August 1993 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Electracy: Evil Revisited
by plmoses＠unix.cc.emory.edu 13 Aug '93

13 Aug '93

Sorry, but today's currency system is anything but a democracy. Thank God. It works because it is entrusted to a COMPETENT elite. The "global approval" of bills that you suggest seems to be to inevitably lead to the worst sort of populist rhetoric and pandering becoming law. You don't seem to recognize that in an age of irrationalism, opening the doors to mass participation any further will simply de-legitimize the system even more. (I suppose if you liked Motor Voter, you dont understand why I am saying this.) But look at the Constitution. Its paradigm is for a federal government of limited powers to function as the "glue" to hold together otherwise disparate political entities. The point is that majority rule is only *half* the story in American democracy; the other half is checks and balances to ensure that those who do not fit into the mainstream can pursue life, liberty,and happiness. Since you think I am blathering on in vague generalities, let me put it another way: Colorado's Amendment 2 is EXACTLY the kind of bill one would expect out of "Elektracy".

1 0

Software patents
by paul＠poboy.b17c.ingr.com 13 Aug '93

13 Aug '93

I want to bring this up in the context of the PGP vs PKP thread from a while back. I am personally interested, since my cryptophone software could conceivable infringe on several varied patents simply by using excerpted code from PGP. Background: the Association for Computing Machinery is the computer science equivalent of the ABA or the AMA. They are in the process of revising their code of ethics for ACM members. Several lumiaries (Guy L. Steele, Jr., Danny Hillis, Richard Stallman, Gerald J. Sussman, Marvin Minsky, John McCarthy, John Backus, and Fernando J. Corbato) wrote a letter objecting to the new clause. I have excerpted Turing Award winner, 1990 The original was posted to gnu.misc.discuss by jhawk(a)panix.com (John Hawkinson); he had RMS' permission, but I am reposting here without permission. Comments in {} are mine. begin included text The ACM recently adopted a "moral imperative" for its members to "Honor property rights including copyrights and patents." This is clause 1.5 of a new ethics code for ACM members, adopted in October 1992. ... ACM surveys suggest that most ACM members disapprove of having patents in software at all; yet the ACM moral imperative calls on members to honor what they may regard as a disaster for their field. [... spirit vs. letter of law ...] But the word "honor" has other implications. The spirit and practical effect of the ACM code is to endorse the current intellectual property system and discourage independent judgement about it. This directly opposes the views of many, perhaps most, ACM members. Not only that; it also distorts the patent system, by telling people not to exercise their rights in the system. After all, what does it mean to "honor" a patent? Whether a particular patent is valid and applicable is always an open question until decided by a court case. And it is never a crime to infringe a patent. If you think a patent is invalid, the legal system encourages you to disregard it; if you are not sued, then your actions are legitimate. If you are sued, then you are welcome to fight the case and see if you can overturn the patent. (This is so expensive that the possibility is purely theoretical for most of us, and it cannot solve more than a tiny fraction of the software patent problem, but some of the readers may work for companies that can afford to do so occasionally.) If you can do all that and still be "honoring" the patent, then "honoring" is an empty requirement which there is no way to violate. The reader is likely to dismiss this interpretation, based on the heuristic that every clause in the ACM code must have some practical import or it would have been deleted. If "honoring" a patent does not permit challenging it in that way, then the ACM is directing its members to treat all patents as valid and not exercise their legal right to challenge patents! [... remainder deleted ...] Now, IANAL, but the preceding is new to me. By the argument presented above PGP is legal w.r.t. patent infringment. Infringement is _not_ an unlawful act, and the question of whether or not PGP is infringing can only be settled by a court encounter between PKP and someone else. Theoretically, then, we are all safe unless PKP decides to take us individually to court. We are likewise safe should any of us- collectively or individually- write, distribute, or aid/abet thereof any code which might potentially infringe a patent. Sounds like innocent until proven guilty. Sounds like Schnorr and digital cash are fair game. -Paul "quote me" -- Paul Robichaux, KD4JZG | "Change the world for a better tomorrow. But perobich(a)ingr.com | watch your ass today." - aaron(a)halcyon.com Intergraph Federal Systems | Be a cryptography user- ask me how.

