Re: Confiscation of Anti-War Video
At 10:08 AM 10/28/02 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: >In antoher context I've wondered about the possibility of wireless, >near-real-time video upload. With 3G this will cetainly be easy, but I'm >wondering if there are soft/hard gadgets that can auto-upload stuff. Plenty of webcams come with software to auto upload (e.g., ftp). They require a computer though. You mean an embedded device? A 2.5 G phone with a camera, and the 'feature' to autosend periodically, would be a fine vidbug. Reminds me of that LEO notice a while back that captors were leaving their cell phones, and leaving them on, in the copcars. ... BTW JY needs to learn the Tomlinson trick of switching his chips. A wee bit of slight of hand.
Re: seeking information for Tired News article
At 02:33 PM 9/7/02 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
>> What kinds of people are involved?
>
>Doctors, Lawyers, Mathematecians, Felons, Druggies, Anti-druggies,
>Anarchists, Libertarians, Right-Wing-Fanatics, Left-Wing-Fanatics,
>Teachers, Housewives, Househusbands, students, cops, criminals...
We're all just voices in TM's head..
>> Who (socially, i mean, not names!) exactly are the members of the
group?
>
>Agains, there IS NO GROUP. I'm not trying to be cute here - THERE IS
>NO GROUP. The whole concept of "group" is flawed in this context.
Dogthinker seeks Alpha Cat.
>> WN has had a very familiar relationship with the cypherpunks - has it
been
>> viewed as a positive thing?
Which? WN is widely considered lame ('tired' to you) esp. since Declan
left.
On the other hand, publicity can attract contentful participants. Also
trolling feds and folks looking for help with homework.
>> With whom else are the cypherpunks allied?
>
>[I actually had to take a moment to wipe the tears of laughter from
>the question]
>
>Nobody.
Well a few authors have gotten free plane trips & bed & board at the
Feds'
expense.. some even came back after it was over.
Any such "alliance" would require a Group Consensus -
>something which is just patently impossible. If you ever find two
>CP's who can agree on enough to come to a broad Consensus, you let me
>know so I can mark it on my calendar.
True 'nuff. Now ask us about protocols which let you determine a
consensus...
well, that's tasty.
>> Thanks for your time. I am hoping to get the story done before the
end of
>> next week (i.e. before the actual party.) Of course, I would never
publish
>> the location of the party or any other information that you don't
feel
>> comfortable about.
And 'we' should 'trust' "you" *why* ?? (Ho-ho, list relevence!
Explain/define the
scare-quotes! For extra credit, explain how protocols might avoid
spoofing.)
research & homeland insecurity
(sent to AAAS members) Dear AAAS Member: As the anniversary of September 11th approaches, AAAS continues to be engaged in issues that relate to national security and the role of science and technology. One such issue is the safe and responsible conduct of research involving biological agents and toxins. AAAS was recently asked by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to assist in alerting our members to the federal mandate (Public Law 107-188) requiring all facilities and persons that possess, use, or transfer agents or toxins considered a threat to animals, plants, animal and plant products and/or public health (called "select agents") to notify the CDC and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Approximately 200,000 facilities were sent a copy of the notification form by the CDC. The deadline for submitting a completed form to the CDC is September 10, 2002. All entities that receive a copy of the form must comply, even if they do not possess a select agent or toxin. If you are in possession of a select agent or toxin and did not receive a form, you should call CDC's toll-free number: 1-866-567-4232. Further information on the select agent list, procedures for notification, and exemptions can be found at the following websites: CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/od/ohs/lrsat.htm USDA: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie AAAS is initiating an effort to monitor the effects of new national security initiatives on the research community. In that regard, we'd be pleased to hear about your experience, whether positive or negative, in complying with this new federal mandate. You can forward such information to Dr. Mark Frankel, director of the AAAS Program on Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sincerely, Alan I. Leshner Chief Executive Officer
Re: modified consoles as disposable nodes
At 12:19 PM 8/2/02 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: >While useful, they note that the other platforms lack at least one of the >Dreamcast's virtues. "It's innocuous. It looks like a toy," said Davis. >"If you bring it into a company, they're going to go, 'Wow, look at the >toy!'" Damn, first they came for my Furby. Then they came for my Dreamcast. Wait until the Dreamcasters get into stealth casemods..
Re: Are the Feds Wimps or What?
At 11:15 AM 7/22/02 -0400, Duncan Frissell wrote: >So far the massive crackdown by the Feds that has stripped me of my civil >liberties hasn't managed to do much. They have to work a bit harder. > >I'm back to not showing ID to get into work just like before the war. > Well, you showed it to them enough times, they believe you now :-)
Re: Atmospheric noise & fair coin flipping
At 05:45 AM 7/14/02 -0700, gfgs pedo wrote:
>it is said that atmospheric noise is random but how
>can we say for sure.
