a retort + a comment + a question = [RANT]

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 tim may wrote:
 >"...and that discussions of other topics bother you should be a clear 
 >indication you're probably on the wrong list."
     
        uh, that's _why_ i am on this list...
     
 >"Having a "navy.mil" domain probably is another reason, unless you 
 >are only hear to monitor our discussions of using cryptography to 
 >undermine the state, to liberate military secrets with BlackNet and 
 >the Information Liberation Front, and to punish the millions of 
 >those in the military-industrial complex who have so richly earned 
 >their eventual punishments.
        military secrets, eh?  tell me something mr may, what secrets 
 have you uncovered in your undaunting quest to expose those corrupt 
 little guys in uniform?  mr may - i serve in the US Navy so you don't 
 have to, and as much as i sometimes _don't_ like it, i will always, 
 _always_ love the navy for what she gave me.  one of the reasons you 
 sit at your terminal drinking your coffe and ranting on and on, is 
 because men and women like myself happen to think that what the 
 military does for the US is a good thing.  i skipped collage (don't 
 ask why) after graduating early from HS to enlist in the navy.  
 keeping you free to bitch is why i am here.  never forget that the 
 freedom you enjoy comes with a price, mr may.
        the schools that you send your kids to (forgive me if you're 
 celibate or childless) are run by the govt.  am i saying they do a good 
 job?  not necessarily, but what i _am_ saying is that your kids _still_ 
 go.  i am almost positive, despite attempts to the contrary, that you 
 make use of the US postal system.  the phone lines that you connect 
 that computer to were installed by - guess who? - there are a hundred 
 other things you and i and everyone use that wouldn't be there if it 
 weren't for the USG (or state/county/municipal govt's).  tell me mr 
 may, how much of this are you willing to give up in your quest for what 
 (i am supposing) you mean in your little blurb at the end of your mail 
 - "collapse of governments"?  the writer supposes that mr may would 
 still be against, determined to oppose, and dedicated to the 
 elimination of [pick something, pick anything] if govt's didn't exist.  
        what's the quote?  "i may not agree with what you say, but i 
 defend to the death your right to say it."  something like that.
     
 >Smash the State.  
 aye, aye captain!
 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 mark m wrote:
 >In order for anonymous remailers to be completely anonymous, only one 
 >remailer in the chain has to be trustworthy.  If a message is chained 
 >through N remailers and N-1 of those remailers are run by spooks, the 
 >anonymity of the message depends on the remaining remailer.
     
 well, actually, the first remailer has to be the trustworthy one.  you 
 send a msg to the first with your "real" address, and if the spook is 
 there, voila! so...  i understand your point, but still, it has to be 
 the first one.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 dale thorn(?) wrote:
 >I'm amused to think that, in a nation armed with 20,000 or so nukes, 
 >the paranoid of paranoid nation-states as it were, some of the 
 >erstwhile intelligent citizens think that the U.S. military are just 
 >sitting around wringing their hands over the "fact" that the citizens 
 >have "unbreakable" crypto.
 >Bear in mind the Scientific American articles on Public Key crypto 
 >back in the 1970's.  The military knew the score back then, and if 
 >you think they just sat back and allowed all this to happen, well, 
 >sorry, I don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
     
 one question (sarcastic and rhetorical): how long did it take for the 
 USG to actually acknowledge that the NSA.NRO.DIA.etc existed? hmmm.... 
 has a segment of the populace gone stark raving paraniod?
     
 >Second, any truly secret messaging taking place represents a serious 
 >threat to the military, and contrary to some naive popular opinion, 
 >those guys are not going to lay down for this...
     
 what does the military have to do wiht private citizens conversing in 
 secret?  are _you_ one of the naive that think men actually in 
 uniform controll the military?  hello - the SecDef is a civillian.  
 the president is a democrat.  the military does what the white house/ 
 congress tell it (the writer realizes this is a vastly over- 
 simplified response to a vastly broad statement).
     
 ---------------------- SUCRUM22@cv62.navy.mil -----------------------
   a calculated risk based on the possible consequence of an action
  is better than a haphazard one based on poor judgment or ignorance
 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 Don't confuse my views with those of the DoD or the United States Navy

SUCRUM22_at_INDY-ADP@smtp-gw.cv62.navy.mil writes:
>  mark m wrote:
>  >In order for anonymous remailers to be completely anonymous, only one 
>  >remailer in the chain has to be trustworthy.  If a message is chained 
>  >through N remailers and N-1 of those remailers are run by spooks, the 
>  >anonymity of the message depends on the remaining remailer.
>      
>  well, actually, the first remailer has to be the trustworthy one.  you 
>  send a msg to the first with your "real" address, and if the spook is 
>  there, voila! so...  i understand your point, but still, it has to be 
>  the first one.

The first remailer doesn't necessarily have to be trustworthy; it
depends what it is you are trying to hide.

If you are trying to hide the fact that you are sending mail via
remailers, then to some extent the first remailer matters.  But
presumably, if you are sending to remailers, watching all the email
you send would be the obvious way to see if you are using remailers.

