December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: free speech and the government
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Feb 04, 1996 14:40:51, 'Alan Olsen <alano(a)teleport.com>' wrote: > >Crypto relevence: Some people regard the ability to hide "dangerous" >information to be as "dangerous" as the information hidden. Freedom of >Speech includes the right to choose who can listen to that speech. > I do not think that his last sentence is accurate. The primary example os a group that exercises its freedom of speech (maybe even fights in the courts for it) by holding a rally in the Village Green. Does their right to hold their rally also include the right to choose who can listen to the rally speeches in the Village Green? Of course not! Fundamentally, I think that speaking is a speech issue; determining who can listen is a privacy issue. They are very much *not* the same thing. The separation is not done away with by things like the cellular phone anti-eavesdropping or satellite cable broadcast laws. (Aspects of the separation are, however, addressed by PGPhone, or rather should one say made "unaddressable". --tallpaul PS: Olsen's post did have some good themes on the nature of the internet "as public library."

1 0

The Story Lady
by A. Padgett Peterson, P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> Let me see if I understand this concept correctly. The remote site would >> pre-encrypt the transmitted data, so that when received it could be >> decrypted by the requestor according to his (or a temporarily chosen, to >> avoid disclosing the actual recipient.) public key, so as to disguise both >> the material and perhaps also the actual requestor? >Something like that, yes. As the quote went "It goes something like this...Not *exactly* like this but something...". What netscape does is to receive a signed public key, encrypt the session key, & return *that*. The session is then encrypted with a fast symmetric algo. (RC4-40 Netsape/export, IDEA - PGP). So PGP/scape would do exactly the same thing with trivial changes to the monkey-motion. Now Government approved PGP/BE - something to strive for 8*). warmly, Padgett

1 0

Jim Bell - Murderous Terrorist
by jdoe-0007＠alpha.c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr. Vulis writes: AO> Alan Olsen <alano(a)teleport.com> writes: AO> I consider Mr. Bell to be a crank and a loon. DV> You're certainly entitled to your opinion. You might be interested to know that DV> I consider Jim Bell to be highly intelligent, knowledgeable, and overall nice DV> person. I'm particularly impressed by his calm and restrained response to your DV> provocations. I've also formed a rather negative opinion of you, based on your DV> actions in this incident. Jim Bell has advocated nothing less than paid death squads using crypto as a means to hide payment to these murderous terrorists. If you can find a conspirator of murder as " highly intelligent, knowledgeable, and overall nice person" then you also are in need of immediate mental health intervention. Should the mainstream media ever get wind of Bell's lunacy it will be one more nail in the crypto-coffin spurring the Feds and international anti-crypto efforts to a frenzy. Bell is either a total fucking lunatic of the extreme right wing (having read his suck ups posts supporting General Linda Thompson) or an agent provocateur for the Feds. One is as bad as the other. To quote your own words to Mr. Olsen; " I've also formed a rather negative opinion of you, based on your actions in this incident." AO> He has no interest in any sort of honest discussion. DV> Honest or dishonest, the discussion of Jim's political views has nothing DV> to do with encryption. His plans for death squads success DEPENDS on the anonymity provided by CRYPTO! AO> He wishes to draw in others in the hope of "punishing me". DV> You're punishing yourself by destroying your credibility and carrying on this DV> silly flame war. You've kicked Jim off of "your" mailing list, pushing the DV> flame war that you've started to this list. I don't appreciate this. And you think YOU have credibility here? Sounds like you are cut from the same murderous cloth as Jim Bell. I pray that if by some freak of anarchy Bell's plan ever comes to fruition both you and Bell will be the first victims of your own murderous madness.

