December 2002 - cypherpunks-legacy

Hooray for TIA
by Nomen Nescio 11 Dec '02

11 Dec '02

[I'm not happy with the tone of this, but I'm forwarding it as privacy politics is pretty clearly on topic... --Perry] For years we cypherpunks have been telling you people that you are responsible for protecting your own privacy. Use cash for purchases, look into offshore accounts, protect your online privacy with cryptography and anonymizing proxies. But did you listen? No. You thought to trust the government. You believed in transparency. You passed laws, for Freedom of Information, and Protection of Privacy, and Insurance Accountability, and Fair Lending Practices. And now the government has turned against you. It's Total Information Awareness program is being set up to collect data from every database possible. Medical records, financial data, favorite web sites and email addresses, all will be brought together into a centralized office where every detail can be studied in order to build a profile about you. All those laws you passed, those government regulations, are being bypassed, ignored, flushed away, all in the name of National Security. Well, we fucking told you so. And don't try blaming the people in charge. You liberals are cursing Bush, and Ashcroft, and Poindexter. These laws were passed by the entire U.S. Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike. Representatives have the full support of the American people; most were re-elected with large margins. It's not Bush and company who are at fault, it's the whole idea that you can trust government to protect your privacy. All that data out there has been begging to be used. It was only a matter of time. And you know what? It's good that this has happened. Not only has it shown the intellectual bankruptcy of trust-the-government privacy advocates, it proves what cypherpunks have been saying all along, that people must protect their own privacy. The only way to keep your privacy safe is to keep the data from getting out there in the first place. Cypherpunks have consistently promoted two seemingly contradictory ideas. The first is that people should protect data about themselves. The second is that they should have full access and usability for data they acquire about others. Cypherpunks have supported ideas like Blacknet, and offshore data havens, places where data could be collected, consolidated and sold irrespective of government regulations. The same encryption technologies which help people protect their privacy can be used to bypass attempts by government to control the flow of data. This two-pronged approach to the problem produces a sort of Darwinian competition between privacy protectors and data collectors. It's not unlike the competition between code makers and code breakers, which has led to amazing enhancements in cryptography technology over the past few decades. There is every reason to expect that a similar level of improvement and innovation can and will eventually develop in privacy protection and data management as these technologies continue to be deployed. But in the mean time, three cheers for TIA. It's too bad that it's the government doing it rather than a shadowy offshore agency with virtual tentacles into the net, but the point is being made all the same. Now more than ever, people need privacy technology. Government is not the answer. It's time to start protecting ourselves, because nobody else is going to do it for us. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)wasabisystems.com

1 0

Re: Digital Bearer Settlements Wiki
by R. A. Hettinga 11 Dec '02

11 Dec '02

At 10:32 PM -0500 on 12/9/02, Myers W. Carpenter wrote: > Apparently we still haven't. <g> I was waiting to beef up the site with more > interesting bits and pieces, but you lot are welcome to have a look around. > > The link is: > > http://cryptomonkey.net/dbs/ > > And yes, I run the site. *That* is extremely cool. Thank you. Very much. We definitely need to crank up a full antecedents/precedents list of people who came before me on the internet bearer transaction idea though, including, but not limited to Nick Szabo, who you have, but also folks like the Agorics guys, Eric Hughes, Tim May, and so on. We can also link to the paper that David Wyatt of CREST did about internet bearer securities transactions, Richard Rahn's testimony before Congress on them, and so on. Not to mention all the stuff the E-language people did, including Ferex :-). Cheers, RAH -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)wasabisystems.com

