Re: Pornographic stories

[dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr. Dimitri Vulis)]

jadestar@netcom.com (JaDe) writes:
> >
> > Daniel Miskell <DMiskell@envirolink.org> writes:
> >>>I'm sure.
>
> > I too fail to see the cryptorelevance of this thread... Unless
> > alt.sex.stories is used for steganography... Alice wants to send a
> > secret message to Bob, so she posts a porn story to alt.sex.stories,
> > where the key phrase is "That was the best sex I've ever had", which
> > sounds like a mild hyperbole to most people;
>
> 	I like the stegonography angle.  However I'd encode the
> 	actual message contents into the typos.  Filter out the
> 	typos to retrieve your crypto-text.

Wouldn't text with a lot of typoes look suspicious? For ultimate silliness,
I've put together the following program to encode 8 bits at a time in an
R-rated sentence:

#include <stdio.h>

#define BIT(c,n) ((c>>n)&1)

const char*bits[]={
"Senator Exon",                         "L.Ron Hubbard",
"made passionate love to",              "had great sex with",
"Hillary Klinton",                      "J.D.Falk",
"experienced",                          "gave her",
"six",                                  "twelve",
"in",                                   "during",
"one",                                  "a single",
"night",                                "weekend"};

void stegaporn(int c)
{

printf("%s %s %s and %s %s orgasms %s %s %s.  ",
bits[BIT(c,7)], bits[2+BIT(c,6)], bits[4+BIT(c,5)], bits[6+BIT(c,4)],
bits[8+BIT(c,3)], bits[10+BIT(c,2)], bits[12+BIT(c,1)], bits[14+BIT(c,0)]);
}

int main(void)
{
int c;

while (EOF!=(c=getchar()))
 stegaporn(c);

return(0);
}

> 	Ultimately I think that the whole issue of legal cryptography
> 	actually boils down to this:
>
> 		If you illegalize strong crypto than criminals will
> 		simply resort to steganography and "hidden" channels
> 		of communication (in which they can also embed/tunnel
> 		the crypto-text of their strongly encrypted data).
>
> 		Therefore all you've done is create a lesser crime
> 		for the real criminals and make people with valid
> 		(non-criminal) uses of the technology into criminals.
>
> 	Unfortunately this reasoning doesn't help at all with our
> 	(U.S.) legislature.  There is some hidden aggenda as to
> 	why "they" really want strong cryptography to be difficult
> 	for the average user to obtain.  I have a uniquely hard time
> 	believing that "they" are merely concerned that "we" might
> 	be pursuing simple privacy (even if cryptography were already
> 	illegal I could use it for years and never get "caught."
> 	so long as I was using non-broadcast channels and communicating
> 	with "trusted" associates (fellow "crypto-criminals")
>
> 	In fact I've suggested to several people that we start
> 	a dial-up uucp revival for this and related reasons.  (If
> 	the number of users/webpages and the bandwidth usage continues
> 	to increase at the recent rates -- without a corresponding
> 	improvement in the infrastructure we'll probably all want to
> 	go back to uucp for mail and news anyway.  Old fashioned dial-up
> 	may be faster than T1 access in a few years and direct point-to-
> 	point uucp over ISDN is probably faster already.
>
> 	So:
>
> 		What is the "real" reason for opposition to 	
> 		 strong crypto?  Who "really" benefits?  (and please
> 		 don't mention the LE types 'cause I don't believe it).
>
> 	and:
> 		Anyone else want to participate in the great '90's
> 		uucp revival?  I'm in Santa Clara and could use
> 		some feeds and some help with the setup.

I'm all for it. My site is connected to the rest of the world via dial-up
UUCP, I haven't touched the setup in 5 years, and am not planning to.

It might be interesting to have a variation of dial-up UUCP where site 1
passes encrypted stuff to site 2 and doesn't quite know what site 3 they're
supposed to go on to. Sort of like the remailers with encryption.

---

<a href="mailto:dlv@bwalk.dm.com">Dr. Dimitri Vulis</a>
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps