Re: old encryption paper
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 04:33:37PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMHO, it is exactly this kind of commentary which scuttled an attack on free encryption software in the wake of the attack. Moreover, the monolith authentication schemes were also laid to rest or driven Well, no. This kind of commentary made folks on mailing lists like these feel warm and fuzzy and made some other tech types realize what was at stake. But Sen. Judd Gregg's proposal failed because of lack of support from his colleagues and opposition from well-connected industry lobbyists, not people writing about GNU-Darwin (probably not one congresscritter knows what that means anyway, or cares). -Declan
RE: Cypherpunks archive
I'd very much like to see the archives in a downloadable form. Peter -- From: Steve Furlong[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 8:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cypherpunks archive On Monday 21 July 2003 19:49, someone wrote: Can you make the raw mbox archive available, or do you have that? If it's less than about 200 meg, I can also receive it as an attachment, if you're sadistic with your mail server. Let me think about it, and maybe ask some of the list members. The HTML that appears on the web page is sanitized a bit to prevent address harvesting. Not that c-punks' addresses are that hard to obtain other ways, but when I started the archive several people emphatically stated that they wanted the sanitizing. Maybe I'll write a short script to sanitize the addresses in the mbox. That'll take a while to develop, to make sure I don't miss anything and because my spare time is limited for the next month and a half. If I do make the mboxes available, they'll be available as .gz's off my top cypherpunks page. I'll post to the list if I do it. List members: any preferences? SRF -- Steve FurlongComputer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all! -- Rep. Henry Waxman
Re: A 'Funky A.T.M.' Lets You Pay for Purchases Made Online
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Steve Furlong wrote: On Monday 21 July 2003 01:12, R. A. Hettinga wrote: http://nytimes.com/2003/07/21/technology/21PATE.html?pagewanted=prin tposition= A 'Funky A.T.M.' Lets You Pay for Purchases Made Online I worked on a commercial digital money system a few years ago. One of their business models was almost identical to Amos': stick cash in a kiosk to get electronic money. It'd be interesting to see how that system plays with Amos' patent. It's not going to be anonymous at all. Remember, ATM's are always protected by cameras. If the digicash isn't anonymous, it's worthless. (I won't be able to observe directly, as I was fired from that company because I'm an incompetent slacker (boss's view) or because the boss was a jack-booted jackass (my view).) Shit happens. Just be happy you're not working at IBM. It was leaked that they're outsourcing to India, etc... see: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10613 --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :25Kliters anthrax, 38K liters botulinum toxin, 500 tons of /|\ \|/ :sarin, mustard and VX gas, mobile bio-weapons labs, nukular /\|/\ --*--:weapons.. Reasons for war on Iraq - GWB 2003-01-28 speech. \/|\/ /|\ :Found to date: 0. Cost of war: $800,000,000,000 USD.\|/ + v + : The look on Sadam's face - priceless! [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net
Re: Fwd: [IP] Gilmore bounced from plane; and Farber censors Gilmore's email
John Kozubik wrote: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote: Where do these ridiculous ideas come from ? If I own a piece of private property, like an airplane (or an entire airline) for instance, I can impose whatever senseless and arbitrary conditions on your use of it as I please. Yes. Except that you entered into a contract to transport a human in exchange for money. No where in the contract was banned speech mentioned. If there are no provisions whatever for discretionary removal, then BA was wrong to remove Gilmore - they broke their agreement. However, I'll bet if you read _all_ the fine print, somewhere there exists in the contract/agreement a provision for just that. well, there are the following (from http://www.britishairways.com/travel/genconcarr/public/en_gb ): - Our right to refuse to carry you or to ban you from travel a) Our right to refuse to carry you We may decide to refuse to carry you or your baggage if one or more of the following has happened or we reasonably believe may happen. 1) If carrying you or your baggage may put the safety of the aircraft or the safety or health of any person in the aircraft in danger. 2) If carrying you or your baggage may affect the comfort of any person in the aircraft. 3) If you are drunk or under the influence of drink or drugs. 4) If you are, or we reasonably believe you are, in unlawful possession of drugs. 5) If your mental or physical state is a danger or risk to you, the aircraft or any person in it. 6) If you have refused to allow a security check to be carried out on you or your baggage. 7) If you have not obeyed the instructions of our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft relating to safety or security. 8) If you have used threatening, abusive or insulting words towards our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft. 9) If you have behaved in a threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly way towards a member of our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft. 10) If you have deliberately interfered with a member of the crew of the aircraft carrying out their duties. 11) If you have put the safety of either the aircraft or any person in it in danger. 12) If you have made a hoax bomb threat. 13) If you have committed a criminal offence during the check-in or boarding processes or on board the aircraft. 14) If you have not, or do not appear to have, valid travel documents. 15) If you try to enter a country for which your travel documents are not valid. 16) If the immigration authority for the country you are travelling to, or for a country in which you have a stopover, has told us (either orally or in writing) that it has decided not to allow you to enter that country, even if you have, or appear to have, valid travel documents. 