May 1993 - cypherpunks-legacy

FOIA info
by fergp＠sytex.com 21 May '93

21 May '93

A quick addendum to my post on alt.privacy yesterday. After making a few phone calls, I found that these are the correct addresses to send requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA): Central Intelligence Agency: Mr. John H. Wright Information and Privacy Coordinator Central Intelligence Agency Washington, DC 20505 Federal Bureau of Investigation: Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION J. Edgar Hoover Building 9th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20535 ATTN: FOIA/PA Section National Security Agency: Director, NSA/CSS 9800 Savage Road Fort George G. Meade, Maryland 20755-6000 ATTN: FOIA/N5 For those who live in The Commonwealth of Virginia, this is the address of the Richmond field office: Federal Bureau of Investigation 111 Greencourt Road Richmond, Virginia 23228 ATTN: FOIA/PA Section Paul Ferguson | The future is now. Network Integrator | History will tell the tale; Centreville, Virginia USA | We must endure and struggle fergp(a)sytex.com | to shape it. Stop the Wiretap (Clipper/Capstone) Chip.

1 0

Re: Proposed Cypherpunks FAQ outline
by dmandl＠lehman.com 21 May '93

21 May '93

> From: esr(a)snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) ...also, there should of course be information on anonymous remailers. This could fit in both > 3. What are the potential applications of good privacy software? > a. Secure communications. > b. Digital cash. > c. Electronic voting. > d. Electronic contracts. e. Secure anonymous remailers. and > 5. What are the social and political implications of good privacy software? > a. Drastically lower transaction costs for trade. > b. Expansion of the counter-economy. > c. Disempowerment of government. d. Anonymity for whistleblowers and others desiring or requiring anonymity on the net. --Dave.

1 0

Re: Proposed Cypherpunks FAQ outline
by dmandl＠lehman.com 21 May '93

21 May '93

> From: esr(a)snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) An obvious addition... > 7. What can I do to help? > a. Work on cryptographic software. > <this subsection should list current projects> > b. Agitate against the Clipper/Capstone/DES standard. c. Promote the use of encrypted communication, help spread PGP and other appropriate tools far and wide (both to help get a better foothold to thwart the Clipper monopoly and its ilk, and to work towards making crypto as commonplace as envelopes). I guess this is a superset of b. --Dave.

1 0

Re: Crypto constitution
by poier＠sfu.ca 21 May '93

21 May '93

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- One suggestions for improving the constitution: change all occurances of "Men" or "man" to "the people" and make all pronouns gender-neutral. If this is going to be a constitution for the new age, lets have the wording reflect the ideals we hold. Skye - -- - -----====> Skye Merlin Poier <====----- Undergrad in CMPT/MATH (Virtual Reality) |||| |||| email: poier(a)sfu.ca p-OO <--> OO-q THINK PGP Public Key available on finger \== ==/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.2 iQCVAgUBK/wlyi0bkpXW3omvAQE6pQP8CApOVKoEn1mHFz/n7BkcKbwsi7E5a7Vh Cmc9HefbtR01PvPa1qNeQv5g1vwiatINfVCX3UkZHw30HNIa5grXNXGnPvoG4adX DZ6pLfWNZGzaQDE6pctA6V6qiyae3B3Rxoq50/91Qaex5gK0SZPg+bMKdxCxBmn2 71WNckM7usY= =rm+w -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 3

