August 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
by Faustine 31 Aug '01

31 Aug '01

Greg wrote: >Further, they've been open (since late 1999/early >2000, at least) about wanting to encourage and facilitate law enforcement >and intelligence community use of their system, so that those groups come >to see ZKS/Freedom as a system which has good and bad aspects, instead of >just bad ones .. in hopes that a more nuanced (or conflicted) view of >Freedom's utility would slow down or stop regulatory activity aimed at ZKS. Sure. But to what extent can you collaborate without a)approaching full- blown collusion or b) getting taken for a ride in spite of your best efforts? Either way, it's hard to justify trading in on the old "staunch and true defender of privacy" cachet. That is, unless you overestimate your own product, underestimate the skill of those who would break it, and thereby delude yourself into feeling on top of the world. Hint: nobody at the NSA or in any way concerned with "national security" has the slightest incentive to get you to feel otherwise. Depressing. >Maybe in the long run, it's right to view any objections as being little >more than irrelevant, moralistic hand-waving. But I don't find the "they're >going to compromise it anyway so why not make a buck when we can" line of >reasoning particularly satisfying. >Well, no, it's not especially elegant or poetic, but it's simple >economics, which are at the heart of both successful business and >successful cryptography. If ZKS refused to sell to NSA, what would have >changed, except for their ability to crow "We told NSA to fuck off!" ..? Yep. Empty symbolic gestures are always expensive. You made a lot of interesting and thoughtful points about DGU too, thanks. ~Faustine.

1 0

An efficient Scheme for Proving a Shuffle
by Fisher Mark 31 Aug '01

31 Aug '01

"An efficient Scheme for Proving a Shuffle", Crypto 2001, Jun Furukawa and Kazue Sako (NEC Corporation), apparently could be used to show that a remailer is processing all messages without revealing the header or contents of any message. (Apparently because I haven't read the paper -- just heard of it on the nymip-res-group list.) =============================================== Mark Leighton Fisher fisherm(a)tce.com Thomson multimedia, Inc. Indianapolis IN "Display some adaptability." -- Doug Shaftoe, _Cryptonomicon_

1 0

Re: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
by Faustine 31 Aug '01

31 Aug '01

On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 11:43 AM, Faustine wrote: > Tim wrote: >> But, as with Kirchoff's point, the attacker is going to get the design >> eventually. > If getting the design "eventually" were good enough, why the keen > interest in putting in a large order for the beta? There's a reason. >Perhaps the NSA wanted to use the product without making illegal copies? >Your earlier point (that they wished to reverse-engineer the product) is >in fact undermined by this fact that they bought N copies. Unless you believe reverse engineering is only useful for making pirated copies, there's no reason to assume any sort of contradiction at all. As if the NSA would use anything from the private sector they didn't know inside out. ~Faustine.

1 0

Re: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
by Meyer Wolfsheim 31 Aug '01

31 Aug '01

On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote: > Tim wrote: > > >But, as with Kirchoff's point, the attacker is going to get the design > >eventually. > > If getting the design "eventually" were good enough, why the keen interest > in putting in a large order for the beta? There's a reason. As I recall, this was an open beta. The NSA would probably have ordered a copy under a private individual's name (and had it sent to a residential address) had ZKS denied them the sale. (They didn't need a large number of copies to examine it for flaws.) > Maybe in the long run, it's right to view any objections as being little > more than irrelevant, moralistic hand-waving. But I don't find the "they're > going to compromise it anyway so why not make a buck when we can" line of > reasoning particularly satisfying. That's not the reasoning that anyone here is stating. "They're going to obtain a copy of the software anyway, so why not make a buck while we can," is what's being said, coupled with "they shouldn't be able to break the software even if they have the source, so if we've done our jobs there is no reason not so sell it to them." Please. If you are going to participate in this debate, possess the ability to paraphrase the opponent's arguements correctly. -MW-

1 0

Slashdot | Sklyarov, Elcomsoft Plead Not Guilty
by Jim Choate 31 Aug '01

31 Aug '01

http://slashdot.org/articles/01/08/31/194207.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
by mmotyka＠lsil.com 31 Aug '01

