July 1993 - cypherpunks-legacy

`ad hominem' ad nauseam
by L. Detweiler 09 Jul '93

09 Jul '93

I'd like to respond to a few introspective cypherpunkesque notes by P. Farrell and T.C. May. I've considered the general attitudes toward e.g. Denning and Sternlight seriously, particularly my own. I freely admit to banging out scathing verbiage on behalf of both here and elsewhere and critical reactions both publicly and privately. First, a general observation. It strikes me that many have not recognized the true meaning of `ad hominem' in their casual and careless use of it (perhaps even it is the only Latin term known to some tossing it about because of its frequent appearance in cyberspatial flame wars). I think it has taken a new meaning on the net to be something like `making someone look like a fool'. By my view, it means *calling* someone a fool completely without justification (e.g. attacking irrelevent aspects of their reputation). However, devastating their flimsy arguments and false beliefs to the point they *look* like a fool is not an ad hominem attack. Perhaps I will be accused of splitting fibers but I think the distinction is transparent. P.F.: >I'm more than a little concerned about the vicious personal attacks that >this list makes on folks that have strongly held beliefs that disagree with >some (or all) of the beliefs of hot headed posters to cypherpunks. >I thought this was a technical mailing list, that dabbled in politics only >as necessary. I see no justification for the personal attacks, especially on >3rd parties that do not read this list. These uncalled for attacks will not >convince anyone on the list, and do not become the poster. First, I will not argue that ad hominem or vicious attacks are warranted. However, they are there because they are *motivated* by tangible reasons that you fail to address. Let's look at each case: [D. Denning] >She just happens to support a view that she >strongly believes in. The fact that I think her side is dead wrong does not >make her an idiot. Name calling accomplishes nothing but does hurt the >signal to noise ratio of this list. First, it is not clear why Denning doggedly pursues the key escrow scheme and advocation of Clipper, and she has never expressed any conceivable reason. Your invention of `strong belief' is nothing but pure speculation and in the glaring lack of any statements on the subject by her, not any superior in plausibility than attributions of black machinations by others. Yet, on the other hand, virtually everyone who is (admittedly) equally dogmatically opposed to Clipper supplies a continuous torrent of personal motivations, anecdotes, and background for their characteristic position and drive. D. Denning once volunteered some weak statistics on wiretapping a long time ago but has long since abandoned them. Others suggested they showed to the contrary that wiretapping did not have a socially significant effect despite severe compromises and sacrifices to institute it. >Even more annoying are the attacks on Jim Bidzos. He is trying to make a >buck, which was legal last time I looked. And on many issues, he is far more >in our camp than against us. He at least likes strong cryptography, and his >disputable patents expire in a relatively short time. He has agreed to allow >a PGP-compatible program to use RSA without cost, providing the legal >version that many U.S. users would like to see. Again, you are postulating hypothetical motivations. You supply no direct evidence for your claims whatsoever, despite very disturbing evidence to the contrary (PGP hassling, DSA scheming, patent-mongering, laywer-breeding, etc.). As for the PGP case you cite, why has it taken years for him to reverse the companies well-known belligerence despite overtures by PRZ? Probably because of strong public pressure and PR opportunism, IMHO. I don't claim my opinion is correct, but I do claim that it is most plausible in light of all the data. [T.M.] >What really bothers me is the type of criticism, which I also tend to call >"ad hominem" (but which rhetoriticians may have a special name for), in >which people impute _motives_ to others. Thus, we see seemingly endless >comments about the motives of Denning, of Bidzos, of Sternlight, and of >others. >[...] >While I think Dorothy Denning is, for various reasons, hopelessly in the >camp of the NSA and FBI, I see nothing to be gained by demonizing her. This was a bit confusing to me to hear Mr. May first criticize imputing motives, and then to say that `Denning is for various reasons hopelessly in the camp of the NSA and FBI'. What are her various reasons for her bizarre lone intransigence? The whole *point* is that these reasons are unclear, and most of the `endless comments about the motives' by others are actually encouraging bait for those parties to publicly `come clean' with their associations and affiliations. These people's actions are completely baffling from our own point of view and troubling in light of other hazy but discernable ulterior trend-patterns. What is their version of reality? Particularly with Denning and Bidzos their public comments on their motivations, despite the sheer strangeness of it all, are essentially nonexistent. I must admit a bit of frustration and annoyance (to say the least) with T.C. May's habitual tendency to don rosy glasses in viewing the actions of Denning and Bidzos and others (speaking in spineless psychoanalytic babble like `cognitive dissonance'), seemingly reflecting a continual forebearance and willingness to grant them `the benefit of the doubt' despite increasingly sinister evidence of motives to the contrary. Denning, in particular, has explicitly claimed no knowledge of Clipper despite her uncannily prescient proposals (she was the *first* to propose the `split key' idea on sci.crypt in an infamous `Copper Balloon' message). Bidzos appears to me to be playing different cyberpunks against each other and making lame statements such as that the DSS arrangement is completely sensible and rational despite the historical convolutions preceding it. We are dealing with people who are failing to level with us at best and tricking and deceiving us at worst, and the `demonizing' represents our desperation. To the contrary, it is attribution of their motives to `socializing' and `support' from their `peer group' that dangerously trivializes, underestimates, misjudges them. [`demonizing'] >... weakens our cause, for two reasons. First, it >cuts off dialog with those we disagree with. Second, we tend to >underestimate people we have written off as stooges or dunces. As the sci.crypt melee you valiantly instigated dramatically proves, dialogue has so far been completely useless. Despite the most critical reception possible to the idea of key escrow about 6 months before the release of Clipper, no modification of the plan was apparent. D. Denning may as well be a brick wall when it comes to rational consideration of opposing viewpoints on the subject (which she conveniently delegates to others to explore). She simply will not budge from her basic premise that key-escrow is wholly desirable and necessary. In short, at present we have an impasse, not `dialogue'. Furthermore, it is precisely in scathingly criticizing opponents that we encourage others *not* to underestimate these people and their dangerous ideas. That is the point: all of Denning, Bidzos, and Sternlight are too intelligent to write of as `stooges or dunces' and something more `intentional' and `systematic' is more likely. That is what is so alarming. >... we ought not to use cheap shots and cheap rhetorical tricks >(one I hate especially is the "sound effect" jab, the "<snicker, snicker>" >sort of comment inserted into postings ... While I've never done this, it is futile for you to request otherwise. This is one of the most colorful aspects of Usenet. Nothing is sacred in cyberspace. Professional academicians will get ruthlessly ridiculed or humiliated like anyone else if they doggedly advocate feeble ideas through deluded arguments. They are just another email address and bursting bit pattern in the ultimate egaltarianocracy. Who can escape or transcend the glare of multitudinous eyes glued on a computer screen?