re: Constitution.
by J. Michael Diehl 21 May '93

21 May '93

Sorry all, but I had to reply to this letter, and since it was net-wide distribution, I felt I should reply in kind. >[reality check on] :Fantacy Mode Off. >>> If this is going to be a constitution for the new age, lets have the wording >>> reflect the ideals we hold. >> >>I've always thought that fighting over this kind of trivia was kinda childish. >> It used to be that when someone said, "...and one giant step for mankind...," >> that we understood this to include EVERYBODY! Lets pick our fights better >> than this, shall we? >Excuse me, but it seems that you are being very defensive. I was not picking >a fight. It is evident that you cling to "It used to be that" ideals. Just >because something "used to be" is not justification for its perpetuation. Is >it such a drastic step to replace a couple words that you feel necessary to >ridicule something that I consider important? As far as I am concerned, Mr.Diehl >it is YOU who are being childish. Wake up, will you? And please refrain from >using the word "we". I do not enjoy being patronized. Defensive? I don't think so. I am simply pointing out how silly this though- control business really is. I wasn't personally injured by it; it's just too silly to worry so much about. Perhapse "fight" wasn't the correct word. I'm sorry. Tell me, what is wrong with "'It used to be that' ideals?" I hope you don't believe that "mankind" only refers to "malekind." This is furthest from the truth. To answere you'r question, no, it is not such a drastic step, but it bothers me that people feel it necessary to traditional and natural language into something that is artificial and restrictive. You go on to state that this is something that you feel strongly about; fine, but you don't hold a monopoly on opinion. Then you go on to say that I am childish and that I should wake up. I'll just say that I consider this to be a mere personal attack and remind you that I made no such attack to you; and I'll leave it at that. Then you reqest that I refrain from using the word "we." Let me requote something you wrote: >>> If this is going to be a constitution for the new age, lets have the wording >>> reflect the ideals we hold. -----------------------^ Since when is it ok for you, but in bad taste for me? Especially since you are attributing "ideals we hold" to people without asserting what these ideals are. And your asserting that we need special, approved language to express these ideals. I can't decide if the ideal at hand is gender-equallity, or language- neutrality. Remember that this little discussion is NET-WIDE, so "we" refers to Cypherpunks, not YOU in particular. Perhapse you are being a bit defensive? >> Sorry, just couldn't resist..... ;^) >Obviously. You are indeed a man of tremendous wit and satire. Thank you! Even if you are being sarcastic. I'm too gullible to know the difference. ;^) Actually, I hope it was at least amusing even if you didn't agree. > +------"I'm just looking for the opportunity to be -------------+ > | Politically Incorrect!" <Me> | >Also plainly obvious. If I lived under a dictatorship, this would read, "I'm just.....to be democratic." This is my protest against an "ideal" that I find smacking of censorship, 1984, and class-hatred. Under PC, other people have the right to tell me what I can and can not say, as you did above. PC would restrict my sometimes limited use of language even further by mandating that I use only approved words and phrases. Eventually, I'll not even be able to talk about such things as gender-differences because this (amoung many others) will have been deemed "unfit for correct conversation." "And now, back to our regularly scheduled program...." +-----------------------+-----------------------------+---------+ | J. Michael Diehl ;-) | I thought I was wrong once. | PGP KEY | | mdiehl(a)triton.unm.edu | But, I was mistaken. |available| | mike.diehl(a)fido.org | | Ask Me! | | (505) 299-2282 +-----------------------------+---------+ | | +------"I'm just looking for the opportunity to be -------------+ | Politically Incorrect!" <Me> | +-----If codes are outlawed, only criminals wil have codes.-----+ +----Is Big Brother in your phone? If you don't know, ask me---+