1 0

Re: Spooking of neural nets and image recognition...
by nfe＠scf.nmsu.edu 13 Aug '93

13 Aug '93

Nick Szabo writes: >[...]some general ideas for "encrypting" (sic) one's image: Some idea's are good, other's are abit off base. Major points of recognition are: jaw, cranium, nose, eyes, ears, age, and facial hair. Secondary points include: health, weight, optics, scars, etc. jaw: presence or lack of beards, highlighting skeletal lines, and hollows (aging) with makeup, or cigarette ash, plastic inserts in the cheeks, building up areas of the face with liquid latex, or morticians wax. (note that some of these techniques can be used on other areas of the face). cranium: hats, sudden changes in hair length/style, wigs (possably with padding). nose: highlighting/latex/wax - as with jaw, inserting a pair of small nuts/ buttons in the nose (drill for adequate airflow) will give the nose an appearence of having a "squashed/flattened" tip. 1/4 inch sections of stiff plastic tubing may also work. eyes: appear "sunken" w/ makup, altering eyebrows can misdirect eyesocket shape, pull back (oriental), or buldge out by pulling/gluing skin with spirit gum, or liquid latex. change color with tinted contacts. (note: sunken = old age, malnutrician, or sickness - pulling skin can also highlight cheekbones, etc.) ears: glue to the side of the head w/ rubber cement, spirit gum, or latex. age: 1) younger: very close shave, hot towles, alum, and talcum powder will tighten the skin, giving a youthfull appearence. 2) older: Max Factor hair whitener to grey temples, highlight lines and hollows of face (STUDY a stage makeup book, and prectice this before trying to fool anyone. Subtlety is the key with any realistic makeup, there is a tendency to over do it most of the time. As a rule of thumb cosmetic, and theatrical makeup is mostly worthless for disguise, and will not stand up to examination at close distances, unless well done, subtlely, and with extreme moderation.) facial hair: presence/absence, drastic changes in length, style and color can significantly alter ones appearence. Remember that neural nets, or a trained observer is going to be looking for the underlying skeletal shape, and building on top of that. health: depressed eye sockets, hollow cheeks, flush or jaundus (beta-kerotine) skin color. contra: exercise/good skin tone. Gaining or loosing weight, "sudden tan" type products... optics: glasses can hide features, and in some cases slightly alter the shape of the face. If unusual, they can be used as misdirection for an untrained observer (just like buttons, "loud" clothing, etc - as people tend to remember the unusual aspects, and not concentrate on usual features. Tinted contact lenses can change eye color. scars: hard to do right - use liquid latex, burns, cuts, etc. Probably best avoided, though very memoral to the observer, esp. if on the face. Misc: teath can be altered w/ iodine(stained), or blocked out with black wax. Have different "classes" of clothes (clergy, blue collar, white collar, "bum", etc - but stay in character. Remember that a construction worker isn't going to have an accountants hands, or imaculate tools, a bum will probably have dirt under their fingernails, etc. horizontal stripes make you look shorter/fatter, vertical ones taller/ skinnier. loud clothing, or pollitical buttons, a "funky" hat, etc will act as misdirection. skin acn also be bleached. consider: weight, muscle tone, stance, gait, etc. hair gell, and a curling iron are your friends :-)

