July 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

more than spread spectrum
by cme＠ellisun.sw.stratus.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There are alternatives to spread spectrum, if we're threatened with loss of freedom to communicate. We could lay our own wires/fibers. We could set up a mesh network of infrared lasers through the air. Last time I looked, there were no laws against shining lights out your window as long as they didn't bother anyone. An infrared laser could hardly bother anyone. We could produce a line of cheap cards to plug into a PC which would do packet routing, using a variety of physical links -- our own wires, lasers, very low range radio, .... Each card would connect to three or more neighbors and become part of the global mesh. Adaptive routing with no global map would suffice for the card and would keep the whole system peer-to-peer with no need for central control and no chance for central tapping. Of course all of these solutions require a high density of users. A college campus might be the right place to start. We could then branch out to cities. I suspect that a place like Chicago or NYC with high rise apartments might be the place to start -- many options for line-of-sight communications. The benefit isn't just for Cypherpunks. It's a free network for the masses -- like the original USENET (with each user donating routing and store/forward) but with unrestricted, low-range, continuously operating physical links. I'll volunteer to do the software for the node card. Does anyone have hardware design/fab to donate to the effort? - Carl

4 3

Re: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong.
by Black Unicorn 04 Aug '01

04 Aug '01

----- Original Message ----- From: "Trei, Peter" <ptrei(a)rsasecurity.com> To: "'Black Unicorn'" <unicorn(a)schloss.li> Cc: <cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 7:53 AM Subject: RE: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong. > Thanks for your response. The 'in his direct or indirect > control' bit is the part that got lost in the article. Sure. News articles are the WORST source for legal analysis. > I hope it was clear that I was not looking for ways to > deny a court *access* to a piece of information, but > rather using the net (prior to a subpoena) as an way > to make *sequestration* of a piece of info impossible, > by placing copies permanently outside 'his direct or > indirect control'. It was clear. I wanted to make sure to correct the common misconception among cypherpunks that you can just thumb your nose at a court with impunity. I didn't believe that you were exhibiting this behavior, but failing to clear things up often leads to misconceptions by others, who then cite the erroniously intrepreted stuff to support their silly ideas about legal-immune key escrow and etc. > I hope you read Mike's 'Oh pointy one' note carefully; > it points out one of the great problems most of us IANAL > have with IAAL types - the confusion of laws and court > action with right and justice, and actions which are > simply unlawful at a given time and place with wrong > and injustice. It's a base conflict. A legal education is the ultimate dose of practical cynicism. It quickly becomes apparent not that the law isn't perfect, but that it is often pretty damn screwed up. American jurisprudence is about _fairness of process_, not justice, or right, or wrong. The frustration that IAAL types usually have is that IANAL types tend to cross the line from criticzing the law to giving legal advice which is more derrived from their dislike for the state of the law than a recognition of what it really is. > Laws and courts are or should be an attempt to map > the behaviour of governments to right and justice, but > lawyers so often seemed to have been conditioned > into thinking they are one and the same, rather than > a (very) rough approximation. Well, again, the legal education process is designed around navigating through the system, not mapping the behavior of governments. > [Case to point: Canter and Siegel claiming that there > was nothing wrong with them sending their Green Card > spam, since there was no law against it.] > > It's possible - indeed essential - for people to argue > over right and wrong, justice and injustice without > regard for what a given legal and court system says; > even a court and legal system which can send Men > With Guns after them. Oh, I wholly agree. And I believe this is a fully valid function for cypherpunks. Unfortunately, it often shifts into "you should design this technical solution" - typically a technical solution which will end the operated in jail. To me the important distinction is to recognize what we want the ideal to be, but avoid running afoul of the law in the process. > Laws do not define Right and Wrong. > Courts and Legal Systems do not define Justice. > > They are better than nothing at all, but we should > never imbue them with divine wisdom. That way > lies Tyranny. Agreed. > Peter Trei >

11 21

Re: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas
by mmotyka＠lsil.com 03 Aug '01