1 0

Proposed Cypherpunks FAQ outline
by esr＠snark.thyrsus.com 21 May '93

21 May '93

After exchanging email with Eric Hughes and other listmembers, I find that the previous attempt at putting together a cypherpunks FAQ seems to be moribund. I have a lot of experience building FAQs, and maintain several popular ones on USENET, including: * The PC-UNIX Hardware and Software Buyer's Guides * The list of Publicly Known Bugs in USL UNIX * So You Want To Be A UNIX Wizard? (The Loginataka) * Telebit Trailblazer how-to FAQ Accordingly, I'm able and willing to take on this job. The hardest thing about writing a FAQ is to define its scope and level of detail. Accordingly, SOP if you know what you're doing is to start by generating a list of questions to be answered, and/or an outline. I've done this below. 1. Why cypherpunks? a. Privacy is essential to freedom. b. The government cannot be relied on to protect your privacy rights. c. Technology can give individuals leverage against would-be oppressors, but only if we're sufficiently smart and dedicated to build the levers. d. Cypherpunks exists to build and propagate privacy software. 2. What are the essentials of privacy software? a. Public-key cryptosystems for secure communication. b. Unforgeable electronic signatures for message authentication. c. DC-net or similar protocols to thwart spoofing. 3. What are the potential applications of good privacy software? a. Secure communications. b. Digital cash. c. Electronic voting. d. Electronic contracts. e. <more?> 4. What are the key algorithms, tools, and implementations for privacy software? a. RSA b. DES c. Clipper/Capstone/DSS d. PGP e. Possible non-RSA trapdoor functions. 5. What are the social and political implications of good privacy software? a. Drastically lower transaction costs for trade. b. Expansion of the counter-economy. c. Disempowerment of government. 6. What are the legal, political, and technical obstacles? a. The Clipper/Capstone/DSS power grab. b. The RSA patent and the PGP/RSA fight. c. RSA's base problem may not be NP-complete. 7. What can I do to help? a. Work on cryptographic software. <this subsection should list current projects> b. Agitate against the Clipper/Capstone/DES standard. Each subsection should be written by a list expert and include pointers to published sources and other FAQs. You can help in one of three ways: 1) Volunteer to write one of the sections or subsections above. 2) Suggest more questions. 3) Identify yourself to me as a technical expert on a particular area in the outline, even if you're not willing to commit to writing it. That way I'll know whose brains to pick. I think an edited version of Tim May's glossary should go at the end. Tim, are you willing? -- Eric S. Raymond <esr(a)snark.thyrsus.com>

1 0

Ref Strong Encryption
by Clive 21 May '93

21 May '93

Hi, am I missing something .... From: baumbach(a)atmel.com (Peter Baumbach) >> It seems that an easely available (legal) software verification system >> needs to be made. If one were widely used, virus worries of people >> could be channeled into a demand for strong encryption. Tell people >> that the Crippler Chip might prevent this from ever happening. How can the case be made for strong encryption, based upon the worries of people over viruses??? I fail to see how the worries over viruses can be countered, channelled into the need for strong encryption. ??? Clive Walmsley Walmsley(a)ccint1.rsre.mod.uk

1 0

Re: Crypto constitution
by jordan＠imsi.com 21 May '93

21 May '93

I think I was able to cryptoanalyze the last few messages (steganography is *so* cool!), but it looks like some of the line noise from my modem messed up the codebook. Can someone tell me if that was "gender-inspecific pronoun" or "gather prolific dingdong" in the second exchange? /jordan

1 0

Huffman and Crypto
by fnerd＠smds.com 21 May '93

21 May '93

Sorry if these questions have been answered in posts I recently deleted, but... 1) Instead of modifying Huffman coding, isn't it more sensible to just use arithmetic coding, which is more efficient anyway, and doesn't use fixed bit patterns? 2) I would assume there's a branch of cryptography devoted to studying the protections or lack thereof, afforded by compression schemes, both by themselves and in addition to other types of cryptography. I would guess that Huffman and LZ-family codes have been studied a lot...right?? But also more general studies of the weakness of (even secret) compression algorithms as crypto methods? I mean, compression methods would tend to use methods (like table lookup) that simpler cyphers have used for a long time, only without having been designed with crypto expertise...right?? 3) Does anyone know of an easy-to-get-sources, easy-to-use arithmetic coding compression program? quote me -fnerd

2 1

[esr@snark.thyrsus.com: CLIPPER: Published version of my rant]
by tribble＠memex.com 21 May '93