31 Aug '01

Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> wrote : >On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 05:28:24PM -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote: >> For Tim: >> Why are you attempting to provoke public discussion about things >> that could get people jailed or worse for discussing them? It's >> interesting to see you post your "sweet spot" message and then call >> someone *else* an agent provocateur. > >I suspect Bear has good intentions and may even honestly believe this, >but it is nevertheless misleading. > >Talking about the political implications of technologies -- and taking >no actions! -- is protected by the full force of the First Amendment. > >Johnson got in trouble for allegedly making direct threats of physical >violence. Bell is in jail for most of the next decade because he >crossed state lines and showing up at homes of current or former >federal agents. > >It is true that the Feds are monitoring cypherpunks closely, and it is >also probably true that without the stalking charges, they may have >found other charges to levy against Bell. It is also true that if you >embrace AP-type concepts, they may pay closer attention to you. But >even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference >between speech and action. > >-Declan > Bear may not be as far off the mark as you think. Remember back when the hot news of the day was militia groups how advocating the violent overthrow of the government and playing soldier in the woods could constitute intent? Can that twisted reasoning be applied to advocating the use of code to obsolete the government and then actually creating code? Should the political speech and coding action be separated? Is participating in both risky? I consider code to be publishing and speech but look at some of the recent GRUsa activity that addresses that issue. Get ready for "to code is to act." Whoops, it's here. Just title your application "Espionage Communications Suite with Government Overthrow Features" and package the speech and the act up nice and neat for the GRU. This can't really be the case, can it? Mike This little gizmo is not new but I like it and it's only $30 at an AT&T Wireless store. It looks like it would be a nice companion ( assuming one could make a very tiny uP-based adapter ) for an iPaq. I find those folding kybs to be ugly. http://www.ericsson.com/infocenter/news/The_Chatboard.html

5 5

Re: Re: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation
by mmotyka＠lsil.com 31 Aug '01

