Tipster protocol
"Tipster" is the name I'm using for the voluntary payment scheme I posted to these lists three weeks ago under the title "Kill the RIAA: a protocol." http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.2000.07.24-2000.07.30/msg00387.html Since that post, I've set up a weblog to track the development of the protocol and just tonight I finished the first draft of the cryptographic protocol which enables Tipster's authenticated connection mechanism. I would appreciate feedback. http://tipster.weblogs.com Thanks in advance. -Jeff -- -- |Jeff Kandt | "When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | jvyy unir cevinpl!" -Brad Templeton of ClariNet | |[PGP Pub key: http://pgp.ai.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x6CE51904 | | or send a message with the subject "send pgp key"]| --
Re: Re: Quantum Cryptography and resistance
lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote: Quantum cryptography will be of little practical value for the average person. That's because you need to get photons unchanged from one person to the other. This requires either a line of sight or a fiber optic cable, neither of which is likely to be available. If they became useful, fibre optic cables would be made available. It is probably the future (I know, I know, we've been saying this for 20 years it hasn't happened yet) but if one fibre has a significant fraction of the the bandwidth of the entire sky it has to be the way to go. Anyway - who says radio isn't transmitted by photons? Satellites communicate by line-of-sight, both with each other and with endpoints. Laser comms in space? It explains the Fermi paradox anyway - they are out there but they live on iceballs in the Kuiper and Oort and communicate by store-and-forward through tight-beam lasers using quantum cryptography techniques to error-check the messages over those distances... so we never get to intercept their comms. Travel from star to star by a long series of short hops from chilly blob to chilly blob. I have seen the future of interstellar communications and it looks a lot like Usenet That's what happened to Sr A***c you know - when his stuff got out to Alpha Centauri the aliens came and got him. Quantum computers allow fast search for symmetric ciphers like DES or AES. The effect is essentially to halve the key size. A 128 bit key attacked by a QC becomes as strong as a 64 bit key would be attacked by conventional computers. The new AES standard provides for 256 bit keys. These will still provide 128 bits of strength against quantum computers, making them practically invulnerable. So QCs will provide no significant problems against symmetric ciphers once AES is in widespread use. Quantum computers also allow fast factoring and finding discrete logs, essentially destroying the principles behind the most widely used public key systems. This uses Shor's algorithm, which works by finding the period of a sequence. The recent IBM announcement was apparently an implementation of just this algorithm for a 5 bit QC. Hence it will be necessary to scale up the QC from 5 bits to 1024 bits or more. This will take years of work and no one knows if it will be possible. If it happens, people will have to switch to keys larger than the largest quantum computers, which will probably be a losing battle; or they will have to use the more obscure, less efficient and possibly less secure public key alternatives. No doubt if large QCs appear on the horizon we will see considerably more cryptographic effort put into developing and establishing the security of alternative methods for PKC. Or we just get a lot of people who are good at sums to work on non-paralellisable algorithms, where the output of stage n must be known before n+1 can be set up. The opposite of what they are doing now of course. Though who knows what the NSA are up to - maybe if they believe all this QC stuff they have been paying people for years to work out deliberately inefficient, unoptimisable algorithms. It's a living. Ken ( not the College)
Re: Editorial: Liberals Packing Heat (fwd)
[on the subject of celebrity liberals]
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote:
They [obviously] don't believe in "getting rid of guns": they believe in
getting rid of OUR guns.
Sampo Syreeni writes:
I think there is nothing much wrong in that. The problem is not the guns of
a select few who can have real use for them and whose use of weaponry is
tightly watched.
And who will "select" the few to be permitted to have guns? (And what
"real use" do they have for them that others do not?)
The problem is in having everybody from toddlers to
grannies packing heat and using it when somebody steps on their
toes.
No one's advocating giving guns to toddlers, but why should ordinary
grannies not be permitted to protect themselves as the Rosie
O'Donnells can?
Somewhat like the situation with drugs - no problem if 10% of the
population does something sometime, a big problem if 90% does everything
all
the time.
What "problem" do we have with drugs (apart from the fact that using
them makes one highly susceptible to persecution by various law
enforcement agencies)?
"police" who care not if they have the right house, or even the "right"
to
"search" in this way; "forfeiture laws" which allow the state to take
whatever they want, WITHOUT ANY FORM OF DUE PROCESS; etc..)
Are you talking about the same liberals as the original poster?
Of course. The liberals who surround themselves with armed bodyguards
are the same ones giving money and public support to the liberal
gun-control politicians. And these politicans, while trying to take
away guns from the rest of us, are giving more and better weapons to
the jack-booted federal "law enforcement" agencies. They are also
increasingly attempting to bypass those inconvenient trials, search
warrants and other protections we have developed ("no need for a
trial, they're obviously guilty or we wouldn't have accused them").