1 0

Release: July 5, 1993
by ccat＠netcom.com 09 Jul '93

09 Jul '93

Content: First Announcement/On-Line Congressional Hearing On July 26 at 9:30AM EDT, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance of the U.S. House of Representatives will hold the first Congressional Hearing ever held over a computer network. The oversight hearing on "The Role of Government in Cyberspace" will take place in the Grand Ballroom of the National Press Club at 14th and F Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. The hearing is open to the public. An open house will be held from 3-5PM on the same day in the same location and is also open to the public. Chairman Markey has asked that this historic occasion demonstrate the potential and diversity of the global Internet. Thirty Sparcstations will be in the hearing room, allowing members of Congress, staff, and their guests to read e-mail, use Gopher menus, read testimony in WAIS databases, browse the World Wide Web, and otherwise use the resources of the global Internet as part of the hearing. Some witnesses for the hearing will testify remotely, sending audio and video over the Internet. Audio and video of the hearing will also be multicast over the Multicast Backbone (MBONE). We are hoping that C-SPAN and other traditional media will also carry the event. *MORE DETAILS ON MBONE AND OTHER WAYS TO WATCH THE HEARINGS REMOTELY WILL BE FORTHCOMING SHORTLY.* One of the primary points that we are hoping to demonstrate is the diversity and size of the Internet. We have therefore established an electronic mail address by which people on the Internet can communicate with the Subcommittee before and during the hearing: congress(a)town.hall.org We encourage you to send your comments on what the role of government should be in the information age to this address. Your comments to this address will be made part of the public record of the hearing. Feel free to carry on a dialogue with others on a mailing list, cc'ing the e-mail address. Your cards and letters to congress(a)town.hall.org will help demonstrate that there are people who use the Internet as part of their personal and professional lives. We encourage you to send comments on the role of government in cyberspace, on what role cyberspace should play in government (e.g., whether government data be made available on the Internet), on how the Internet should be built and financed, on how you use the Internet, and on any other topic you feel is appropriate. This is your chance to show the U.S. Congress that there is a constituency that cares about this global infrastructure. If you would like to communicate with a human being about the hearing, you may send your comments and questions to: hearing-info(a)town.hall.org Support for the Internet Town Hall is provided by Sun Microsystems and O'Reilly & Associates. Additional support for the July 26 on-line congressional hearing is being provided by ARPA, BBN Communications, the National Press Club, Xerox PARC, and many other organizations. Network connectivity for the Internet Town Hall is provided by UUNET Technologies.