31 Aug '01

To : measl(a)mfn.org >> Learn to read poopyhead (isn't that now the official CP insult?). > >Actually, I think the currently "hip" term would be "twit" :-) > Dunno, I've seen both recently. Just trying to live up to my slave training and conform. >> Look at the part you snipped : >> >> I'm not saying that it (vouchers or other defunding) >> should be ruled out but you should at least think >> about the implications a bit. > >Which, in context, is clearly a justification of what follows it. > >> All I said was that actions can have unintended consequences. > >No, you did not. Nowhere was this said or implied. What you said is >above, so there is no need to <QUOTE> it here as well. > Here's the original : > >Another facet is that the well-to-do are attempting to remove their >funds from the systems so they can use those funds to educate their >children as they choose. A voucher system would surely benefit me >financially. This is a reasonable desire but it will have a negative >effect on the public school systems and a subsequent negative effect on >the society as a whole. I know the masses are a bit thick but do you >want them to be even thicker? And not all bright people come from >priviledged backgrounds. Do you want to limit the opportunities for some >of the brightest kids in the country before they've even had a chance? >I'm not saying that it (vouchers or other defunding) should be ruled out >but you should at least think about the implications a bit. > I would summarize this paragraph, poorly written as it may be, as follows : 1) Some people wish to remove their monies from the public schools and make their own choices. 2) Here are some possible negative effects of that action. 3) I'm not against it but at least think about the implications before acting. Looks pretty simple to me. Doesn't really take a position other than "fine, measure twice, cut once if you want my vote." >I am not endowed with any expertise on this topic, so I cannot make any >considered judgement on the example. Having thrown out the required >caveat, it seems to me that the deregulation was only a small part of the >problem. Of course, I am truly talking out of my ass on this topic, so I >will leave it here... > I'm no expert on the details either but it looks like a chant of "deregulate" didn't work out so well. Expect to hear more chants of "deregulate" and "privatize" when it comes to things like power and water. I'm not sure which I prefer, a corporate dictatorship or a police state. >The fact that you consider this a "knee jerk" response does not make it >so: you have no way of knowing how much or little I have looked into this >topic. As someone who has had 4 kids in various public and private >schools, as well as person who has personally attended two private and >three public schools, I have had ample incentive to look at homeschooling >when it began to cross my radar about three years ago. > >My beliefs regarding homeschooling are very definitely _not_ >knee-jerk reactions. And my statements regarding the state of the public >schools is from personal first hand experience, both as a student, and as >a parent. > >> Try and do it in one fell swoop based on right-wing >> war chants and I'll bet you do more harm than good. > >What "right wing war chants"? Where the hell do you get the idea I'm a >right wing type of guy? Just because I believe that home schooling is a >Good Thing and that the public schools are a life threatening repository >of brainwashing and bad karma? Last I heard, it took a LOT more than this >to qualify as "right wing". > > I know the masses are a bit thick but do you > want them to be even thicker? > > > >To be frank, sending kids to public schools is practically *requiring* > >that they become "thick", merely in order to _survive_. > > > This statement is neither entirely true nor entirely false but it sure > as hell is a knee-jerk reaction to the issue. > >Again with the knee jerk label. If it's a view you disagree with, it's a >knee-jerk reaction, huh? > >> Sounds like the sort of >> foolishness that Rush Limbaugh vomits on the airwaves. > >I wouldn't know, I don't have much use for Rush, and have only heard >*about* his show. However, we again see the disparaging of view with >which you disagree as terms such as "foolishness". This "position" is >hardly persuasive. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to WHY it is so >"foolish"? Perhaps you can trade some FIRST HAND information you have on >the state of the public schools, so that we may more readily examine the >ISSUES before us, and not your assertions that all positions you disfavor >are "knee jerk reactions"? > I would say that I use the term knee-jerk and right-wing war chants as labels for the idea that all public schools are somehow seriously inferior to private schools or home schooling. Maybe the term knee-jerk is as poor as the idea of lumping all public schools into a single assessment. Furthermore, I think if you read what I've said you would not find that I flat out disagree with your attitudes about education but rather try to point out that maybe things are a little more tricky than you suggest. >>>> I wish there were more ( and better ) educational choices and that those >>>> choices were reflected reasonably in the financial systems but every >>>> proposal I've seen so far sucks moose bladder through a hairy straw. >>> >>>While you claim to favor choices, you have just argued that these choices >>>should not be available. >>> >>Uh, nope, that's not what I said. I said I would be in favor of >>carefully considered proposals. Proposals that are fair to individuals >>and beneficial to the community. > >No. Your post did make several statements which claimed to favor >proposals that were fair to the community, but NOT to >individuals. Personally, I think the Good Of The Many depends totally >upon the Good Of The Few. The macrocosmic must fail if the microcosmic is >broken. > >> Again, the two goals are neither >> completely compatible nor mutually exclusive. > >While I actually agree with this assertion to a degree, I would also >caveat it with (1) I can only supply a very weak degree of "confidence" in >the truth of this assertion, and (2) I am unable to compellingly argue >either for or against it. This type of conundrum should lead the more >analytic amongst us to examine these issues on a much deeper basis, >hopefully to determine what properties are impeding the discovery of the >actual truth or flasity of the above premises... > >>Make up your mind. > I see no reason that I'm obligated to make up my mind until I choose to. >>I have : good ideas, thumbs up, bad ideas, thumbs down. > >The ideas expressed above, namely the Good Of The Many outweighs the Good >Of The Few: Thumbs Down. > Ah, I apoligize, you missed the point. If you knew me you would know that as far as I am concerned the the rights of the individual should NEVER be forcefully compromised for the good of the many. IOW, if I have the last freshwater spring on earth, unless I'm feeling generous today, if I don't like you and don't need you and can successfully fight you off, you're fucked brother. The point you miss is that we don't live in isolation. It may very well be that in order to optimize our quality of life as individuals we have to ( preferably voluntarily ) make some ( preferably minimal ) sacrifices that improve the lot of others. I find it to be a very simple and obvious concept. Yes it does sound like you have to pay protection money to reduce the degree to which you must fight to keep what you have but rather than beat your head against a wall and complain about how unfair life is, optimize. Mike

1 0

RE: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison
by jamesd＠echeque.com 31 Aug '01

31 Aug '01

-- On 29 Aug 2001, at 14:25, Faustine wrote: > Which reminds me, I don't know why people here seem to think > that any sort of "deception operation" would come from people > who show up using nyms to express unpopular opinions. (e.g. > "you said something I don't want to hear; threfore its FUD and > you're a fed.") On the contrary, a really first-rate deception > job would probably involve having someone post under their own > name and acting in apparent good faith for years, only > introducing the deceptive elements gradually, after they've had > ample time to "overtly prove themselves trustworthy" You overestimate the subtlety and sophistication of the feds. Whether Aimee is a fed or not, her quite genuine ignorance made her incapable of knowing what views sounded cypherpunkish, and what views sounded violently anti cypherpunkish. If she is a fed, she probably also goes around buying crack and pretending to be a thirteen year old interested in sex talk. And if the feds were to assign a fed to our list, that is the kind of fed they would assign. That is all they have. When the feds were infiltrating the militias, their agents stuck out like dogs balls. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Y/QUrLveFkvsuJgVfNwK1zfk+lx3s4OHlWb91sov 44d/LXT5t59pPIp0rYC0PeMqXjXBTWSpb1Nr0YApP

