Re: [LUAU] Re: dangers to (Software) Freedom
On Aug 26, 2007, at 5:49 PM, Clifton Royston wrote: On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 05:32:00PM -1000, Angela Kahealani wrote: On Sunday, 2007-08-26 11:32:35 Jim Thompson wrote: In any case, modern crypto-systems do not depend on prime numbers per se. Rather, the[y] depend on the difficulty of factoring large numbers, especially those that are the product of two prime numbers. Yes... so if you can quickly generate primes, you can quickly test factoring those primes out of another number. No, absolutely not. His claim that generating primes was formerly hard, and that's the source of the problem, is typical of what happens when you get outsiders to a field making discoveries. Occasionally they really find something new by looking at it with fresh eyes, but far more often they completely misunderstand the nature of the problem they are looking at, make fools of themselves, and then rant about how the establishment is ignoring them out of fear. (Consider that centuries after the question was resolved via abstract algebra, you still get non-mathematicians claiming to have trisected an angle with compass and straightedge.) Yep. here is now Diffie-Hellman works: Alice and Bob agree to use a prime number, say p=23 and base g=5. Alice chooses a secret integer a=6, then sends Bob (g^a % p) So: 5^6 % 23 = 8. Bob chooses a secret integer b=15, then sends Alice (g^b % p) So: 5^15 mod 23 = 19. Alice computes (g^b mod p)a % p 19^6 % 23 = 2. Bob computes (g^a % p)^b % p 8^15 % 23 = 2. Both Alice and Bob have arrived at the same value, because g^(ab) and g^(ba) are equal, and can be used as symmetric keys. The order of g (and G) should be prime or have a large prime factor to prevent use of the Pohlig-Hellman algorithm to obtain a or b. Note that only a, b and g^(ab) = g^(ba) are kept secret. All the other values are sent in the clear. Once Alice and Bob compute the shared secret they can use it as an encryption key, known only to them, for sending messages across the same open communications channel. Of course, much larger values of a, b, and p would be needed to make this example secure, since it is easy to try all the possible values of g^(ab) mod 23 (there will be, at most, 22 such values, even if a and b are large). If p were a prime of at least 300 digits, and a and b were at least 100 digits long, then even the best algorithms known today could not find a given only g, p, and ga mod p, even using all of mankind's computing power. The problem is known as the discrete logarithm problem. Note that g need not be large at all, and in practice is usually either 2 or 5. It is relatively easy to generate primes, and has been for a long time; it is fairly easy to *statistically* guess whether a given number is prime or not, with good odds; it's very hard to find the prime factors of large non-primes. Generating primes was easy back in the 1870s. That is not a typo, I typed 1870s. http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Doc/Articles/Play104 Even if factoring the product of two large primes becomes tractable, we still have elliptic curves to use, (although if the discrete logarithm problem is in NP or even NP-hard, then so is ECC.) As evidence of the former, I suggest you take a look at the size of the prime numbers being generated and tested by the Internet Mersenne Prime Search, for instance. The last one found had 9,808,358 decimal digits, or 32,582,687 bits; compare that to the 1024 bit primes used in a typical RSA key. Remember, that number is not merely 32,000 times larger, it's 32,000 *powers* larger. 1024 bits is now too short, due to advances in factoring. http://my.opera.com/yngve/blog/2007/05/24/1020-bit-special-number- factored Also, despite the visibility that public-key cryptosystems have, symmetric block cryptosystems like Twofish, AES, Rijndael, etc. get much more use in practice, and they typically don't use prime-based calculations in any way. Unfortunately, popularity is not a reliable indicator of security. Some algorithms have security proofs with various properties and of varying quality. In fact, though you can construct a crypto-system from public-key crypto, you're stupid to do so. You have a lot more risk of leaking the private key, and a lot more data protected by the key, if you do which is why a key-derivation function is normally present, never-mind the extra computation for no real gain in security. Jim ___ LUAU@lists.hosef.org mailing list http://lists.hosef.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luau
Re: [LUAU] Re: dangers to (Software) Freedom
On Aug 26, 2007, at 5:21 PM, Angela Kahealani wrote: On Sunday, 2007-08-26 13:47:02 808blogger wrote: uh oh? did I just violate your copyright by re quoting this drivel in my response? uh oh.and that would be copyright under what government again I believe that you have practiced fair use of copyrighted material. 808blogger's use is likely fair use, given that it is comment and critique. Likely that the archive of LUAUis not. BTW, US statutes lately interpret copyright that EVERY work is instantly copyrighted when created, even without a copyright notice. Mine is explicit rather than implicit. So what purpose does your notice serve? It can only be hostile. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#noc Use of the notice may be important because it informs the public that the work is protected by copyright, identifies the copyright owner, and shows the year of first publication. Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if a proper notice of copyright appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant’s interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in section 504(c)(2) of the copyright law. Innocent infringement occurs when the infringer did not realize that the work was protected. ___ LUAU@lists.hosef.org mailing list http://lists.hosef.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luau