21 May '93

This is the version of my post that went to RISKS 14.64. It was edited by me to remove assertions which might expose the RISKS digest to libel action. Permission to redistribute this version as you see fit is explicitly granted. Please do *not* redistribute the old version. ------------------------------- CUT HERE ------------------------------------- From: esr(a)snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) To: risks(a)csl.sri.com Subject: Re: Clipper (Rotenberg, RISKS-14.62) In <CMM.0.90.1.737688970.risks(a)chiron.csl.sri.com> Marc Rotenberg wrote: > Denning has to be kidding. The comments on the proposed DSS were uniformly > critical. Both Marty Hellman and Ron Rivest questioned the desirability of > the proposed standard. Mr. Rotenberg, as a public figure operating in the political arena, has to exercise a certain diplomatic restraint in responding to Ms. Denning's claims. I am, thankfully, under no such requirement. As a long-time RISKS reader and contributor, I observe that that this is not the first time that Ms. Denning has apparently operated as a mouthpiece for the NSA's anti-privacy party line on DES and related issues. I believe Ms. Denning's remarks must be understood as part of a continuing propaganda campaign to marginalize and demonize advocates of electronic privacy rights. Other facets of this campaign have attempted to link privacy advocates to terrorists and drug dealers by suggesting that only criminals need fear wiretapping. These are serious charges. I make them because, in the wake of the Clipper proposal, I do not believe civil libertarians can afford any longer to assume that their opponents are persons of good will with whom they can simply debate minor differences of institutional means in a collegial way. It's time for someone to say, in public and on this list, what I know many of us have been thinking. The future is *now*. Electronic privacy issues are no longer a parlor game for futurologists; they are the focus of a critical political struggle, *and the opponents of privacy are fighting their war with all the tools of force, deception, and propaganda they can command*. The histories of the DES, the FBI wiretap proposal, and now the Clipper proposal must be considered against a wider background of abuses including the Steve Jackson case, "Operation Longarm", and the routine tapping of U.S. domestic telecommunications by NSA interception stations located outside the geographic borders of the United States. These form a continuing pattern of attempts by agencies of the U.S. government to pre-empt efforts to extend First and Fourth Amendment privacy protections to the new electronic media. In each case, the attempt was made to present civil libertarians with a fait accompli, invoking "national security" (or the nastiness of "kiddie porn") to justify legislative, judicial and practical precedents prejudicial against electronic privacy rights. While I would not go so far as to claim that these efforts are masterminded by a unitary conspiracy, I believe that the interlocking groups of spies, bureaucrats and lawmen who have originated them recognize each other as cooperating fellow-travellers in much the same way as opposing groups like the EFF, CPSR and the Cypherpunks do. Their implicit agenda is to make the new electronic communications media transparent to government surveillance and (eventually) pliant to government control. One of the traits of this culture of control is the belief that manipulative lying and dissemblage can be justified for a `higher good'. I believe that Ms. Denning's disingenuous claim that the DSS "is now considered to be just as strong as RSA" is no mere technical misapprehension. I believe it is propaganda aimed at making objectors non-persons in the debate. I cannot know whether Ms. Denning actually believes this claim, but it reminds me all too strongly of the classic "Big Lie" technique. It is important for us to recognize that the propaganda lie is not an aberration, but a routine tool of the authoritarian mindset. And the authoritarian mindset is, ultimately, what we are confronting here --- the mindset that regards the fighting of elastically-defined `crime' as more important than privacy, that presumes guilt until innocence is proven, that demands for government a license to override any individual's natural rights at political whim. We cannot trust representatives of an institutional culture that was *constructed* to deal in information control, lies, secrecy, paranoia and deception to tell us the truth. We cannot accept the authoritarians' unverified assurances that the sealed interior of the Clipper chip contains no `trapdoor' enabling the NSA to eavesdrop at will. We cannot trust the authoritarians' assertions that they have no intention of outlawing cryptographic technologies potentially more secure than the Clipper chip. We cannot believe the authoritarians' claims that `independent' key registries will prevent abuse of decryption keys by government and/or corrupt individuals. We cannot --- we *must not* --- cede control of encryption technology to the authoritarians. To do so would betray our children and their descendants, who will work and *live* in cyberspace to an extent we can barely imagine. We cannot any longer afford the luxury of treating the authoritarians as honest dealers with whom compromise is morally advisable, or even possible. Whatever their own valuation of themselves, the thinly-veiled power grab represented by the Clipper proposal reveals a desire to institutionalize means which a free society, wishing to remain free, *cannot tolerate*. Big Brother must be stopped *here*. *Now.* While it is still possible. -- Eric S. Raymond <esr(a)snark.thyrsus.com> ------------------------------- CUT HERE -------------------------------------

1 0