1 0

A Sign of the Future
by James M. Cobb 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Friend, A 02 04 96 Reuter Information Service newsstory ----------------------------------------------- GERMANS' INTERNET CRACKDOWN A SIGN OF THE FUTURE datelined BONN, Germany reports: ...growing alarm among governments at the uglier side of the worldwide computer network. What is this "uglier side"? German Research and Technology Minister Juergen Ruettgers shouts: "We cannot tolerate a situation in which anything goes." THAT intolerance is the U*G*L*I*E*S*T side of the 'Net. Last week Ruettgers declared ...that Bonn respected free speech but must also do more to regulate the Internet.... When it comes to wiping out free speech --A*N*Y*T*H*I*N*G goes! The prosecutors have even ...contacted the Deutsche Forschungsnetz, the national scien- tific research network. Following orders from the superpower, its puppet "nation states" are wrecking the genuine Internet. Nicholas Negroponte, director of MIT's Media Lab, popped up in Bonn last week to put a high gloss on the "situation": "The Internet cannot be regulated. It's not that laws aren't relevant, it's that the nation state is not relevant. [ DECEPTION IS VIOLENCE ] This is the next discussion we will have. [ If the superpower permits! ] Cyberlaw is by its nature global and [ You had better sit down... ] we're not very good at global law." Nick's a big shot at Wired magazine. So it should be no surprise to learn that Wired attacked cypherpunks in its 01 96 issue. In a fake interview with "Wired's patron saint," Marshall McLuhan is made to say (p 130): Concerns about privacy and anonymity are outdated. Cypherpunks think they are rebels with a cause, but they are really senti- mentalists. The era of politics based on private identities, anonymous indi- viduals, and independent citizens began with the French Revolution and Napoleon's armies...and ended with Hitler.... The cypherpunks are still marching to the same martial music. Please note HOW Wired equates liberty, equality, fraternity with capitalistic fascism, as David Kahn calls it. Equating the two in that manner is the same as rejecting the former while embracing the latter. Further: ending one sentence with "Hitler" while ending the very next sentence with "the same [Nazi rally] martial music" tends to identify Nazis and cypherpunks. (Of course those few cypherpunks who fancy themselves an "elite" SERVE the wolves at Wired.) Deception is violence: it accustoms people to being violated. Cordially, Jim NOTE. "...in the 1930s...capitalistic fascism did not inspire the dread among many establishment figures that communism did." --David Kahn. Kahn on Codes: Secrets of the New Cryptology. Macmillan Pub- lishing Co. 1983. Page 277. The Nando News online filename of the newsstory is: info5_28474.html Gary Wolf wrote "Channeling McLuhan. The Wired Interview with Wired's patron saint." He is executive editor of HotWired. This critical essay was composed 02 04 96.

4 3

cipherpunk mail at Netcom.com
by norm＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The list of addressees is made from the "From" fields that include "netcom.com" in CP mail that appeared on the CP list Tuesday and Wednesday last week. I have received no CP mail since then. Have you?

1 0

Re: RC2 protected by copyright?
by thad＠hammerhead.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lewis (nee' Futplex) McCarthy writes: > I think many cryptographers would agree that the S boxes in DES represent > some pretty weighty ideas indeed, and constitute an intrinsic part of the > algorithm. Offhand the precise construction of the RC2 permutation table > doesn't seem to me to be nearly as important to the strength of RC2 as the > S boxes are to DES' strength. I'm certainly no expert. But I'm a little > hesitant to dismiss the specified table as "a bit of text". > Do you think the table would be more like an idea if it turned out to be > determined by pi ? (not a rhetorical question) Yes, the table would have been more an idea, and less "just text" if it was derived from pi (as the comment in the posted code suggests...) What I was suggesting is a way to get the tremendous protection of copyright (that is, 75 year term, no filing fees, protected from birth, no secrecy required) on ciphers. Now, this was tried with video games, each Nintendo cartridge had in it something like "copyright Nintendo", as a way to try to get that protection, and I believe that they lost in court (if my memory is correct) Everyone knows the story of the compositions of the S-Boxes in DES, that they just happen to contain constants that make it difficult to attack DES with differential cryptanalysis. There are almost an infinite number of S-Boxes that would have that property (probably more that wouldn't). But if you were going to write a code that would interoperate with somebody else's DES, there is absolutely no way to do describe it except to enumerate the S-Boxes, hence perhaps violating the copyright. You can say "make it resistant to linear and differential cryptanalysis", and you may get something as good, or better, but it wouldn't interoperate. thad -- Thaddeus Beier thad(a)hammerhead.com Technology Development 408) 286-3376 Hammerhead Productions http://www.got.net/~thad

1 0

Let's get back to crypto already (enough with the FUDism)
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject says it. Idle talk can wait until legislation doesn't matter... and it won't when there's freely available source and binaries for a secure telnet, a private/anonymizing web browser/server/proxy, terminal and bbs programs, file transfers, etc. I think these are at the moment a bit more important than digital cash (when these exist, e-cash will follow). There's lots of work to be done. Whatever happened to "cypherpunks write code"? it seems that various governments are writing laws a lot faster... --- "Mutant" Rob <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" (not in quotes) for a copy of my PGP key.

1 0

retailer
by Brett Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

please send info

1 0

None
by Mr. Boffo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Could someone tell me how to quit this list, I just dont > have the time to read anything that is being sent to it. Yes. You can turn your modem off :)