Physics, chaos, the growth of initial uncertainty as systems evolve,
energy/time required to make measurements to arbitrary precision.
>what if the parameters giverning atmospheric noise
>vary frm time 2 time.
The rules of physics are those that don't change from time to time, or
place to place.
Certainly the e.g., wind speed does.
>so can we say atmospheric noise is random or a coin
>flipping is random-only because it passes die hard
>test or other randomness tests-which is an indicator
>of randomness with the current defenition of
>parameters in determing randomness?
No, since 'anything through a whitener passes' these tests.
The integers (0, 1, 2..) fed into DES will pass.
(Equivalently) A low-entropy source fed into a hash will pass.
[Historical note: this is why Intel should make its raw RNG
data available in chips with whitened-output RNG functions]
To have a true RNG, You *must* have a physical understanding of the
source
of entropy whence you distill the pure bits (whether or not
you feed it into a whitener after distillation). Precisely
because a 'black box' may be a deterministic (if you know
the secret) PRNG. By 'distill' I mean reduce N bits to M,
N > M, in such a way as to increase the entropy of the
resultant M bits.
>is there truly random or that we can say with certain
>degre of confidence that they are nearly random as all
>current evidence poits so.
'Random' should be taken to mean 'ignorant of'. It suffices
that we (and our adversary) are ignorant of the detailed conditions
inside a noise diode, unstable atomic nucleus, atmospheric
(or FM radio) noise receiver, etc. Philosophical discussions about
'true
randomness' ("Is there a deeper/smaller level of description in
which apparently-random events are based or emerge from?")
are beyond the scope of this rant.
Re: Which universe are we in? (tossing tennis balls into spinning props)
At 03:21 PM 7/14/02 +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
>Eric Cordian wrote:
>> Still, Nature abhors overcomplexification, and plain old quantum
mechanics
>> works just fine for predicting the results of experiments.
>
>Oh yeah? So predict when this radioactive isotope will decay, if you
please.
You mean "this particular *atom* will decay".
And while QM can't help you with a particular atom, it also doesn't say
that its impossible that knowledge of internal states of the atom
wouldn't help you predict its fragmentation.
Think about tossing tennis balls through spinning propellers. You might
think you could
only characterize the translucent prop-disk by a certain probability
that the ball would get through
vs. get shredded. ("Propeller mechanics")
But if you could see the phase of the prop as it spun, you could time
your tosses and predict which would get shredded. But without that
high-speed strobe, you just think there's a disk where there's really a
spinning blade.
Re: TPM cost constraint [was: RE: Revenge of the WAVEoid]
At 07:05 PM 7/6/02 -0700, Lucky Green wrote:,> Adding the cost of an EMBASSY or SEE environment to the,>purchase of every new PC is more than the market for bare-bones or even,>mid-range PC's will bear.,>,>--Lucky,> Too bad PCMCIA cardreaders aren't widespread, then a bank could give away smartcards which would be arguably more secure than browserware.
biometric containment (privacy, fingerprints, dead utah blondes)
So the neighbors of that dead blonde Utah jailbait volunteered their fingerprints, presumably for discounting them, though possibly not. In any case: how could a neighbor-friendly cypherpunk give prints which were *not* entered into the Fed Oracle? Only way I can think of is to physically control your deadtree print sheet and require the Feebs to manually enter the dozen topo-feature-locations of your print from a memoryless measuring device, (eg, a glass lens and reticle) in front of you, then take the print sheet with you. How you verify that the imaging system is memoryless is up to you. Comments?
"Justice is more powerful than therapy" -ex Scientologist
Lawrence Wollersheim was awarded millions of dollars, but he plans to keep living as a nomad in a solar-powered RV, connected to the world by a cellular phone with a secret number. The ex-Scientologist came by his money in a unique fashion too: He won a grueling 22-year court battle against the Church of Scientology of California that went to the U.S. Supreme Court. Wollersheim said the church pushed him to the brink of suicide, brought on bipolar disorder and drove his business into bankruptcy. A Los Angeles jury agreed. On May 9, the church deposited $8.67 million with the Los Angeles Superior Court, marking the only time in two decades, church officials say, that Scientology has lost a lawsuit and been forced to pay a former member, or as church officials call him, an apostate. Now, Wollersheim said, he won't "have to worry about having a job ever again." But the 53-year-old, who has spent his entire adult life in Scientology or fighting it, said he is not going to relax in his newfound security. He'd like nothing better, he said. It's just that his quest for justice may compel him to wage more battles and file more lawsuits. He is encouraging other ex-members to file their own suits and plans to stay involved in Factnet, the anti-Scientology, anti-cult Web site he co-founded. "Justice is more powerful than therapy," Wollersheim said. "If it takes another 22 years, I'll stay with it. I'm standing up straight and tall and looking them in the eye, and they're not pushing me anymore." http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/la-35921may21.story?coll=la%2Deditions%2Dorange (access using joecypherpunk2/writecode if necessary)
Re: Got carried away...
