[cryptography] "stream MAC" - does anything like it exist?

J.A. Terranson measl at mfn.org
Wed Sep 15 11:21:29 EDT 2010

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Marsh Ray wrote:

> On 09/15/2010 01:37 AM, J.A. Terranson wrote:
> > Clearly, your hearing is impaired. Anonymous travel is becoming nigh
> > impossible within the United States.
> If I have a current plate on my car, a driver's license in my pocket, and
> money for gas I can drive just about anywhere I want.

This is a long way from "travelling where and how I please". Air travel 
has only recently required ID (I flew well into the 1990's without any ID 
whatsoever, provided my tickets were purchased beforehand), and bus/rail 
lines have only required ID since the 9/11 false flag incident.  As for 
walking down the street, and doing nothing else, if for *any* reason you 
should get stopped (maybe you vaguely resemble someone on the run, or 
worse, you don't look like the rest of the neighborhood [black in white 
suburb]), and you don't have ID, you *will* be spending some time (from 
hours to days) with the local PD.  The implicit assertion that ID isn't 
required on a 24x7 basis is simply untrue. 

> Every few years I might get pulled over for a burned out bulb or 
> forgetting to renew my tag, but no one expects an ID otherwise. Hotels 
> and airplanes have always required ID for obvious reasons.

Oh? What "obvious reason" would that be? Because we all know how well a 
terrorist is likely to use his or her *own* ID, right?

> I haven't noticed that much outward, objective change in the past few decades,
> except that the police and highway patrol (especially in rural areas) are
> likely to be better trained and more consistent.

Then you have your head in the sand pretty deep.

> That said, there's been a huge increase in the number of fixed cameras
> watching the roads.

They watch a lot more than just roads now.  And while they are supposedly 
just for traffic control [read: congestion] purposes, they are routinely 
used for law enforcement purposes as well.

> It's likely that many traffic cameras are reading and recording license 
> plates. In my town, the patrol cars have cameras pointing every 
> direction which recognize stolen (and recently expired :-) license 
> plates. There are enough fixed traffic cameras around town that they 
> never really need to chase anyone with lights and sirens like they used 
> to.

And yet, the chases continue.  Wonder that, huh?

> To what extent this data is recorded, retained, and centralized I don't know.
> It's probably a fair guess that more data is collected than can be efficiently
> searched,

Not so likely.  Modern facial recognition systems are fast coming online.

> yet few entities can bring themselves to throw it away either.
> Eventually, it revenue-hungry states and municipalities could try to monetize
> it by selling it to private entities such as insurers, marketers, and credit
> bureaus.

"Eventually"? It's been in place since the cameras went up, at least in 
Missouri (and this isn't exactly a progressive leaning State).

> Genuine concerns over "identity theft" have cut down on some of the
> enthusiasm for the sale of government records in recent years.

> The public debate about this data collection isn't really happening for a
> couple of reasons I can think of. First, the early groups who began objecting
> to the odd camera here and there tended to discredit themselves by mixing it
> in with a general paranoia of the federal government and international
> organizations.

The implication being that these people needed tin foil hats. Yet, all 
they were concerned of has come to pass...

> Also it's usually not acknowledged who's receiving the surveillance 
> feed, much less what their data retention, information sharing, and 
> privacy practices are.

So the tin foil'ers were right, eh?

> So the ID requirements on my car and in my pocket have not changed one bit. 

You clearly aren't listening, even to yourself.

> As for the back-end infosystems, I suspect no one really knows or has a 
> plan.

I used the term "Oracleization" in the general database sense: it is 
irrelevent which back end is in use where: the problem is the back end 
existing at all.

> > Forget about accessing any federal building (for any reason 
> > whatsoever) anonymously - or even with legitimate identity that has no 
> > State certified picture to accompany you.
> It wouldn't surprise me.

*Why* wouldn't it surprise you?  Do you honestly think the ID requirement 
(a) makes the building any safer, (b) has any legitimate purpose 
whatsoever, (c) that the people working for the federal government should 
receive better security at work than the rest of us?

> But some context that people from other countries may not have when they read
> a statement like that is many or most Americans will go their entire lives
> without ever actually entering a US federal building.

bullshit.  Until recent changes in the "have business" requirements went 
into place, it was very common for people to (anonymously) flood the local 
federal building every year, in search of tax forms.

> Seriously, the biggest direct interaction a typical citizen under age 65 
> has with the federal government is filing a yearly tax form. Over 65 you 
> probably receive a monthly check. Oh, we also had to mail in a form this 
> year for the census which is every 10 years.

This has nothing to do with the central argument. Why the straws?

> > The US is on the fast track to Oracleization on a complete and 
> > irreversible scale.
> Like the database or like the ideal random function? The latter might be more
> interesting.

Go figure it out.

> - Marsh 


"Never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public
plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to
the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always
be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by
predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty."

Joseph Pulitzer, 1907 Speech

More information about the cryptography mailing list