Throughout history, every dictatorship has practiced arms [gun]
confiscation and regulation in order to impede reactionary /
revolutionary
backlashes from their crimes - from Ceasar through Hitler, Stalin, and
Clinton.
On the other hand, everyday drive-by shootings and such aren't exactly
pointed towards the powers that be.
Perhaps, but the potential for mass murder is much lower with
everyday drive-by shootings than it is with gun-grabbing government
despots. All the drive-by shootings in history together barely add
up to an average day under Hitler or Stalin.
- GH
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: europe physical meeting
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Tom Vogt wrote: after talking to several interested people (bcc'ed on this mail), there seems to be considerable interest in a physical meeting in europe. so, I'll be organizing one. whoever is interested in attending a physical meeting in hamburg, germany (precise date, time and agenda to be determined), please post either here or contact me directly. with date/time wishes and agenda items. Yip. Interested. Definitely interested. What happened to that meeting in munich ? Do you need any help organizing ? Did you announce on the meetingpunks list as well (not subscribed yet, just doing that...) ? How about setting up a seperate mailing-list for discussion agenda etc ? The s/n-ratio on Cypherpunks is a little bit too high for my taste. Cheers, -Ralf -- Ralf-P. Weinmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 2048/46C772078ACB58DEF6EBF8030CBF1724
Re: europe physical meeting
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Tim May wrote: I just checked: no articles from you on the Cypherpunks list. How can you be so sure about that ? Did you perform any linguistic analysis on the mixmaster posts and try to match them with my profile ? The best way to improved S/N is to post more signal. Complaining about low S/N just never seems to help, does it? Agree with you on that though, more signal will be posted :) Cheers, -Ralf -- Ralf-P. Weinmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 2048/46C772078ACB58DEF6EBF8030CBF1724
Re: Dave Hong the MAN (was:send in the blue hats...)
fuck you, Dave Honig It is a possibility. But first you should at least state your sex. their basic rights taken out from under them I consider my basic right to be the ability to blow the brains out of the people that irritate me. Do you have a problem with that ? Or are you sucking in the "basic rights" from media outlets ? As far as "women" on this or any other list are concerned, the moment you organize around the possesion of vulva, that is what you become, including your potential womb lice.
Re: Editorial: Liberals Packing Heat (fwd)
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote: :If they truly believe in getting rid of guns, why don't they start with the :guns of their body guards? They [obviously] don't believe in "getting rid of guns": they believe in getting rid of OUR guns. I think there is nothing much wrong in that. The problem is not the guns of a select few who can have real use for them and whose use of weaponry is tightly watched. The problem is in having everybody from toddlers to grannies packing heat and using it when somebody steps on their toes. Somewhat like the situation with drugs - no problem if 10% of the population does something sometime, a big problem if 90% does everything all the time. "police" who care not if they have the right house, or even the "right" to "search" in this way; "forfeiture laws" which allow the state to take whatever they want, WITHOUT ANY FORM OF DUE PROCESS; etc..) Are you talking about the same liberals as the original poster? Throughout history, every dictatorship has practiced arms [gun] confiscation and regulation in order to impede reactionary / revolutionary backlashes from their crimes - from Ceasar through Hitler, Stalin, and Clinton. On the other hand, everyday drive-by shootings and such aren't exactly pointed towards the powers that be. Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED], aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Colecção Swatch Outono / Inverno
A Giganetstore.com tem o prazer de lhe apresentar a: Swatch Conheça alguns pelo nome ... 2000 and 1 Anticonstitutionellement Antifreeze Arlette Batsknight Blue Sanguine Dibujos Dunk it! Ed Sue Extra Thin Donky Dork Francesca Grr ! Oink ! Kaki board Mas temos muitos mais à sua espera na Giganetstore.com Giganetstore.com Gigapreços. Gigacompras Para retirar o seu email desta mailing list deverá entrar no nosso site http://www.giganetstore.com, ir à edição do seu registo e retirar a opção de receber informação acerca das nossas promoções e novos serviços.