1 0

NSA Seeks Delay in Clipper
by David Sobel 13 Aug '93

13 Aug '93

NSA Seeks Delay in Clipper Case The National Security Agency (NSA) has asked a federal court for a one-year delay in a lawsuit challenging the secrecy of the government's "Clipper Chip" encryption proposal. The suit was filed by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) on May 28 and seeks the disclosure of all information concerning the controversial plan. In an affidavit submitted to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on August 9, NSA Director of Policy Michael A. Smith states that NSA's search for records responsive to [CPSR's] request is under way, but is not yet complete. Because the Clipper Chip program is a significant one involving the participation of organizations in four of NSA's five Directorates and the Director's staff, the volume of responsive documents is likely to be quite large. Moreover, because the Clipper Chip program is highly complex and technical and is, in substantial part, classified for national security purposes, the review process cannot be accomplished quickly. CPSR called for the disclosure of all relevant information and full public debate on the proposal on April 16, the day it was announced. While NSA has insisted from the outset that the "Skipjack" encryption algorithm, which underlies the Clipper proposal, must remain secret, the Smith affidavit contains the first suggestion that the entire federal program is classified "in substantial part." In the interest of obtaining timely judicial review of the agency's broad classification claim, CPSR intends to oppose NSA's request for delay in the court proceedings. In another case involving government cryptography policy, CPSR has challenged NSA's classification of information concerning the development of the Digital Signature Standard (DSS). The court is currently considering the issue and a decision is expected soon. CPSR is a national public-interest alliance of computer industry professionals dedicated to examining the impact of technology on society. CPSR has 21 chapters in the U.S. and maintains offices in Palo Alto, California, and Washington, DC. For additional information on CPSR, call (415) 322-3778 or e-mail <cpsr(a)cpsr.org>. David L. Sobel CPSR Legal Counsel <sobel(a)washofc.cpsr.org>

1 0

Re: ATM AND IMAGE RECONGI
by Duncan Frissell 13 Aug '93

13 Aug '93

To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com T >OK, you got me here. I wasn't thinking of cases where you might want T >to deceive your own bank! T >Tim May One tends to forget that an ATM card is a bearer instrument. Ive always thought it ironic that the first manifestation of the Orwellian technology of electronic payments that was supposed to strip us of our liberties was a *bearer* instrument. There are many circumstances where you might want to have someone other than the account holder use ATM or other Credit or Debit cards. Spouses, children, and employees might be given the card. If you want to make cheap instant overseas transfers you might give a trusted person an ATM card. If you want to make regular anonymous payments to someone you might open an account for that purpose, give them the card, and then just deposit whatever you want to transmit to them. If you've opened an account in a nome de guerre, it might be convenient not to have your image recorded. There are many more circumstances. For me the more significant concern is not getting my picture taken but the possibility that card use might be limited to the account holder only. I like the bearer instrument aspect of ATMs. Of course, as long as some banks on the net don't use pictures or other personal measurments as a replacement for pins, one can always use these institutions. Duncan Frissell As for the PC parts of Tim's post: How to handle fanatic evironmentalists/animal rightists/commies: "What's the matter; don't you believe in cultural diversity? Look, these days *I* have to put up with <anal-intercoursing> <oral-genital copulators> whether I like them or not. <Use Old English words instead of the Norman French above.> If *I* have to put up with <anal-intercoursing> <oral-genital copulators> whether I want to or not, then you have to put up with perverts like me." --- WinQwk 2.0b#0

1 0

Re: On The Inherent Evil
by Duncan Frissell 13 Aug '93

13 Aug '93

To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com S >Regardless of how cypherpunks feel about this issue, E.D. is one S >of the most powerful memes making its way thru current society, and S >we have to deal with it. S > S >Nick Szabo szabo(a)netcom.com By ignoring it like all other forms of "others" government (tyranny). How anyone can think that more efficiently allowing others to rule them (whether one man or many) is a good idea is beyond me. Tyrrany is tyrrany is tyranny. Maybe with ED we'll be benefitted by the fact that the government itself which is carrying out the orders of the populace will be so busy with system volitility that it won't have time to do much real harm. Duncan Frissell (Net Prime - 01000001st Fiberborne) "A Machine Age army can no more defeat an Information Age army than a Muscle Age army can defeat a Machine Age army." Join in the fun as Slick Willie and the other spearcarriers of the New World Order charge the machine guns of the Info Army. Cyberspace Wants You. Join the 01000001st Fiberborne - recruiting depot open at this address. Phase One guerilla operations have alredy begun... --- WinQwk 2.0b#0