At 09:02 AM 4/30/02 -0400, Steve Furlong wrote: >Ken Brown wrote: > >> ... An even >> if cars were "like little tanks" why not open them with ordinary >> physical keys, like real tanks? > >US tanks don't have built-in locks as in private autos. They have heavy >wire loops or bars and are locked with ordinary (if rather heavy-duty) >padlocks. Of course, no security is impenatrable, and a few years ago some (possibly unbalanced :-) yahoo stole a tank IIRC from a SoCal National Guard and demonstrated that the Jersey barriers on the 5 were not up to the task. Eventually a cop climbed it and shot the guy in the tank. Remember to lock that door. An inspiring bit of surrealtv, that was.
PGP carlocks: if you have a hammer everything is a nail?
At 12:11 AM 4/29/02 +0200, Jan Dobrucki wrote: > >Greetings. >I got carried away a bit. Sorry. I'm on this list from around 1998 >and I never had so much trash in my mail before. There is far too >many ads, and what more, 5-6 viruses each day. Subscribe via lne.com >I do have an idea thou. I'm thinking how to implement PGP into car >locks. And so far I got this: The driver has his PGP, and the door >has it's own. The door has only one reciepient, the driver. And when >he wants to enter the car, its sends a certain number to the driver >say "1234", or something else like letters and whatever. Only the >driver can decrypt the message and see the contents. Each time the >drivers wants to open the door its something else. Next the driver >inputs the text sent by the door into a touchpad on the door. The >door opens and the drivers can enter... so is it a good idea or a bad >idea? >Jan Dobrucki How do you say "smoking crack" in Polish? What does PK give you here? A simple stored secret, exchanged with the car physically (after authenticating self as owner) is necessary and sufficient. Use a rolling code/one-time-password protocol if you like. Lets you loan a key toa friend or valet without having to revoke a PK...
Re: Two ideas for random number generation
At 11:55 AM 4/24/02 +0300, Sampo Syreeni wrote: >On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Riad S. Wahby wrote: > >>This may take more voltage than you want to use in your process, but you >>can engineer the base-emitter junction if you've got a friend in process >>engineering. You can also use common guard structures to isolate the "HV" part of the chip, without dicking with the Delicate Recipes (process) which you Don't Want To Do And Probably Wouldn't Be Allowed To Anyway. Also helps keep digital switching noise out of the source. >Aren't there dedicated avalanche diodes available with low breakdown >voltages, precisely for this reason? I think they're used in applications >where zeners could be, except for higher breakdown current. > >>One other potential problem is long-term reliability, but that's a >>subject for another email. Actually, we're interested... >Shouldn't be a problem, if you limit the breakdown current. If you're >after entropy, you'd likely want to use a constant current source anyway. And constant-current sources are *sooo* tough to make out of transistors :-) My small point is confirming that junction/avalanche RNG sources are very compatible with standard CMOS fabrication. (I've actually probed test structures on production wafers in a stuffy metal room examining this... man, you don't want to have had too much coffee trying to land the probes.. ..looking at analogue measurements with spectral analyzers and sampled data with statistical tools) The junction structures are "louder" than resistors --they produce more entropy per watt. Intel may have had other, valid reasons for using resistive sources in its real RNG.
RE: mil disinfo on cryptome (and sec clearance games)
At 09:22 PM 4/6/02 -0800, John Young wrote: >Kahn's right, and admirably so, for once you get access >to classified material you are doomed to be distrusted >outside the secret world. Another reason: once you get a clearance, you can't speak freely. The latest _Tech Review_ interviews an MIT Prof Postol, who has been pointing out the lies behind Raytheon's Patriot missile and the anti-ballistic missile sham. Reportedly, some friendly DoD folks came to him and asked him to read a classified report that would put some of his technical worries at ease. Postol refused, knowing that this is a scheme used to silence folks --having been exposed to classified info, you have to watch what you say. If you figure it out from open data + general science, you can speak your mind. (BTW The basic deception is, if our gizmo can't discriminate this kind of decoy, well, don't use that kind of decoy in the tests..)