03 Aug '01

Declan, The larger problem notwithstanding there's at least one little bit of language in this piece that is odd : "He said the government is seeking all of Leggett's material, including all originals and copies." Even if we make the extreme assumption that there is some pressing and justifiable need for federal prosecutors to have access to her materials how do you explain the need to possess "all originals and copies?" It doesn't make sense. Why should she not be allowed to keep a copy of her work? How does the existence of an uncontrolled copy lower the value of the original in the case of a recording? Or in the case of her own notes why would a copy not suffice. Looks like a reporter ( or anyone else for that matter ) should keep well hidden backups of their notes and work so that they can comply with Napolean complexes, fishing expeditions and spin control operations and not lose their life's work. Mike

16 41

Spoliation, escrows, courts etc.
by mmotyka＠lsil.com 03 Aug '01

03 Aug '01

I think there are several actions and states mixed up here and it makes it difficult to extract the most pertinent opinions. I'm as guilty as anyone of mixing the stuff together. I'll try to be more specific this time. Let's start with the type of information the TX reporter might have. This information might be divisible into four classes : A) documents freely given by their owners B) documents of dubious provenance C) documentary works D) editorial works For information let's stick with C) and D). No real need to muddy the waters. The sense of outrage is most keen when it comes to works created by the reporter. There are a fairly small set of states to be accounted for : 1) unaware that the information could become the object of a court action 2) aware that the information could become the object of a court action 3) aware that the information was in fact the object of a court action Now my sense of right and wrong says states 1) and 2) are equivalent and that only state 3), awareness of a subpoena, is potentially relevant but our relevant pro bono guy says not. There are a few actions that are of interest i) disclosure ii) destruction iii) revocable storage of copies iv) public distribution of copies v) irrevocable storage of copies Whether it was clear or not, and despite it's being a frequent topic, I don't think anyone was all that interested in the destruction of evidence or the withholding of information, so that leaves iii), iv) and v). Another frequent element of discussions here is the ease and accuracy with which digital information can be copied and distributed but I think most would agree that iii) is not interesting legally or technically since like i) and ii) it comes down to can you conceal information or not - a plain old ordinary fight. We're really left with three states : Perception and awareness of the court's degree of interest none, potential, forceful and two actions : irrevocable storage of a copy as public or private that are interesting. Narrowed down in this way my sense of right and wrong says the author of the information can do as they choose and should not have to rely on officially approved excuses to avoid incarceration. I feel this way pretty much across the board for all types of works but for the moment let's stick with non-software items such as a reporter is likely to author. It seems as though, in the interest of justice, a court should not have the power to confiscate or suppress an author's own work. Examine it prior to publication? Possibly, but seriously debatable. Aren't there any limits or controls on the actions of the court with respect to an author? Aren't there some things that a court is simply not allowed to do and will never even attempt? Is the only recourse in the case of genuine abuse a long expensive losing battle against the forces of darkness? To allow a court to punish the publication or distribution of one's own works, even under subpoena, seems like an open invitation to abuse. Oddly, thinking about this topic has made me remember some interesting discussions with the person responsible for forcibly shutting down the radio stations, television stations and newspapers as part of a ( successful and longstanding ) coup. It's a bit scary. I don't think the power to destory^H^H^Hroy the press should be a fundamental part of the structure here. Maybe we accept the actions of a police state more peacefully when they're neatly clothed in formalities and done by baby steps but that doesn't alter their underlying nature. As with a coup, let's require full-blown military intervention to shut down the press. At least then we'll have no doubts about where we stand. Mike BTW - it will be interesting to actually find out detailed facts in the case of this TX reporter. I'm sure Jim will graciously forward a link. >Not being intimately familiar with the spec of freenet I can't really comment >on that aspect or what a court will consider "impossible." What will not >amuse a court is the appearance of an ex ante concealment or disclosure in >anticipation of court action. If it looks like you knew it was going to be a >court issue and you put it on freenet for that purpose, you're in trouble. >Not only that but if you encrypt the stuff and it doesn't appear to be >recoverable it almost sounds tantamount to destruction of evidence or >spoliation (much more serious). ("The intentional destruction of evidence... >The destruction, or the significant and meaningful alteration of a document or >instrument...") I've never seen a case play out like that but I would >certainly make the argument as a prosecutor. Encrypting the stuff sure >_looks_ like spoliation, particularly if it seemed likely that the evidence >would be the subject of a judicial action. "Knew or should have known" will >likely be the standard with respect to the stuff being the subject of judicial >action and they can use actions to demonstrate intent. In this light freenet >might be the _worst_ place to put it because its only purpose is (I believe) >to avoid censorship or seizure of the data. Why would you have used this >relatively obscure and very specialized service if not in anticipation of >court action which would later prevent the distribution of the data? Who else >was threatening the manuscript, document, etc. to such a degree to require you >to use freenet? (Not only that but spoliation carries with it the permissible >inference that the data was detrimental to you and the jury gets to hear >that). >

