are necessarily "snooty assholes", I'm just saying that I've yet to meet one that wasn't.) _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ "He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know."

1 0

CNN: Court ok's College control of Internet access
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Note: Heavily edited. Forwarded message: > COURT SAYS COLLEGES CAN RESTRICT INTERNET ACCESS > > > January 28, 1997 > Web posted at: 1:35 p.m. EST > > NORMAN, Oklahoma (CNN) -- A U.S. District Court in Oklahoma has > ruled universities have the right to limit access to explicit > material on the Internet. > > A federal judge ruled University of Oklahoma president David Boren, > a former U.S. senator, has every right to determine what sites > students and faculty can view while on the campus Internet system. > > Boren was sued by University professor, Bill Loving, who claimed his > First Amendment rights were being infringed upon. > > The court ruled against Loving, also an attorney, saying his > constitutional rights were not violated and that he is not entitled > to injunctive relief. > > "I am certainly pleased by the judge's decision," Boren said. "The > university did its best to strike a careful balance in order to > protect legitimate academic and intellectual freedom while at the > same time assuring that the university not act as a distributor of > obscene material, which is not protected by the First Amendment." > rule

1 0