1 0

Re: [2600.com] Update On The Mike Maginnis Story
by Tyler Durden 10 Dec '02

10 Dec '02

eJazeera, Baby! That guy should have had a tiny laptop or something that could wisk those images off the moment an 802.l1 port was detected. (Actually, it should wisk off a copy of the photos EVERY time an 802.11 port is detected!) In addition, wouldn't it be great if he had actually had a digital camera that had the capability to auto-upload the images when sensing a WiFi link? (And since I'm wishing, perhaps it could take photographs automatically when handled...) This could result in the ironic possibility that the authorities themselves might (inadvertantly) cause the uploads, perhaps even with photos of their faces staring into the (live) camera they are examining. >From: Myers Carpenter <myers(a)maski.org> >To: cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)lne.com> >Subject: [2600.com] Update On The Mike Maginnis Story >Date: 10 Dec 2002 11:35:30 -0500 > >[ the radio interview with this guy can be found here: > http://www.2600.com/offthehook/rafiles/2002/120402.mp3 ] > >http://www.2600.com/news/display/display.shtml?id=1455 > >UPDATE ON THE MIKE MAGINNIS STORY >Posted 10 Dec 2002 08:15:20 UTC > >2600 has received a tremendous amount of correspondence regarding the >December 4th edition of "Off The Hook," and the news article that >followed, in which Mike Maginnis told his story of harassment by the >Secret Service. > >Although many readers find Maginnis's story highly believable, others >have criticized the article due to a lack of corroborating evidence. It >is true that Maginnis was given no paperwork in relation to his ordeal, >and so far no one has come forward as a witness to Maginnis's arrest >across from the Adams Mark Hotel in Denver. > >Quite a number of people have written in with similar stories of >harassment for taking pictures of everything from trains to motorcades >to public buildings. Others have expressed a degree of skepticism, some >even accusing us of all kinds of things from being anti-American to >engaging in shoddy journalism. As much as we disagree and find offense >in such statements, we actually understand much of the feeling behind >such anger. We believe this outrage is a not-so-distant relative of the >outrage that we feel when we report on stories like the Maginnis case. >In this instance, those who chose not to believe the story aimed their >anger at us for saying something they found offensive. And that's >something we can agree with - it WAS offensive. The difference is that >we also believe it was real. > >We think it's right to be skeptical when reading any news account and >that we should be treated no differently. We'd like to think that every >story reported on in the mainstream media is questioned thoroughly, >although we all know this is rarely the case. In the end, whether it's >2600 or Time, the decision on whether there is truth in a report lies >with the reader. > >This story has been frustrating for us because - like those who have >sent us mail - we want there to be a smoking gun, some way of proving >beyond any reasonable doubt that the events told to us by Mike Maginnis >were completely accurate. As is often the case in a story of injustice, >particularly when that injustice involves law enforcement, we're often >left with a solitary voice calling attention to it. When that happens, >we're faced with a difficult decision - do we not devote any attention >at all to what happened because there wasn't a crowd of witnesses? Or do >we give the person an opportunity to be heard and base our conclusions >on what they say and how they respond to questions, along with some >rudimentary fact checking? In this instance, we chose the latter and we >have no regrets at all for doing so. We believe the story is accurate >for a number of reasons. > > * First off, very little can be gained from making such accusations >against law enforcement in the town where you live. It's almost >literally like painting a big target on your back. And we all know what >happens when you piss off the Secret Service. It's unlikely someone >would put themselves in this position unless they were either completely >insane or telling the truth. At the very least, Maginnis stands to be >ridiculed for claiming to be detained by police when they deny ever >having had him in custody. > > * We were unable to find any holes or inconsistencies in the story >as Maginnis told it when interviewed on our radio program. Not one >person who has written in has been able to either. In his firsthand >account of his experience, Maginnis comes across as highly credible. We >encourage all readers to listen to the December 4th edition of "Off The >Hook," and make a personal judgment as to his credibility. Maginnis was >also completely up front about previously getting into trouble for >trespassing. That admission alone could risk his being labeled as a >troublemaker who deserved what he got. But if he wasn't telling the >truth about what happened last week, why make that admission in the >first place? > > * Maginnis has intentionally not spoken to other news media. If he >was seriously pursuing any type of political or social cause, speaking >to the major media would have been the next logical step after 2600. >There are a number of news organizations attempting to contact Maginnis >through us but he has requested that his privacy not be invaded any >further. > > * Most importantly, it's a very believable scenario. As mentioned >above, we've gotten reports of all sorts of similar encounters. They >include a man being threatened with arrest by a Secret Service agent in >front of the same hotel for overtly attempting to photograph the agent. >We've been aware of other such occurrences well before this story broke. >Those who believe such an event cannot happen in our country have simply >not been paying attention to what's been going on. It seems a foregone >conclusion that the United States is heading in a direction of increased >civil rights abuses. The case of Jose Padilla illustrates just how easy >it is to bypass due process these days. > >Now let's turn the tables and examine the other side. We contacted both >the Denver Police and the Secret Service to find out if the story was >true. They both took our information and neither of them ever got back >to us. Their silence has been deafening and it's perhaps the most >significant statement they could have made. > >We realize that there will still be people who remain unconvinced. And >so we hereby invite them to help us get to the bottom of this by proving >us wrong: The Vice President is always staying somewhere and one day >he's certain to stay somewhere near you. When that happens, simply go >down to the hotel he's staying at and take as many pictures as you can. >Be sure to photograph the snipers and the military guard as well. When >we receive pictures proving that we do indeed have the right to take >photos of public places while standing in a public place, we will be >more than happy to make that known. We will also welcome and make public >any correspondence from appropriate law enforcement agencies who wish to >say for the record that such freedoms will not be challenged in the >future. > >As it's now gotten to the point where Mike Maginnis is being harassed at >his home and even his parents are getting calls from reporters, he is >now rightfully asking to just be left alone. It took a great deal of >courage to speak out in the first place and we hope that the nightmare >he's lived through has come to an end. For the rest of us, keeping our >eyes open has never been so important. > >As always, we welcome your critiques and input. You can send mail to the >radio show at oth(a)2600.com or to our website at webmaster(a)2600.com. All >tips will be treated as confidential. _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