Welcome to NYTimes.com
Dear cipherpunk1b1, Welcome to NYTimes.com! We are delighted that you have decided to become a member of our community. As a member you now have complete access to the Web's premier source for news and information -- free of charge. NYTimes.com not only provides you with in-depth coverage of events happening around the world but also with a wealth of additional features and services. The site is updated regularly throughout the day by New York Times reporters and editors to give you greater insight into events unfolding throughout the day. No matter what the hour, you can look to NYTimes.com for the most trustworthy coverage available and unique perspective you won't find anywhere else. Please feel free to explore the other areas of NYTimes.com. Here are some starting points you may find useful: ** Get NYTimes.com headlines e-mailed directly to you. Choose from the day's top stories, breaking news alerts and your favorite sections: http://email.nytimes.com/email/email.jsp?welcome1 ** Search and retrieve articles from The New York Times Archives back to 1996: http://archives.nytimes.com/archives?welcome1 ** Explore the Help Wanted and other classified listings on the Web: http://classifieds.nytimes.com/hw?welcome1 ** Get a free photo screensaver from The New York Times Photo Archives Choose from Vintage New York, Classic Sports, Americana and more: http://www.nytimes.com/partners/screensaver/index.html?welcome1 ** Search our archive of 50,000 book reviews, listen to author interviews or sign-up for an exclusive weekly newsletter from our Books Editor: http://www.nytimes.com/books/home?welcome1 Thank you again for becoming a member. We hope that you will make a point of visiting the site often. Sincerely, Rich Meislin Editor in Chief New York Times Digital P.S. Your opinions are important to us. Share your thoughts about the site with us by sending an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your account information is listed below for future reference: Your Member ID is cipherpunk1b1 You selected your password at registration. Your e-mail address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you did not authorize this registration, someone has mistakenly registered using your e-mail address. We regret the inconvenience; please see http://www.nytimes.com/subscribe/help/cancel.html for instructions.
Toddlers/Guns (was: Re: Editorial: Liberals Packing Heat (fwd))
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Gil Hamilton wrote: No one's advocating giving guns to toddlers, but why should ordinary I wouldn't say "no one." Depending on how one chooses to define toddler, I'd heartily support seeing more kids receive firearms instruction... I fired my first rifle at age 6. The accompanying lessons in responsibility, independence, proper care of equipment, critical thinking skills, and so on, were invaluable. "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." -- Richard Henry Lee, 1788.
Re: Editorial: Liberals Packing Heat (fwd)
At 10:59 AM +0300 8/17/00, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote: They [obviously] don't believe in "getting rid of guns": they believe in getting rid of OUR guns. I think there is nothing much wrong in that. The problem is not the guns of a select few who can have real use for them and whose use of weaponry is tightly watched. The problem is in having everybody from toddlers to grannies packing heat and using it when somebody steps on their toes. If you're arguing for gun control, at least try to be more clever than using some absurdity about "everybody from toddlers to grannies packing heat." Of course, if you want to debate gun control on the Cypherpunks list, be prepared for some heat of a different kind. Oh, and try posting to one of the _real_ lists, not the obsolete and spam-filled toad.com list. Gun grabbers need to be killed. Agencies which enforce gun control need to have their headquarters and regional admin buildings blown up with ANFO. Fuck the gun grabbers. Feed them to the crematoria. I think you have no business being on the Cypherpunks list, you fucking turd. --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: under the deep blue sea
Yes the US Navy and intelligence community do go after the wreckage. The Yankee class ballistic missile sub K-219 went down off the east coast of the US in 1986 following an explosion in its missile compartment, later the Russians sent thier oceanographic ship the Keldesh to examine the wreckage. They found some of the silos pried open and missile and warhead missing. Interestingly enough there was an article in the NY Times recently maritmie salvage law. It seem that a "treasure hunter" has found 2 Spanish galleons laden with golden that sank off Virginia in the 1600's. they laid claim to them supported by the state of Virginia which would get a percentage of the recovery. A suite was filed against them in federal court by the Spanish goverment, supported by the US Department of Justice, claiming that because it was a warship it remained the sovereign property of Spain and could not be salvaged. This is contrary to all previous maritime law but would establish that a sunken warship could not legally be recovered by another country. This case will go to the Supreme Court, and if upheld would make any operatios like the "Glomar Explorer" or the K-219 recovery illegal under international lae. Interesting that the Justice department would take this position. Jim -- On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:21:14 Anonymous wrote: Scores of accidents involving nuclear reactors and weapons have occurred worldwide since the Nuclear Age began in 1945. And an estimated 50 nuclear warheads still lie on the bottom of the world's oceans, according to Joshua Handler, a former research coordinator for the environmental activist organization Greenpeace. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/the.bomb/broken.arrows/intro.html Presumably our spookbirds watch the oceans for non-US recovery teams fishing for plutonium. Do the russians watch the oceans for their lost toys, including dead nuke subs and ocean-dumped 'spent' reactors? -Feinkost Paranoia Send your favorite photo with any online greeting! http://www.whowhere.lycos.com/redirects/americangreetings.rdct
Re: Editorial: Liberals Packing Heat (fwd)
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Tim May wrote: lots of stuff I won't bother repeating Ya know, Tim, I remember reading you years ago when I was on cypherpunks the first time. I used to think you were an anarchist, individualist, libertarian -- and that's still the most consistent thread in your posts. But over the few weeks I've been back it's become clear to me that the most important thing to you now is giving offense. Why? What changed? Why does it matter if some chowderhead believes in gun control? Why was it worth your effort to flame this guy? Bear Got my first gun when I was 12, and my granny did, in fact, "pack heat" but it wasn't worth *my* time to write a flame.