2 1

Re: The real enemies of the poor
by Faustine 02 Aug '01

02 Aug '01

Jim worte: On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Faustine wrote: > What argument from authority? Barring the sudden onset of senility or > insanity, familiarity with past work gives you a general indication of > whether or not you want to read something. >>Your question is your own answer. Your belief in their consistency, and >>it's acceptability by your sensibilities, is an 'authority'. You've given >>them trust a priori. I prefer they earn it each and every time anew. No, that's not it: the only "trust" you give them comes with getting you on the first page in the first place, not what you come to think of it afterward. Surely you dont mean to say you never make choices of what to read based on something's potential value to you. Haven't you ever picked up a book because you anticipated enjoying it, started reading it, and put it down when you realized the methodology was flawed or the scholarship was poor after all? If not, maybe you need to be more discriminate... I bet you have though, and aren't quite the non-judgemental tabula rasa your comments indicate. >>A personal note, I hate sequels. > Even reading this list, I'm sure there are people you read first and >people you skip totally...And how likely is it that the first 15 essays are excellent but they saved the crappy ones for 16 on? ha! >>Actualy I read just about every submission to the list, I don't in general >>pick viewpoints based on personality. The whole 'cult of personality' crap >>makes me queezy. Agh, not personality, it comes back to the matter of not wasting time: Some people seldom have anything to say that I find remotely interesting, so I've learned it's in my best interest to skip them. On the other hand, some people put really put some effort into their contributions and write in a relevant and thoughtful way--so when I'm pressed for time, (as I usually am) I read them first. If the subject is important enough I'll read all the comments, but otherwise it gets prioritized, like everything else. And none of this has the slightest thing to do with whether or not I agree with or like someone. Jeez, who haven't I argued with here... >As to essays, I find it a rare author who writes 15 pages, let alone 15 >essays, I don't find problems with. If you can read a >book and go through an entire chapter without saying "wait just a damn >minute..." then you're either not absorbing what is being said, you are >reading material that is already in line with your views/expectations, or >else it's 'fluff'. Absolutely. I just happen to think you can have the highest degree of respect for someone's work you don't agree with, and that people you do agree with shouldn't get a free pass. Check the archives, that's basically what I've said all along. >I'll make an observation, at the risk of offending sensibilities, from >your past commentary you look for work that goes along with what you >believe/want. Look for? There's reading and then there's recommending. ;) > Myself, I tend to go places where I'm the minority (this >mailing list being an example) because the dialog is much more >invigorating than sitting in a bunch of people who already agree with me. Oy vey, that's what I've already said... I don't think anyone would exactly characterize my views as representative of the list as a whole either. Or maybe you don't see it, being focused on your own "me versus the list" dynamic, eh? > All I'm saying is that his background credentials and published work was > every bit as impressive the performance at the meeting...and that one of > his essays is on the list. :) Now with a backstory like that, you > actually mean to tell me I don't have a good reason to look forward to > reading it? HA! >Actually it demostrates my thesis above. You had a view, you found his >view to be complementary (you agreed with everything he said), No, not at all actually. Believe it or not, I'm not so arrogant and self- assured that I have to agree with someone to be able to admit when they've got their opposition thoroughly outclassed in terms of sheer knowledge of the subject. Unlike other people in the room, the topic wasn't something I was heavily invested in in terms of reputation, career etc: anyone who tries to deny that makes a difference in how open-minded they are is fooling themselves. But everthing about the way he conducted himself presenting his arguments merited respect. If you can't change your mind in the face of new evidence, you're too dogmatic, not intellectually flexible enough. Sure, he influenced me, where's the shame in admitting that. Learning from someone doesnt mean you gave up your own independent judgement. And I'd rather change my mind than be an ignorant blockhead stuck in an ideological rut. Like far too many I'm sure we both could name. >and now you pursue that. Me, I'd hunt for the holes in his theory/argument >(and I guarantee they are there). Of course. And if it were my main area of interest, you can bet he'd be the first person I'd go to to argue with and sound my own theories out on. I'll save the second half for tomorrow... ~Faustine.