Re: [LUAU] Re: dangers to (Software) Freedom
On Monday, 2007-08-27 01:12:49 Jim Thompson wrote: On Aug 26, 2007, at 5:21 PM, Angela Kahealani wrote: I believe that you have practiced fair use of copyrighted material. 808blogger's use is likely fair use, given that it is comment and critique. Likely that the archive of LUAUis not. I hereby specifically grant a revocable (with 30 days notice) license to the LUAU archive to retain copies of my copyrighted material until 30 days after receipt of notice of termination of license. I think it should be fairly obvious that when one publishes a work in a given forum, that one has by that action licensed that use, but NO other use. Thus, implicitly, having knowingly submitted my copyrighted material to that which I know is an archived mailing list, I have obviously consented to that archiving pro tem. That does not mean I have granted license to any other entity to make copies or publish them, beyond fair use. The only murky question is really about termination of that grant of use, and there we require knowledge of the PUBLISHED policies of the mailing list archive about retention of data in that archive. If the archive did not PRE-publish a policy that it would never remove material from that archive, then it must remove the material upon license termination. So what purpose does your notice serve? It can only be hostile. Really? I would say that the property of hostility is that character practiced by those who would steal anothers' property. If you find my practicing maximum defense of my rights to be hostile then, YOU have a problem. Per UCC, silence constitutes consent. Specifically, 30 days of silence constitutes agreement. Therefore, one must continually and repeatedly ASSERT one's rights, as per, or specifically under, the jurisdiction of UCC1-207. It is YOU collectively who have set up this HOSTILE system which forces CONTINUAL defense of rights by me. I don't agree to be bound by your severely dysfunctional system of humans dominating each other, or the insane laws you've implemented, thus I exited the system. Angela Kahealani So, what's it mean?: Copyright 2007 Angela Kahealani. I wrote this, and I control its' publication, it's my property. I retain control of each copy through its' copyright notice. All rights reserve without prejudice. Necessary to preserve my rights, as the UCC law is written that, if you don't CONTINUALLY defend your rights, you lose them. IF I was still in the system under statutes, I could alternately invoke this concept with UCC1-207, but UCC is a private, copyrighted code, and therefore, since I don't have a license from the creators of UCC to use their code, and since invoking their code also invokes their jurisdiction, I invoke the concept, not their copyrighted version. I have intentionally placed the reservation of rights in the present rather than past tense, to emphasize the ONGOING nature of that reservation of rights. All information and transactions are private between the parties, We are interacting in private space, not PUBLIC space... this is a private interaction between two flesh-and-blood-incarnate souls, not a PUBLIC interaction between two cestui que trust corporations. As a secured party creditor, everything about my existence is private, whereas, for 14th Amendment U.S. Citizens, everything is PUBLIC. Because I cannot step into PUBLIC jurisdiction without losing ALL of my rights, I shall never VOLUNTARILY enter PUBLIC space, therefore, you have operated privately for our interactions, and I have not acted PUBLICLY. and are non negotiable. None of this can ever appear before a judge or magistrate. http://www.kahealani.com/ Where to get more info. - Copyright 2007 Angela Kahealani. All rights reserve without prejudice. All information and transactions are private between the parties, and are non negotiable. http://www.kahealani.com/ ___ LUAU@lists.hosef.org mailing list http://lists.hosef.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luau
Re: [LUAU] Re: dangers to (Software) Freedom