3 3

ANON: nntp, apology
by nobody＠mead.u.washington.edu 09 Jul '93

09 Jul '93

I feel silly. It just occurred to me that the remailers operate by piping to sendmail directly; thus a lone period is interpreted as "the end". So I have cunningly arranged for my message to be indented by one space (emacs has lots of functions!). I apologize for posting this essentially three times. I'm sure by now nobody cares how to forge a usenet post :-) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- So, we can all forge mail with smtp, use the cypherpunk remailers, use "anonymous" servers like penet and charcoal, email-to-usenet gateways, etc. I've never seen instructions on how to forge a usenet post, so here goes: 1) Telnet to an NNTP server (see Yanoff's internet services list) 2) Type 'post'. After a bit, you'll get an OK message. 3) Type in what you want to appear. Have in mind before you start what fields you want in the header, or check other posts to see what they have. 4) End with a period on a line all by itself. After a bit, you'll get a "Post OK" message. 5) Type 'quit' For example, I was experimenting and telnetted to news.fu-berlin.de 119: ====================================================================== menudo> telnet news.fu-berlin.de 119 Trying 130.133.4.250... Connected to gibb.math.fu-berlin.de. Escape character is '^]'. 200 gibb NNTP server version 1.5.11 (10 February 1991) ready at Thu Jul 8 16:19:05 1993 (posting ok). post 340 Ok Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.d Path: one!two!three From: mr.smiley(a)other.plane Subject: A test II Content-Type: text Sender: the MailMan Nntp-Posting-Host: castle Organization: other plane hackers Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 07:45:00 GMT Lines: 1 This is another test. . 340 Post successful quit ====================================================================== and this is what appeared: ====================================================================== Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.d Path: menudo.uh.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!math.fu-berlin.de!one!two!three From: mr.smiley(a)other.plane Subject: A test II Content-Type: text Message-ID: <706EBA2L(a)math.fu-berlin.de> Sender: the MailMan Nntp-Posting-Host: castle Organization: other plane hackers Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 07:45:00 GMT Lines: 1 This is another test. ====================================================================== Although Path: contains the one!two!three I typed at the end, it reveals math.fu-berlin.de as the origin of the post. Also, the Message-ID field reveals math.fu-berlin.de. More works needs to be done on how to suppress or further disguise these fields, if possible. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLDyDDoOA7OpLWtYzAQHwvAP/bb8B+tMtZomonKfYfVEyzy4qVsRDcsy6 jekqxWf2F5xi/aA4EVoXvg6sBbYuO/H0o63xNnDXeA1GzYpAdDp7Ouhztvj0bhn3 TdT5nQHFU/8E5WxhttF6NHs8GNFRDb2QXAxTd5idScMyAEU0RD10VmkwryQXuPez GC93HrcCKyo= =NJA2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

copy of "From Crossbows to Cryptography" anyone?
by nate＠VIS.ColoState.EDU 09 Jul '93

09 Jul '93

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Inned a copy, and I think that there is a problem with the one at soda... when I decompress it, the last few pages are a bit skewed.. thanks, - -nate sammons +-------------------------------------------------------------------- | Nate Sammons email: nate(a)VIS.ColoState.Edu | Colorado State University Computer Visualization Laboratory | Finger me at nate(a)monet.VIS.ColoState.Edu for my PGP key | #include <std.disclaimer> | "I have but one single desire - to tear down the sky" -A. Toomba +----------------------+ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLDzSZdTgi1fmrpxlAQHwIwP9GcQQD8vdcmFPA+EU7HSrvId6he5rQYQs far/oI+a/UKgFNkcapLY2CoBMcecdFWjaOxmq5kbJggER8jKmbGyaiYFds85aAF6 h09yWieFYKXDuM1UyT6s9EXQWBEQks24iCxERen5d0o/DiL3xT44zNWN97XRDCcd apYQdULSh9Q= =Qnsp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Loop stopped, I hope.
by gnu 09 Jul '93

09 Jul '93

The loop appeared to be at pro-storm.cts.com or pro-sol.cts.com, so I temporarily removed two people at those sites from the list. Neither is on the Intenet, so I can't check from here what the exact problem is. John

1 0

using pgp with vanilla berkeley mail
by nate＠VIS.ColoState.EDU 09 Jul '93

09 Jul '93

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hey guys, I set PAGER to "pgp -m" (with the full path, of course) in my .mailrc, and I use the PGPmail wrapper from Jason L. Steiner (way to go Jason!) to sign and encrypt mail. This seems to work fine, since it leaves the message encrypted and all in the mbox (or wherever) unless I choose to save it (when pgp asks) thanks for all the help. - -nate +-------------------------------------------------------------------- | Nate Sammons email: nate(a)VIS.ColoState.Edu | Colorado State University Computer Visualization Laboratory | Finger me at nate(a)monet.VIS.ColoState.Edu for my PGP key | #include <std.disclaimer> | "I have but one single desire - to tear down the sky" -A. Toomba +----------------------+ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLDzHutTgi1fmrpxlAQG2FgP+IiMAUOhteLeLMfRw5oQ0Q4bv8MUpwsep UVvTn839CFD4s1qHZ9mhmYGFKHy2UHi0VkBsnWLYKfQgedMXdFXOlRrdFIAFufpG 743XIaSvYrcOODjRHlyQRQXw0RN0b76VJwBw9CLNJsTuRdT4yrWaxtw45li2bat3 8t+x/O9oJH4= =BTN9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Thanks for the enlightenment
by J. Michael Diehl 09 Jul '93