1 0

Electracy: Evil Revisited
by L. Detweiler 13 Aug '93

13 Aug '93

Buried in my latest delirious rant were multiple *pragmatic* descriptions of Electronic Democracy, and to my great chagrin all have been virtually completely ignored, save one thoughtful soul responding to me in email, who I've exhorted to post to the list. Where is the picking apart of the pieces? I expected the highly suggestive details to be pounced on like scrumptious food for further thought or (more likely) carrion for vultures, but instead get the standard vague marshmallow-philosophical Libertarian and Anarchic Promotional Literature. I'm really quite amazed at all the deathly pessimism and antipathy herein toward genuinely improving our governmental system. It seems that many believe that the natural state of `their' government is oppression, and that the goal is only to minimize it. The perverted Majority is fundamentally and invariably Untrustworthy, Capricious, and Painfully Stupid. It is always stated in terms of Us and They. But *we* *are* our government. How can it not be more obvious? What does it say about our character if we are resigned to deprivation? As I've already stated, the future will hold many developments that will gradually shift opinion, and give working models that won't be subject to immediate ridicule and vague philosophical ramblings about Inherent Evil. It seems everyone here is interested in debating the issue in terms of how they see government, how it has functioned in the past, *irrespective* of any novel mechanisms presented (which I took great pains to put on the table, to specifically address virtually all objections, with the same dramatic effect of shouting at a chasm). I've written about this in the past, and will write about it in the future, but for now I'm going to focus on a comment by N. Szabo <szabo(a)netcom.com>, to elaborate on an earlier item everyone conveniently ignores: [electronic democracy (electrocracy? electracy?)] >* A basic problem with E.D. is that nobody has an >incentive to vote correctly. People's political opinions >can be as stupid and wrong as can be and it won't have any >negative impact on their own lives, or at least none that >is disproportionate or easily recognized to be a result decisions >based on that opinion. Other people might have great opinions, which >if implemented would solve world hunger, clean up the environment, >grow the economy, etc. etc. but there is no special benefit to these >people for having done their altruistic homework and arrived at effective >solutions to these problems. Here are some ideas that my lone anonymous respondent picked up on, but that I've been taking as obvious and given, perhaps because I've thought about it for a long time, and overestimated the imagination of the reader (quite unexpected in this crowd). To make this more specific and tangible, consider a system where people can choose to vote non-anonymously (choosing to vote anonymously is of course always permitted). Now suppose that a `vote' is not something static but rather a pledge of support for a proposal that can vary over time. That is, one can revoke or increase support of a proposal over its entire lifetime, not at an instantaneous blip in a curtained booth. Further, imagine that people can propose different categories for bills such as National, Local, Environmental, Law Enforcement, Infrastructure Maintenance, National Information Infrastructure, Unemployed Programmers, etc. ad infinitum ad nauseam. When a bill is created the creator suggests the category. Categories are created and deleted by anyone. Others can propose the same bill in a different category if they think it merits it. People can refuse to vote on bills or against them based on the classification. Now imagine that everone has Status or Credit associated with their votes in any category. Under certain circumstances, with a certain amount of global support or combination of support based on tabulation of votes and the status (weight) associated with each, a bill becomes Law. The requirements for a bill to become National Law are themselves subject to modification but of course eventually stabilize (a bill to modify the current voting system itself can be introduced under the system). However, a whole set of different characteristics can be associated with bills that become Laws in each category (again subject to modification), and many less `formal' laws can be passed with less constriction in smaller spheres. When a new category is proposed under the system itself, the presenter also indicates that `status formula' associated with it. The status or `credit' is such that it can be impacted in various ways. If one consistently voted for bills in a category who declined in support, one's status in that realm would be diminished by intrinsic mechanisms (remember, a `vote' is dynamic and can change over time based on the owner's `maintenance'). Note that this can be done even with an anonymous voting record by an automated but concealed system. Also, there might be a way that people can trade their status to others whom they admire or respect in that category, based on past experience or their non-anonymous voting record. The status of people might become closely associated with not just their proposals of bills but their successful *real* implementation of them. Under this system, the status becomes very much like a currency system! The `status' itself of people may be advertised or hidden for further effect. (``How much is he worth, anyway?'') In fact, it is not really the case that this system sounds like today's currency, it is the case that our monetary system is actually a very small microcosm of this future Electronic Democracy. Look at all the synonyms associated with money: Power. Status. Influence. Money is the economy's built-in `voting mechanism'. It is an abstraction that, when implemented, causes a competition for improvement and superiority, an *incentive* for *evolution* and *success*. Similarly, under the new system sensible classifications, status formulas, and bills will prosper and persist, while nonsensical, inferior, and obsolete ones will die out. These ideas are all very cypherpunkesque in their allusions to digital cash, reputations, social upheaval, `anarchy' in the sense of a government so unobtrusive and natural it is virtually invisible yet omnipresent (sort of like God, eh? ah, well, a good role model.) I call on patriotic and guerilla cypherpunks to implement this system, to be a model for the world! all the critical features of technology are already in place -- methods of providing universal communication called `email', guaranteeing accurate voting via authenication called PGP, a widespead `proposal dissemination and discussion system' called Usenet, a library for past proposals and bills and resolutions called FTP. I guarantee that by *far* this will be the most important of all cypherpunk projects, if in the amazing odds it were actually adopted by one (considering the recent formidably frosty reception, currently all that is left of my attempt at a burgeoning snowball is a Dissolving Drip in Hell). In fact, the sheer dischordant cacophony on this group might be ameliorated through such a system. Imagine that we as a group (the most disorderly and uncooperative group ever to be called one) could vote and stabilize Cypherpunk Resolutions. (Nah -- some things are just fundamentally impossible.)