On Aug 27, 2007, at 8:43 AM, Angela Kahealani wrote: On Monday, 2007-08-27 01:12:49 Jim Thompson wrote: On Aug 26, 2007, at 5:21 PM, Angela Kahealani wrote: I believe that you have practiced fair use of copyrighted material. 808blogger's use is likely fair use, given that it is comment and critique. Likely that the archive of LUAUis not. I hereby specifically grant a revocable (with 30 days notice) license to the LUAU archive to retain copies of my copyrighted material until 30 days after receipt of notice of termination of license. I think it should be fairly obvious that when one publishes a work in a given forum, that one has by that action licensed that use, but NO other use. Thus, implicitly, having knowingly submitted my copyrighted material to that which I know is an archived mailing list, you could claim you didn't know. I have obviously consented to that archiving pro tem. That does not mean I have granted license to any other entity to make copies or publish them, beyond fair use. I am smiling at the thought that you think you could retroactively terminate the license you grant above. What, are you afraid that something you say will 'stick around' in the archives? I'm smiling more while thinking about you suing if I save a copy (perhaps automatically) of all incoming email. The judge would throw you out on your rear-end. The only murky question is really about termination of that grant of use, and there we require knowledge of the PUBLISHED policies of the mailing list archive about retention of data in that archive. If the archive did not PRE-publish a policy that it would never remove material from that archive, then it must remove the material upon license termination. Hee hee hee. What an excellent morning you bring! So what purpose does your notice serve? It can only be hostile. Really? I would say that the property of hostility is that character practiced by those who would steal anothers' property. If you find my practicing maximum defense of my rights to be hostile then, YOU have a problem. Per UCC, silence constitutes consent. Specifically, 30 days of silence constitutes agreement. Therefore, one must continually and repeatedly ASSERT one's rights, as per, or specifically under, the jurisdiction of UCC1-207. It is YOU collectively who have set up this HOSTILE system which forces CONTINUAL defense of rights by me. I don't agree to be bound by your severely dysfunctional system of humans dominating each other, or the insane laws you've implemented, thus I exited the system. Yet you persist in polluting the environment with your noisy bits. Angela Kahealani So, what's it mean?: Copyright 2007 Angela Kahealani. I wrote this, and I control its' publication, it's my property. I retain control of each copy through its' copyright notice. The hell you do. Man, I'm giggling now. The people in the coffee shop must think I'm insane. All rights reserve without prejudice. Necessary to preserve my rights, as the UCC law is written that, if you don't CONTINUALLY defend your rights, you lose them. IF I was still in the system under statutes, I could alternately invoke this concept with UCC1-207, but UCC is a private, copyrighted code, and therefore, since I don't have a license from the creators of UCC to use their code, and since invoking their code also invokes their jurisdiction, I invoke the concept, not their copyrighted version. Oh man, I invoke the concept, not the copyrighted version... thats the best info-porn of the month! Thanks! I have intentionally placed the reservation of rights in the present rather than past tense, to emphasize the ONGOING nature of that reservation of rights. All information and transactions are private between the parties, We are interacting in private space, not PUBLIC space... this is a private interaction between two flesh-and-blood-incarnate souls, not a PUBLIC interaction between two cestui que trust corporations. I claim the conversation is entirely public, and you're voluntarily submitting same. As a secured party creditor, everything about my existence is private, whereas, for 14th Amendment U.S. Citizens, everything is PUBLIC. Because I cannot step into PUBLIC jurisdiction without losing ALL of my rights, I shall never VOLUNTARILY enter PUBLIC space, therefore, you have operated privately for our interactions, and I have not acted PUBLICLY. horsepucky. and are non negotiable. None of this can ever appear before a judge or magistrate. Ah, so you *can't* sue! hee hee. ___ LUAU@lists.hosef.org mailing list http://lists.hosef.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luau
[LUAU] Re: dangers to (Software) Freedom
On Monday, 2007-08-27 08:55:55 Jim Thompson wrote: On Aug 27, 2007, at 8:43 AM, Angela Kahealani wrote: On Monday, 2007-08-27 01:12:49 Jim Thompson wrote: On Aug 26, 2007, at 5:21 PM, Angela Kahealani wrote: I believe that you have practiced fair use of copyrighted material. 808blogger's use is likely fair use, given that it is comment and critique. Likely that the archive of LUAUis not. I hereby specifically grant a revocable (with 30 days notice) license to the LUAU archive to retain copies of my copyrighted material until 30 days after receipt of notice of termination of license. I think it should be fairly obvious that when one publishes a work in a given forum, that one has by that action licensed that use, but NO other use. Thus, implicitly, having knowingly submitted my copyrighted material to that which I know is an archived mailing list, you could claim you didn't know. I could not. That would be a lie. All lies manipulate others, and therefor violate their right of free dominion, and therefor constitute a karmic damage to them, which would create negative karma for me. All manipulations of others contain lies, and all manipulations hurt all involved souls. Only truth is sustainable in 4th density, and we are now simultaneously experiencing both 3rd and 4th density upon Ter-Ra, so