17) If you destroy your travel documents during the flight. 18) If you have refused to allow us to photocopy your travel documents. 19) If you have refused to give your travel documents to a member of the crew of the aircraft, when we have asked you to do so. 20) If you ask the relevant government authorities for permission to enter a country in which you have landed as a transit passenger. 21) If carrying you would break government laws, regulations, or orders. 22) If you have refused to give us information which a government authority has asked us to provide about you. 23) If you have not presented a valid ticket. 24) If you have not paid the fare (including any taxes, fees or charges) for your journey. 25) If you have presented a ticket acquired illegally. 26) bIf you have presented a ticket which you did not buy from us or our authorised agents. 27) If you have presented a ticket which was not issued by us or our authorised agents. 28) If you have presented a ticket which has been reported as being lost or stolen. 29) If you have presented a counterfeit ticket. 30) If you have presented a ticket with an alteration made neither by us nor our authorised agents. 31) If you have presented a spoiled, torn or damaged ticket or a ticket which has been tampered with. 32) If you cannot prove you are the person named in the ticket. 33) If you have changed your transportation without our agreement as set out in clause 3c. 34) If you have failed to present your ticket or your boarding pass or your travel documents to us when reasonably asked to do so. 35) If you have failed to complete the check-in process by the check-in deadline. 36) If you have failed to arrive at the boarding gate on time. 37) If you have behaved in a way mentioned above on or in connection with a previous flight and we believe you may repeat this behaviour. b) Our right to refuse to carry you when we have banned you from our route network 1) We will be entitled to refuse to carry you or your baggage if we have given you a banning notice and you have bought your ticket while the ban applies. 2) By a banning
Re: A 'Funky A.T.M.' Lets You Pay for Purchases Made Online
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 10:25:59AM -0400, Sunder wrote: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Steve Furlong wrote: (I won't be able to observe directly, as I was fired from that company because I'm an incompetent slacker (boss's view) or because the boss was a jack-booted jackass (my view).) Shit happens. Just be happy you're not working at IBM. It was leaked that they're outsourcing to India, etc... see: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10613 Remember when the manufacturing jobs starting going south and they said don't worry, this is an information economy now, and they'll all be information workers? Not that I believed that at all, but now that all the information jobs are going south (or rather east and west), what are they claiming people will do here? Other than work at Hardee's, I mean. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Fisk articles
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 10:40:20AM -0700, Mike Rosing wrote: On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote: Does anyone have access to the fulltext articles by Robert Fisk like this one on alleged torture in US internment camps in Iraq: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/story.jsp?story=426520 that the Independant offers on a subscription basis? No, but you can buy them one at a time if you like. I'm waiting till I get some extra cash so I can subscribe, ever since they moved Fisk over to the pay column I've been missing a lot of good stories. I think it's worth paying for, I just have to justify it to my wife :-) Yeah, I know I can, but I'm so broke I can barely pay attention. Too bad the local library doesn't have a sub to the Independant. 8-( -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
curious about covert channels
Had a random thought and was curious if anyone had an opinion on this: Would message-ID, and other realated mail headers that contain pseudo-random data, make a good covert channel? Eg: instead of choosing a pseudo-random value for the message ID, encrypt a block of data of the same length as the ID with a preshared secret key. Issues that spring to mind: * small, you would need quite a few overt messages to transfer anything sizeable over the covert channel. * Is it possible to tell the difference between pseudo-randomly picked values (typical mail client), encrypted data (depending on algorithm), and real randomness? (I suppose this could make the channel detectable) Thanks, Adam Lydick
Re: Fwd: [IP] Gilmore bounced from plane; and Farber censors Gilmore's email
Dave Howe said: John Kozubik wrote: [snip] There are no obvious grounds for discressionary removal based on wearing a badge (or being married to a habitual badge-wearer) but the banning notice thing looks to be a blanket refusal option written up to look like something else - I don't read this as saying you have to have met the section (a) criteria for them to issue a banning notice, in which case they can refuse you for no reason at all provided they put it in writing. True, but Gilmore clearly refused an order from the Captain despite his view that the order to remove the badge was in breach of some rights that he thought he had. At this point of refusal the presence of a badge becomes secondary, and Gilmore has probably breached a few rules, such as : 7) If you have not obeyed the instructions of our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft relating to safety or security. . and maybe : 9) If you have behaved in a threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly way towards a member of our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft. if you could class Gilmore's actions as disorderly. . and : 10) If you have deliberately interfered with a member of the crew of the aircraft carrying out their duties. where the duties could have been those of the flight assistant to have the badge removed. I felt sorry for the other 300 people on the plane who had their flight delayed for some guy with a small badge on his chest, and a big chip on his shoulder.