3 2

Re: Spooking of neural nets and image recognition...
by smb＠research.att.com 13 Aug '93

13 Aug '93

Insofar as monitoring passage of people, I noted a few hours ago a new installation of cameras at the tollbooths on the George Washington Bridge, positioned to be under a meter from people's faces when they stop to fork over their $4.00. The police density at this toll plaza makes additional surveillance of would-be toll booth robbers unnecessary; while traffic analysis on the matching of facial patterns is probably out of their scope right now, it *is* a precedent, and food for thought... Well -- the cameras may have been prompted by the fact that the toll booths at the GWB have been the targets of armed robberies several times of late... FYI, the George Washington Bridge carries much, probably most, of the traffic into Manhattan and New York City...) Most? Hardly. Don't forget the bridges and tunnels from Brooklyn and Queens, and the two tunnels from New Jersey, and...

1 0

Re: >Clipper trapdoor?
by cme＠ellisun.sw.stratus.com 13 Aug '93

13 Aug '93

>Message-Id: <00541.2828009147.4718(a)washofc.cpsr.org> >From: David Sobel <dsobel(a)washofc.cpsr.org> >Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 14:01:54 EST >Subject: Re: >Clipper trapdoor? David, You wrote: >[...] I think the question you raise is a critical one -- under what >guidelines will the escrow agents determine the validity of an NSA >request for the key without a FISA warrant? If I were the NSA, I would *never* permit a key request to leave the building at Ft. Meade. The fact that it wanted a given key is, itself, intelligence. I am one person who believes that the gov't would never be able to establish a key escrow agency secure enough even for my customers (Stratus customers: already extra-careful purchasers of high priced fault tolerant equipment: banks, large funds transfer people, stock brokers, hospitals, ...). It's too cheap for organized crime to bribe or break in at the escrow agencies. Therefore, I'm on record as a commercial crypto consultant recommending against any customer of ours using any escrowed-key mechanism, no matter how strong the algorithm or how trustworthy the key generation process. If the agency is too flaky for me, they're bound to be too flaky to be trusted with a paper trail of NSA's eavesdropping targets. The traffic analysis of that trail would be worth an absolute fortune. I'd give it a week before it was compromised. So: I wouldn't go to the escrow agencies in any way at all. ---------- Now, there was an interesting thing from DERD the other day -- that the original key generation mechanism is out, replaced by one which is classified (for nat'l security reasons, I assume). ---------- As I mentioned in alt.privacy.clipper the other day, if I were the NSA I would: 1. pick a *very* secure block cryptosystem (secure enough for them to use to send top secret crypto keys around the world, where the enemy is sure to intercept the message) 2. encrypt the chip's serial number in that algorithm, using a single key which only the agency knows 3. use the output of that encryption as the chip's key [that output will look totally random to the outside observer, because the encryption algorithm is so good] 4. make the two escrow copies, as before, and deliver them to the escrow agencies 5. keep the key generation process secret, for fear of inciting rebellion among civil liberties groups ----------- - Carl P.S. One of my questions for CSSPAB was why the key generation procedure didn't just use a hardware random number generator. That's the accepted practice and there's no reason to classify it. P.P.S. Is there any way to get NIST to answer my list of 22 questions?