some people play in the secrecy and lies of 3rd density, but those of us on the ascension path must practice honesty. http://www.worldtrans.org/lyssa/density.html http://www.spiritual.com.au/articles/channeled/4Drelationship_lroyal.htm I have obviously consented to that archiving pro tem. That does not mean I have granted license to any other entity to make copies or publish them, beyond fair use. I am smiling at the thought that you think you could retroactively terminate the license you grant above. Nothing in law may be done retroactively. Remember to keep your government accountable to that. We have to ask if the grant was unconditional, or if it was conditional, what were the terms and conditions, thus by specifying an explicit grant above with a condition for termination, HOSEF has 30 days to rebut what I've said, and if they don't, they've agreed, and it's a contract. If they don't agree to my termination conditions and removal upon termination, then they have the right to remove it all NOW. Now might be an appropriate time to query whether HOSEF's mailing list either now does, or easily could in the future, support X-No-Archive in the headers. What, are you afraid that something you say will 'stick around' in the archives? If I don't reserve my rights now, I cannot retroactively retrieve them. I don't operate in fear. I have to be able to terminate an existing contract in order to replace it with a new one. It is my intent, upon decession of my body, to grant via my will, a change of license for all my material, placing it under something like a Creative Commons or GGPL license granting greater rights to use, so I'd better update my will with the chosen re-license before I leave the body. Until I leave: 1. I want to be able to update anything I've published. 2. All search engines should point only to my latest version, and there should be no copies published on any website but mine, other than the Internet Archive, which I control via robots.txt. Normally, I won't publish the same material on my website that I submit to a mailing-list (and its' archive), therefor there is not much problem that the old copy on the archive website will compete in the search engines with a newer copy on my own website. I'm smiling more while thinking about you suing if I save a copy (perhaps automatically) of all incoming email. By submitting to an e-mail list, it is presumed that anyone who has a right to read the list or its archive has a right to read the material. In cyberspace, caching is standard practice, and I'm not in protest of that practice. You wanna cache a copy on your computer for your private use, either manually or via the standard operation of typical OSs and Browsers / e-mail clients, go right ahead. You have not been granted any rights to publish that copy however, therefor if you want your friend to view the article, you must refer them to the HOSEF archive. The judge would throw you out on your rear-end. EXCELLENT! No judge can deal with a private party. Because I'm private and non negotiable, I would not sue, as that would be granting jurisdiction to a judge. I shall not voluntarily enter Federal Jurisdiction. The only murky question is really about termination of that grant of use, and there we require knowledge of the PUBLISHED policies of the mailing list archive about retention of data in that archive. If the archive did not PRE-publish a policy that it would never remove material from that archive, then it must remove the material upon license termination. Hee
Re: [LUAU] Re: dangers to (Software) Freedom
Jim Thompson wrote: Man, I'm giggling now. The people in the coffee shop must think I'm insane. Not to change the subject, or anything, but what coffee shop do you like on Oahu? Which has good Internet access and good coffee? I rather like a coffee shop in Kaimuki, next to 1st Hawaiian Bank, but I would love to know about others. -- Hawaiian Astronomical Society: http://www.hawastsoc.org HAS Deepsky Atlas: http://www.hawastsoc.org/deepsky ___ LUAU@lists.hosef.org mailing list http://lists.hosef.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luau
Re: [LUAU] Re: dangers to (Software) Freedom
On Aug 27, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Peter Besenbruch wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: Man, I'm giggling now. The people in the coffee shop must think I'm insane. Not to change the subject, or anything, but what coffee shop do you like on Oahu? Which has good Internet access and good coffee? I rather like a coffee shop in Kaimuki, next to 1st Hawaiian Bank, but I would love to know about others. Oh heck, change away. I was sitting at Morning Brew in Kailua, though we're moving over toward Kahala in Oct, so knowing of places on that side of the island seems like a plan. I've tried Common Grounds in Hawaii Kai, and they're friendly, but the coffee at Morning Brew is better, if one of the good baristas makes it. Also, since I've mentioned it, does anyone know of a building in Honolulu, or, possibly, parts of Diamond Heat (or, frankly Diamond Head itself), or Portlock that has (real) bandwidth in it? We're moving, and I'm investigating the possibility of a wireless shot. jim ___ LUAU@lists.hosef.org mailing list http://lists.hosef.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luau