Re: Julia Child was a Spook
At 01:31 PM 4/7/02 +0800, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: >I'm sorry you've bought the terrorist line that it's all about US >support for Israel. RTFM. Or the Al-Quaeda declarations, at least. > I know better. So *you* claim. Chuckle. >We could withdraw from the Middle >East tomorrow, and all that would change would be the excuse. Why would Al Q. care about the US if the US were not in their backyard? Its not like they care about US colonialism in the Americas, or Europe. They learned (via CCCP, Lebanon, etc.) how to evict intruders from their homeland, and now they are implementing it. They're acting rationally, and as a wanna-be analyst you should be able to understand that. In dropping the Towers, they were trying to wake up US taxpayers to the actions of their 'leaders'. Unfortunate that Americans are so hard to wake up (vaporizing some jar-heads on the other side of the planet does not truly impress), even harder to get to think, but that's the situation.
How many virgins for Mike Spann?
At 06:08 PM 4/6/02 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >>What kind of payback does the USG pay to families of deceased soldiers? > >A flag, and occasionally a cemetary plot in Virginia if they want one, >and a lot of hype about how they were a heroic martyr for their country, >back when hype about being a heroic martyr was supposed to be positive. 1. Is it a Chinese-made flag? 2. How many virgins do they get? (Round to the nearest dozen) Do homosexual soldiers get to "tell" and get nubile young lads?
CNET article on "dream email client" includes PGP
5. Integrated PGP encryption We can't stress e-mail security enough, and we think your e-mail client should stress it more. Many apps make weak attempts at encryption, but we demand integrated PGP, the encryption gold standard, in every e-mailer. Users could create a decryption key the first time they use the app, then choose whether to autoencrypt every message or just click a button to encrypt single pieces of outgoing mail. A similar preference or button would autodecrypt on command. http://home.cnet.com/software/0--8-9161160-1.html
Re: Julia Child was a Spook
At 02:59 PM 4/6/02 +0800, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: >Nonsense. If you can't see any difference between terrorists and >risistants you are either wilfully ignorant or confused. "Terrorist" is what the bigger side of an asymmetrical conflict call the smaller side. Also "crazy", and other intended-derogatory labels. When the American Revolutionary Jihad did not line up, or wear uniforms, like proper British soldiers, but sniped from camoflaged concealed positions, they were regarded as terrorists by the colonialists. The more things change.. If you were on the weaker side, you wouldn't play "fair", ie, according to the rules written by those who gain from the rules. Or you would be a dead fool, and your survivors would be slaves.
RE: Small Arms Failure in Afghan (caliberpunks) (pharmpunks)
At 07:40 AM 4/6/02 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: >You don't even need to open a book on pharmacology to realize why this is >a dumb idea. ... some people will get >a lot more exposure than others due to statistical fluctuations...when >you're approaching LD50 country, a mg/kg body weight dosage at which 50% >of people die) is narrow. > >Taken together, this means that you're walking a *very* narrow line >between no effect at all, and a lot of dead bodies littering the >landscape. Both are probably not what you wanted. Yep. 1. Yes it has been researched; .ZA did some documented work on (supposedly) using psychotropics as riot-control agents. See also BZ, an atropine-like[1] deleriant investigated by the US. 2. Some psychotropics have very wide ED:LD50 ratios (e.g., lsd), several orders of magnitude larger than even the safer drugs (which might have an ED:LD of 100; cf Tylenol, a few times the ED will toast your liver). But they may not have the immediacy of effect you desire. The DMT-class drugs act faster, and ethyl- and longer substitutions last longer, but pain and vomiting drugs seem to be favored. Hallucinogens might only encourage the religious martyrs. 3. *Any* chemwar, e.g., CS and capsaicin, used by the US police on its citizens, can kill, e.g., the elderly, young, asthmatics, etc. Any drug will kill some fraction: vaccines kill a few people a year, but save zillions. [1] The British military, fighting the american revolutionary Jihad, inadvertently consumed a Datura species as they scrounged for food in the Virginia woods. Datura sp. contain atropine. They ended up "howling naked at the moon". As they were near Jamestown, the species became known as Jimsonweed.
Re: Small Arms Failure in Afghan (caliberpunks)
At 08:38 PM 4/5/02 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >-- >James A. Donald: >> > Military weapons are generally not designed to kill quickly. >> > A badly wounded man who takes a long time dying is a much >> > bigger drain on your enemy's resources. > >Major Variola >> True for snipers, but if you're being shot at and have >> inadequate cover, > >A badly wounded man will instantly lose interest in his mission. A badly wounded *Christian* draftee/unemployable but not wannabe *Martyr* volunteer. >Instant deterrence is in many ways better for military purposes >than instant kill. Instant kill only matters in close quarters >one on one combat. (And is much overrated even in that >situation.) Indeed ---US domestic police shoot to kill, not 'wound', because they shoot when someone's life is in imminent danger. >The only use for instant kill weapon in warfare would be for an >officer to shoot mutineers. Or vice-versa.