1 0

Re: anonymous contact ser
by M..Stirner＠f0.n0.z1.FIDONET.ORG 13 Aug '93

13 Aug '93

-=> Quoting Uucp to All <=- Uu> Apologies for replying on the list.... That's OK with me. This probably answers some questions for a few others, too. Uu> Here's why. I can't reply directly to your message, as some gateway on Uu> the way barfs on the ".." in your name. This seems to come and go. Uu> This is probably also what screws up anon.penet.fi. This is extremely interesting! This "problem" was supposedly fixed some time ago, but this is why I have alternate accounts elsewhere with more common names. In any event, I will pass this information along to the proper persons. > repl: bad addresses: > "M. Stirner" <M..Stirner(a)f0.n0.z1.fidonet.org> -- no mailbox in > local-part (.) This is yet another problem that was supposedly repaired - it should read m..stirner(a)f28.n125.z1.fidonet.org, but a curious glitch in the BBS reply software that handles conversions of mailings to conferences & automatic routing of replies periodically enters all zeroes in the "f" & "n" fields. I will pass this along, also. Uu> Another problem is that your address keeps changing. Thus you have Uu> several ID's on anon.penet.fi, some with passwords, some without. Your Uu> message was from m..stirner(a)f0.n0.z1.fidonet.org, but in your sinature Uu> you claim you are also m..stirner(a)f28.n125.z1.fidonet.org (or Uu> ...!uunet!kumr!shelter!0!0!M..Stirner). Yes, the zeros are wrong & were inserted by software out of my control. I also have different addresses, true enough, but there is no f0.n0.z1 in fido; that address is a software error. I suspect it'll be on this message, too. STILL....the problem I have is not addressed: I cannot make a multi-line header (as in the required "X-Anon-Password: password" line) work through this UUCP gate, as far as I can tell. I have been attempting to route my mail to the penet remailer via other cypherpunks remailers with the syntax: :: Request-Remailing-To: anon(a)anon.penet.fi From: anXXXXXX(a)anon.penet.fi X-Anon-Password: password X-Anon-To: alt.foolishness But I am not sure if the cypherpunk remailer's address conflicts with my From: field or not - I _think_ it does. If so, I cannot use password header lines unless anon.penet.fi can handle having blank lines between the header fields: To: anon(a)anon.penet.fi From: anXXXXX(a)anon.penet.fi X-Anon-Password: password X-Anon-To: alt.foolishness The above header will pass the UUCP gate here. Without the blank lines, the header gets grunged after the To: anon(a)anon.penet.fi line. . Thank you for your personal attention to this vexing problem. . ~ . M. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 -- M. Stirner - via FidoNet node 1:125/1 UUCP: ...!uunet!kumr!shelter!0!0!M..Stirner INTERNET: M..Stirner(a)f0.n0.z1.FIDONET.ORG

1 0