2 1

Re: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
by Tim May 31 Aug '01

31 Aug '01

On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 11:43 AM, Faustine wrote: > Tim wrote: > >> But, as with Kirchoff's point, the attacker is going to get the design >> eventually. > > If getting the design "eventually" were good enough, why the keen > interest > in putting in a large order for the beta? There's a reason. Perhaps the NSA wanted to use the product without making illegal copies? Your earlier point (that they wished to reverse-engineer the product) is in fact undermined by this fact that they bought N copies. --Tim May

1 0

Re: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
by Greg Broiles 31 Aug '01

31 Aug '01

At 02:43 PM 8/31/2001 -0400, Fausting wrote: >Tim wrote: > >But, as with Kirchoff's point, the attacker is going to get the design > >eventually. >If getting the design "eventually" were good enough, why the keen interest >in putting in a large order for the beta? There's a reason. What's the reason? If the goal was disassembly and analysis, it wouldn't be necessary to buy more than one copy - and even buying one copy is mostly a formality, though it's probably a lot cheaper and faster than any of the other ways people might get it. Still, it wouldn't exactly be a big problem for them to buy a single copy (or a few copies) with more-or-less untraceable addresses and credit cards. If they disclosed their identity, they already had what they needed, or were sure they could get it one way or another. The beta was available - I've forgotten the exact timing, by now - to anybody with a credit card and an Internet connection, and CD-ROM copies of the beta were handed out at web/internet-oriented conferences. ZKS was not (nor is anyone else with distribution on any interesting scale) faced with the choice "Shall I let the various three-letter-agencies have a copy of my software?". ZKS was faced with the choice "Would we like to get a lot, a little, or no money from the NSA?", and it's hard to blame them for taking the cash. Further, they've been open (since late 1999/early 2000, at least) about wanting to encourage and facilitate law enforcement and intelligence community use of their system, so that those groups come to see ZKS/Freedom as a system which has good and bad aspects, instead of just bad ones .. in hopes that a more nuanced (or conflicted) view of Freedom's utility would slow down or stop regulatory activity aimed at ZKS. >Maybe in the long run, it's right to view any objections as being little >more than irrelevant, moralistic hand-waving. But I don't find the "they're >going to compromise it anyway so why not make a buck when we can" line of >reasoning particularly satisfying. Well, no, it's not especially elegant or poetic, but it's simple economics, which are at the heart of both successful business and successful cryptography. If ZKS refused to sell to NSA, what would have changed, except for their ability to crow "We told NSA to fuck off!" ..? >All place-in-the-pecking-order issues aside, roughly how long do you think >it's going to take before "dissident-grade untraceability" becomes a >reality? If anyone deigns to show me why the prospects are better >than "bleak", I'd love to be proven wrong. "Dissident-grade untraceability" (DGU) is an elusive goal - if you look at what's theoretically possible, we've got it now (and have had it for ~ 20 years, albeit with an unfriendly UI). If you look at what's deployed, we'll probably never get there, because it's a multi-layered problem, where holes appear in layers far beyond the control of any individual or organization. Maybe ZKS can give me really great privacy within the 7-layer stack, but they can't do anything about someone torturing me until I confess to crimes I did (or didn't) commit, or undercover agents who pretend to be fellow dissidents but are actually secret policemen, or snoopy busybodies who notice that every time I use the computer at the local cybercafe, a few hours later a new issue of The Squealing Rodent hits Usenet full of irresponsible rumors about the Administration .. or that during the months I was on "vacation" in solitary confinement, no new issues were published. DGU is just like other kinds of security - it's not a product or service you can buy from someone, even if you're really careful to pick the right vendor. Maybe you can pick a vendor who does a good job within their area of responsibility - and maybe you can pick a vendor who'll tell you really clearly which problems they solve and which problems they don't - but it's silly to expect anyone (be it ZKS or SafeWeb or anonymous remailers or anyone else) to provide perfect untraceability on a silver platter, such that users don't need to pay any attention themselves. You'll never get real-world perfect untraceability if you've got human beings at the ends of the "anonymous" communication pipes. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles(a)well.com "We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids

1 0