NASHUA LIBRARY BROAD RESCINDS UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTERNET FILTERINGPOLICY
PRESS RELEASE -- People For the American Way Foundation http://www.pfaw.org/news/ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 17, 2000 CONTACT: Media Relations Department at 202-467-4999 __ NASHUA LIBRARY BROAD RESCINDS UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTERNET FILTERING POLICY After a threat of legal action from a local citizens' group, a New Hampshire public library board has decided to drop a mandatory, one-size-fits-all Internet filtering policy. Last night, the Nashua Public Library Board of Trustees unanimously voted to rescind a policy requiring filtered Internet access for every library user. On June 29, lawyers with People For the American Way Foundation and a group of lawyers from New England sent a letter to members of the Board of Trustees informing them that they had been retained as legal counsel by a group of Nashua citizens opposed to the library's unconstitutionally broad and restrictive policy. The New England attorneys included Selena Fitanides and Andrew J. Camelio of the Boston law firm of Bingham Dana LLP, as well as Jon Meyer of the Manchester firm Backus, Meyer, Solomon, Rood and Branch, as coordinating attorney for the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union. The letter from PFAWF and its co-counsel charged that the library policy violated the First Amendment and subverted the library's own mission to serve "the educational, informational and recreational needs of Nashua." The letter pointed out that the library's policy would bar citizens from accessing valuable information, such as information concerning health issues, and deny parents and families their right to make choices regarding their children's use of the Internet. The letter urged the library board to rescind the Internet filtering policy or face a legal challenge by the Nashua-based First Amendment Legal Defense Fund. With last night's vote, the screening software, "Surfwatch," will be removed from all of the library's computers, except for one in the children's room. The software blocks information in five broad categories, which include violence; sexually explicit material; hate speech; drugs/alcohol/tobacco; and gambling. Filtering programs, however, are not suited to a system of public access to information. Some websites blocked by Surfwatch at the Nashua library included a New York Times story on real-life television, a religious article on the revelation of God through the birth of Jesus, and a University of Washington scientific abstract on frogs - apparently because the abstract included the word "sex." "We are pleased with this important step by the Nashua Library Board of Trustees toward ensuring unencumbered access to information through the Internet," said PFAWF President Ralph G. Neas. "It is our hope that the library's action will now allow all of its patrons the right to access information without government interference." "I'm happy that the Nashua Library Board of Trustees has finally voted to start to bring its library policy into line with the Bill of Rights," said Art Ketchen, president of the First Amendment Legal Defense Fund. "We will be watching to see what kind of policy the board now uses; but taking off filters on all the adult terminals is a step in the right direction." In a case decided in federal court last year, a similar Internet filtering policy in Loudoun County, Virginia, was struck down as unconstitutional. PFAWF represented the plaintiffs in that case. Additionally, a California state court has thrown out a challenge by a library patron who wanted a Livermore library to impose mandatory Internet filtering. In Holland, Michigan, last fall, voters rejected an Internet filtering ballot initiative promoted by Religious Right organizations. Learn more about First Amendment rights at: http://www.pfaw.org/issues/expression/ == PFAWF Press Releases -- http://www.pfaw.org/news/ == ** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month) Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd., PMB 176, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 Archived at http://www.egroups.com/list/fa/ **
Re: Editorial: Liberals Packing Heat (fwd)
At 9:34 PM -0700 8/17/00, Ray Dillinger wrote: On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Tim May wrote: lots of stuff I won't bother repeating Ya know, Tim, I remember reading you years ago when I was on cypherpunks the first time. I used to think you were an anarchist, individualist, libertarian -- and that's still the most consistent thread in your posts. But over the few weeks I've been back it's become clear to me that the most important thing to you now is giving offense. Why? What changed? Why does it matter if some chowderhead believes in gun control? Why was it worth your effort to flame this guy? If you don't like my stuff, don't read it. And, by the way, read the archives from 1992-6 or so and you will find very similar stuff. Ask Bob Hettinga, who used to practice this same kind of "why can't you write the kind of articles I _like_!" pressuring, if I am writing much more differently. And ask Lawrence Dettweiler and simlar nitwits of the mid-90s if I have gotten more abrasive. If you are basing judgements on the "over the few weeks I've been back," you're obviously just another fool. --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: mail list server with PGP
You may want to look at: http://www.agorics.com/cancun.html which seems to have some of the items you mention. Fred Anonymous wrote: Hello, I am looking for the source pointers to mail list server with PGP capabilities. Functionality: posters send e-mail encrypted with the (single) server's key. Server decrypts, then encrypts with each recipient's key as it explodes the mail. If nothing is available as described, what is the best starting point for coding ? Majordomo ?