Your options to hide the fact that you are sending to remailers would
be to forward your mail (encrypted) to someone else who does use
remailers.  Or perhaps a hypothetical system in which you
steganographically encode your to be remailed message to a newsgroup
which is scanned by the your entry remailer.

If on the other hand you are trying to conceal who you are sending to,
and you don't send to many messages, using mixmaster you would retain
some anonymity even if all bar one remailer were run by the spooks.
As mixmaster remailers have uniform packet sizes, and reordering of
messages, it's not going to be obvious which message coming from the
trustworthy remailer is yours.

Flooding attacks on remailers are when the spook run remailers try to
keep the trustworthy remailer fairly loaded with email, so that the
non-spook traffic shows up.  In the worst case, only your message
would be non-spook traffic in a given reorder batch, and you would
lose all anonymity.

Adam
--
RSA in perl:
print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 SUCRUM22_at_INDY-ADP@smtp-gw.cv62.navy.mil wrote:
[...]
>  little guys in uniform?  mr may - i serve in the US Navy so you don't 
>  have to, 

As said in "Hair" (the movie), "Don't do it for me man, 'cause if the shoe
was on the other foot, I wouldn't do it for you!" 

It's a lie anyway, you do it for yourself.

SUCRUM22_at_INDY-ADP@smtp-gw.cv62.navy.mil wrote:
>  tim may wrote:
>  >"...and that discussions of other topics bother you should be a clear
>  >indication you're probably on the wrong list."
>         uh, that's _why_ i am on this list...

[ka-snip, ka-snip]

>  dale thorn(?) wrote:

[mo' snip]

>  >Second, any truly secret messaging taking place represents a serious
>  >threat to the military, and contrary to some naive popular opinion,
>  >those guys are not going to lay down for this...

>  what does the military have to do wiht private citizens conversing in
>  secret?

Why should they care?  Huh?  Well, unless you can give them a list that
separates all the sheeple from the wolves, I guess they'll have to
continue their random monitoring just to make sure...

> are _you_ one of the naive that think men actually in uniform control
> the military?  the SecDef is a civillian. the president is a democrat.

Does anyone really care that the "persons in charge" wear uniforms?

> the military does what the white house/congress tell it (the writer
> realizes this is a vastly over-simplified response to a vastly broad statement).

Oh, sure they do.  Let me tell you something.  Big money tells little
money what to do.  I won't bother you with details, as it's beyond the
capacity of email at this time.  But if you think the President is really
in charge, sorry, he's "administratively" in charge, and subject to:

1. Impeachment (the "normal" method of removal, if he doesn't play ball).

2. Other kinds of removal, by Big Money, some of which are very messy.
   Go look at the Zapruder film.  If you think "Oswald" did it, don't
   even bother to reply, as such a reply would go unread.

Some Swabbie scribbled:
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>  tim may wrote:
>  >"...and that discussions of other topics bother you should be a clear 
>  >indication you're probably on the wrong list."
>         uh, that's _why_ i am on this list...
>  >"Having a "navy.mil" domain probably is another reason, unless you 
>  >are only hear to monitor our discussions of using cryptography to 
>  >undermine the state, to liberate military secrets with BlackNet and 
>  >the Information Liberation Front, and to punish the millions of 
>  >those in the military-industrial complex who have so richly earned 
>  >their eventual punishments.
>         military secrets, eh?  tell me something mr may, what secrets 
>  have you uncovered in your undaunting quest to expose those corrupt 

     Believe me, if Blacknet ever becomes a reality, there will be 
military secrets for sale. 

>  little guys in uniform?  mr may - i serve in the US Navy so you don't 

     The little guys corruption isn't a secret. I was there, and I know. 
Little People have Little Minds, and the scope of their corruption is 
mostly minor and annoying. 

>  military does for the US is a good thing.  i skipped collage (don't 
>  ask why) after graduating early from HS to enlist in the navy.  

     Didn't like your art classes?  

>  keeping you free to bitch is why i am here.  never forget that the 
>  freedom you enjoy comes with a price, mr may.
>         the schools that you send your kids to (forgive me if you're 
>  celibate or childless) are run by the govt.  am i saying they do a good 
>  job?  not necessarily, but what i _am_ saying is that your kids _still_ 

     They did a better job when the governments _didn't_ run them, or at 
least the Federal Government didn't run them. 

>  go.  i am almost positive, despite attempts to the contrary, that you 
>  make use of the US postal system. 

     The US Postal System is not a government agency, it is a private 
company with a guarenteed monopoly.

> the phone lines that you connect 
>  that computer to were installed by - guess who? - there are a hundred 

    The local Phone Companies, not the government.

>  other things you and i and everyone use that wouldn't be there if it 
>  weren't for the USG (or state/county/municipal govt's).  tell me mr 

    Things like Jails for drug users, Massive corruption and forced 
economic redistribuion. Idiotic laws &etc. Yes, lots of things that wouldn't
be there. 

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com