1 0

Re: The trend toward "signing away rights"
by Tim May 10 Dec '02

10 Dec '02

On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 07:03 AM, Trei, Peter wrote: > Reality precedes fiction. Around Boston I sometimes see > cars with an odd little sticker in the back window, white, round, > with a stylized blue car in the top half (it can also be read as > the face of someone wearing a fedora, peering out from under the > brim). > > If you put one of these stickers on your car, you are giving the > police permission to pull the car over without probable cause if > they find it on the road late at night (1am-5am, or something like > that), just to check that all is in order. > > I think it's being promoted as an anti-theft tool. This figures, that Boston is involved, as "The Practice" is set in Boston. The writers try to use local news to shape the stories they tell, as with the "ripped from the headlines" themes of other programs. And this really does raise some interesting issues which need exploration, here as well as on t.v. For example, to a kind of pure libertarian, signing away rights is permissible. Employees at corporations do it every day, and always have. Many libertarians would even support selling oneself into slavery (perhaps to pay for some operation or to provide for one's children.) And indentured servitude is easy to support. Signing away rights is also common in certain residential communities, where the local rules ("CC&Rs") may restrict all sort of activities. However, when it is government one signs rights away to, and when there are issues of what happens to those who DON'T have the "Mr. Policeman is Your Friend!" sticker on their cars, the issues are no longer about voluntarism. Vernor Vinge could probably write some good stories around these themes. --Tim May

1 0

RE: The trend toward "signing away rights"
by Trei, Peter 10 Dec '02

10 Dec '02

> Tim May[SMTP:tcmay@got.net] wrote [...] > Last night had a plot device on "The Practice" (a generally bad > show...I ought to stop watching) where nearly all residents in an > upscale burbclave had signed a pledge--reminiscent of my opening > point--where owners of cars would invite the police to stop their cars > and search them without a warrant of any kind, without even today's lax > probable cause. Obedient citizen-units would place a bumper sticker on > their vehicles giving up their Fourth Amendment expectations of being > secure in their papers and possessions. Those who didn't have the > bumper sticker, well, there are a _lot_ of cops out there with nothing > better to do between donut breaks than to stop cars without stickers > for "suspicious reasons." > > (I wonder what would happen if a bumper sticker said "I support the > Fourth Amendment. Just in case you don't, I have a gun.") > Reality precedes fiction. Around Boston I sometimes see cars with an odd little sticker in the back window, white, round, with a stylized blue car in the top half (it can also be read as the face of someone wearing a fedora, peering out from under the brim). If you put one of these stickers on your car, you are giving the police permission to pull the car over without probable cause if they find it on the road late at night (1am-5am, or something like that), just to check that all is in order. I think it's being promoted as an anti-theft tool. I prefer the "This car protected by Smith & Wesson" stickers. "They that give up essential liberties to obtain temporary safety will soon have neither libery or safety." Peter Trei