09 Jul '93

According to Morgan Davis: > > Let me thank all of those who set me straight on the PGP signature stuff. > I got about half a dozen messages that politely educated me on the use of > PGP secured messages. (This also served as a test to make sure our news > program is properly interfacing with this mailing list -- and it is.) > This has puzzled me for some time, too. Would you please summarize? Thanx. +-----------------------+-----------------------------+---------+ | 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

PGP in emacs rmail
by Ciamac Moallemi 09 Jul '93

09 Jul '93

eichin> There's one mode (that I'm not going to post without asking the author eichin> first) that uses terminal-mode... however, pgp-2.2 had a feature added eichin> which should make it much easier to write one, namely it lets you eichin> specify that a key gets stuffed in via a file descriptor -- so you run eichin> pgp (using a pty, rather than a pipe), feed it the private key eichin> password, then the file, and it spits back the text (and other info.) eichin> I've been lazy, and haven't actually implemented it, but it's much eichin> cleaner than terminal mode (since you're trusting emacs with your key eichin> anyway, having it read the input isn't much of a problem, though I'd eichin> suggest a "limit coredumpsize 0" first :-) I wrote elisp code for vm that does this if anyone is interested. Ciamac.

1 0

Thanks for the enlightenment
by mdavis＠pro-sol.cts.com 08 Jul '93

08 Jul '93

Let me thank all of those who set me straight on the PGP signature stuff. I got about half a dozen messages that politely educated me on the use of PGP secured messages. (This also served as a test to make sure our news program is properly interfacing with this mailing list -- and it is.) /\/\ Morgan Davis Group (619/670-0563) / /__\ Internet: mdavis(a)pro-sol.cts.com

1 0

ANON: Steshenko, nntp
by nobody＠shell.portal.com 08 Jul '93

08 Jul '93

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The discussion on Mr. Steshenko's termination of employment has taken off in misc.jobs.misc and news.admin.policy. Some people have e-mailed me saying that what happened to Mr. Steshenko isn't uncommon at all. This fact bothered me all weekend long, that somebody can get fired for views expressed in a private e-list, which probably extrapolates to USENET posting as well. Apparently, Mr. Steshenko forgot to include the "disclaimer: my opinions" with his email. Is this all that is required? If he merely would have added the disclaimer, would his former employer be facing possible legal action? Would he still be employed? Is there some "minimal" text that must be included? I mean, I've seen disclaimers that are nearly a paragraph long to ones that try to be cute (#include <std.disclaimer> and so forth). I'm not saying his employer is in the wrong (I haven't really thought about this issue too much) since they are a private company and can censor and control use of their machines and all that stuff; it just goes to show sometimes you have to be really careful what you say and to whom. (If you missed the post to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and various other groups and don't get usenet let me know and I'll post it to the list if there is enough interest. I'm not sure if email copies I sent out made it since some bounces occured. Plus the good old "cannot deliver for 3 days; message queued" sort of error.) It bugged me because I really beleive that it is impossible to carry on a rational discussion if one side is afraid to voice an opinion. I'm not advocating libel or misuse (personal attacks, threats of violence, etc.) but every once in a while a really hot topic comes up which stirs the emotions. So, we can all forge mail with smtp, use the cypherpunk remailers, use "anonymous" servers like penet and charcoal, email-to-usenet gateways, etc. I've never seen instructions on how to forge a usenet post, so here goes: 1) Telnet to an NNTP server (see Yanoff's internet services list) 2) Type 'post'. After a bit, you'll get an OK message. 3) Type in what you want to appear. Have in mind before you start what fields you want in the header, or check other posts to see what they have. 4) End with a period on a line all by itself. After a bit, you'll get a "Post OK" message. 5) Type 'quit' For example, I was experimenting and telnetted to news.fu-berlin.de 119: ====================================================================== menudo> telnet news.fu-berlin.de 119 Trying 130.133.4.250... Connected to gibb.math.fu-berlin.de. Escape character is '^]'. 200 gibb NNTP server version 1.5.11 (10 February 1991) ready at Thu Jul 8 16:19:05 1993 (posting ok). post 340 Ok Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.d Path: one!two!three From: mr.smiley@other plane Subject: A test II Content-Type: text Sender: the MailMan Nntp-Posting-Host: castle Organization: other plane hackers Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 07:45:00 GMT Lines: 1 This is another test.

5 5