2 1

Findlaw: The New York Times and Napster
by Jim Choate 01 Aug '01

01 Aug '01

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20010730_chander.html James Choate Product Certification - Operating Systems Staff Engineer 512-436-1062 jchoate(a)tivoli.com

3 2

Re: Criminalizing crypto criticism
by Steven M. Bellovin 01 Aug '01

01 Aug '01

In message <20010727015656.A22910(a)cluebot.com>, Declan McCullagh writes: > >One of those -- and you can thank groups like ACM for this, if my >legislative memory is correct -- explicitly permits encryption >research. You can argue fairly persuasively that it's not broad >enough, and certainly 2600 found in the DeCSS case that the judge >wasn't convinced by their arguments, but at least it's a shield of >sorts. See below. It's certainly not broad enough -- it protects "encryption" research, and the definition of "encryption" in the law is meant to cover just that, not "cryptography". And the good-faith effort to get permission is really an invitation to harrassment, since you don't have to actually get permission, merely seek it. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

6 8

Re: Pointers to news sources and other mailing lists
by Faustine 01 Aug '01

01 Aug '01

Eugene wrote: >Unless any of you people already run such a newsticker? No point in reinventing the wheel. The best security/crypto/privacy news ticker I've seen is at http://www.infosyssec.com, a portal which bills itself as "The most comprehensive computer and network security resource on the Internet for Information System Security Professionals". If you don't feel like waiting for the ticker to scroll through, try http://www.infosyssec.com/infosyssec/infosecnews.html. If some of the the links don't work, the whole story is usually mirrored at http://www.securitynewsportal.com/. None finer, IMHO... ~Faustine.

3 2

Re: Pointers to news sources and other mailing lists
by Tim May 01 Aug '01

01 Aug '01

At 11:27 AM +0200 7/31/01, Eugene Leitl wrote: >On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote: > >> I think most of the "pointers" are just symptoms of laziness. It >> looks like people just think "cross-pollinating" without analysis is >> the thing to do. > >Some of the pointers are also symptoms of a bad connectivity. I've got >only a very lagged ssh link at *work*, zero connection at home. > >I think there's definitely value in a dedicated cpunx news sink >(Choategrams included), so if you have no objections, I'll go ahead, and >make one at yahoogroups. First, you will of course find that no one but yourself will check the "yahoogroups" ghetto site. (If you are not familiar with the history of such ghettoes, "alt.cypherpunks" was an example of such a ghetto created half a dozen years ago. Someone even created "alt.cypherpunks.technical" and a few other sub-ghettoes. I don't think they got much propagation, even in a world of 80,000 newsgroups, and they may have been pulled...haven't seen mention of them in years. Yahoo is just the latest place for such ghettoes, where a handful of people will ask "Why isn't there any discussion here?") Second, I'm confused. You say you have bad connectivity at work and no connection at home. If you can take Choate's URL pointers and follow them, why can you not go directly to the source (Yahoo, Slashdot, CNET, Wired, etc.)? And how will you access Yahoo groups with poor/zero connectivity? (I assume you're not saying that your connections are so bad that you are counting on Choate to pre-screen material for you? The math doesn't work out, not to mention the aesthetics.) In any case, the larger issue is not whether you have good connectivity, or are counting on Choate to keep you informed on Martian microbes and Teslas physics or whatever. The larger issue is that Cypherpunks cannot survive as a mere dumping ground for URLs. Asking Choate to dump his URL pointers into a Yahoo chat room is a worthy thing, but not likely to make him change his evil ways. And the problem goes beyond Choate. With many here subscribed to a dozen or more heavily-overlapping groups (covering crypto, copyright, etc. issues), the tendency is strong to simply bounce pointers around. In fact, the motivation for my article was seeing _your_ posting of several messages yesterday with nothing more than URLs. "Oh, no, Eugene's gone Choatian on us!" If you connectivity is so bad, why are you sending _us_ URL pointers? Careful with that ASCII, Eugene. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay(a)got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns

2 2

Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
by Matthew Gaylor 01 Aug '01

01 Aug '01

11 24