1 0

Re: Money is about expected future value....nothing more, nothing less
by Marcel Popescu 10 Dec '02

10 Dec '02

From: "Tim May" <tcmay(a)got.net> > Isn't this what I said? Yes, I agreed with you with regard to the law as it is in the UK. I corrected my mistake. Mark

1 0

RE: Photographer Arrested For Taking Pictures Of Vice President'S Hotel
by Lucky Green 10 Dec '02

10 Dec '02

James A. Donald wrote: > In general wars lead to a major temporary reduction in liberty, > but a smaller permanent reduction in liberty. Unfortunately > the war on terror will probably never end, so there will be no > recovery. I heard some governmental official on the radio the other day (I paid attention too late to catch the name) that the War on Terrorism should be won in about 60 years, at which point the American citizens would see their civil liberties returned. Obviously, only traitors, agitators, and other enemy combatants would make the outrageous claim that this war will likely last perpetually. --Lucky

1 0

Re: Digital Bearer Settlements Wiki
by Tim May 10 Dec '02

10 Dec '02

On Monday, December 9, 2002, at 07:29 PM, R. A. Hettinga wrote: > At 4:52 PM -0800 on 12/9/02, Steve Schear wrote: > > >> Haven't seen this discussed here. > > Meaning there is one, or you want to start one? SSShhh!, everyone! Don't tell Bob about Wikis and Blogs, else we'll be inundated with a dozen Wikis and Blogs like "Insta-Clearing Wiki," "Digifrancsblog," "Philodex Wiki," "Bearer Blog," and all the other cruft. > --Tim May "You don't expect governments to obey the law because of some higher moral development. You expect them to obey the law because they know that if they don't, those who aren't shot will be hanged." - -Michael Shirley

1 0

Digital Bearer Settlements Wiki
by Steve Schear 10 Dec '02

10 Dec '02

Haven't seen this discussed here. steve "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship." --Alexander Fraser Tyler

1 0

Fwd: Jon Johansen charged with "hacking his own PC"
by Steve Schear 10 Dec '02

10 Dec '02

[Another example of how desperate and morally bankrupt Hollywood has become.] >From: "Cory Doctorow" <doctorow(a)craphound.com> >Mailing-List: list boingboing-mailblog(a)yahoogroups.com; contact >boingboing-mailblog-owner(a)yahoogroups.com >Delivered-To: mailing list boingboing-mailblog(a)yahoogroups.com >Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 23:26:50 -0800 >Subject: [Boing Boing Blog] DVD hacker on trial in Norway on Monday >Reply-To: boingboing-mailblog-owner(a)yahoogroups.com > > ><http://groups.yahoo.com/> <http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups>My Groups | ><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boingboing-mailblog>boingboing-mailblog Main >Page > >Jon Johansen, the Norweigan teenager who helped crack the crypto on DVDs so >that he could watch out-of-region disks on his PC, is facing charges on >Monday in Norway. I asked a lawyer-friend about this today: if Norgeigan >law doesn't have the "anti-circumvention" stuff that the American DMCA has, >what has Jon been charged with? It turns out that the MPAA insisted that >Jon be prosecuted and that the best the Norweigan prosecutors could come up >with is a statute forbidding intruding on a computer, so they charged him >with hacking his own PC. ><http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DeCSS_prosecutions/Johansen_DeCSS_case/20021206…>Link ><http://www.quicktopic.com/boing/H/FRpxGwFFe6M2>Discuss > >-- >Posted by Cory Doctorow to <http://boingboing.net/>Boing Boing Blog at >12/6/2002 11:26:49 PM "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship." --Alexander Fraser Tyler

1 0