2 1

Re: cipherpunk mail at Netcom.com
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:06 PM 2/4/96 -0800, Norman Hardy wrote: >The list of addressees is made from the "From" fields that include >"netcom.com" in CP mail that appeared on the CP list Tuesday and Wednesday >last week. I have received no CP mail since then. Have you? I have only received one message. Since all of the header dates are from last Tuesday, it may not count. BTW - I received it sometime between Saturday morning and Sunday night. (I was out of town over the weekend.): >Return-Path: <owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com> >Received: from toad.com by mail2 (8.6.12/Netcom) > id SAA08759; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 18:10:42 -0800 >Received: by toad.com id AA04747; Tue, 30 Jan 96 12:50:10 PST >Received: from callandor.cybercash.com by toad.com id AA04741; Tue, 30 Jan 96 >12:50:00 PST >Received: by callandor.cybercash.com; id PAA02048; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 15:54:55 >-0500 >Received: from cybercash.com(204.254.34.52) by callandor.cybercash.com via >smap (g3.0.3) > id xma002021; Tue, 30 Jan 96 15:54:28 -0500 >Received: from [204.254.34.231] by cybercash.com.cybercash.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) > id AA04051; Tue, 30 Jan 96 15:47:06 EST >Message-Id: <v02120d0ead3421ea1cee(a)[204.254.34.231]> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 15:51:24 -0400 >To: tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) >From: cme(a)cybercash.com (Carl Ellison) >Subject: Re: Denning's misleading statements >Cc: Cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Precedence: bulk > >At 20:49 1/27/96, Timothy C. May wrote: >>I've never met Dorothy Denning, so I hesitate to characterize her as a >>villainess. But certainly she's the only noted cryptographer I know of >>who's gone so far out on a limb to defend a position the vast majority of >>computer scientists, civil libertarians, and cryptographers scoff at. > >I've met some others -- most noteably Silvio Micali [but he has a financial >interest in that position]. However, DERD is the only one I've met >who is all the way over on Freeh's side. > > - Carl > > >+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ >| Carl M. Ellison cme(a)acm.org http://www.clark.net/pub/cme | >| PGP: E0414C79B5AF36750217BC1A57386478 & 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 | >| "Officer, officer, arrest that man! He's whistling a dirty song." | >+----------------------------------------------------------- Jean Ellison -+ > > > Bill ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Question of Congressional Lawmaking Power (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: >From owner-ctlug(a)ssz.com Mon Feb 5 01:59:09 1996 From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> Message-Id: <199602050759.BAA10442(a)einstein.ssz.com> Subject: Question of Congressional Lawmaking Power To: ctlug(a)ssz.com (CT-LUG Mailing List) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 01:59:02 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 7702 Sender: owner-ctlug(a)ssz.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ctlug(a)ssz.com Hi all, To those with no interest I apologize. To those who were at the meeting this evening discussing the limitations of Congress and the purported 'elastic clause', this is what I found: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARTICLE I. [Powers of Congress.] Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and common Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the authority of training and Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; -- And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe that the section that was refered to is the last sentence regarding the making of all laws necessary for carrying out the powers detailed here and elsewhere in the Constitution. This article clearly states that it is not an open ended empowerment. It covers only those items specificaly covered in the body of the Constitution. At the time it was written it was clear that the founding fathers did not want a federal government which was not hampered or constrained in its ability to pass laws and carry out duties. If a court or body makes the assertion that this article empowers Congress to make any law then they are sadly misinformed and possibly intentionaly misrepresenting the intent of the founding fathers and the limitations on Congress placed there by them. This article no more authorized (for example) the creation of the DEA, FDA, or EPA than it authorizes them to take property without just compensation. If this was taught you either through a textbook or a public school then feel cheated and lied to, you were (possibly with premeditation). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- And in regards to the limitation of federal lawmaking and questions of jurisdiction covered in the 10 amendments... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARTICLE IX. The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ARTICLE X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The intent is clear. If there is a question of jurisdiction then it will ALWAYS fall to the states or the people, and NEVER to the federal government. In short, the federal government and the Supreme Court are not and were never intended to be the last word on anything in this country. The 10th clearly leaves that to the states and the people. Neither of these Amendments have been tested or used in a court in this country for 200 years. This is a telling tale. The courts and legislative bodies (as well as any reasonable person) will see immediately that the federal government has usurped powers and duties not theirs to execute short of a constitutional amendment. This not only includes laws allowing the seizing of private property for public use without just compensation (irrespective of the source of that private property) but drug laws, food regulation laws, environmental laws, etc. The last time Congress acted in a constitutional manner regarding this was the amendments dealing with prohibition and its repeal. Since that time Congress and the courts have taken powers reserved for the states and the people and acted upon them without authorization. In short the Congress of the US has acted in a manner assuming exemption from constitutional limitations since the late 20's. What this country needs is a legal test of both the 9th and 10th amendments. Questions regarding Internet and free speech are immediately resolved as non-issues on the federal level. It also makes jurisdictional extensions such as Tennessee arresting and prosecuting a person in California for downloading files (whatever they might contain) a non sequitar unless money is exchanged (in which case Congress may tax it, not prohibit it). It also clearly prohibits outside entities such as Germany from prosecuting anyone in the US for their actions on the Internet. If Germany wishes to constrain the content of Internet that is fine. It is between Germany and its people. Another example is gun ownership. It is not a federal issue. It is a state issue and should be resolved on a state by state level. Congress has no more authority vested by the Constitution to limit a persons ownership of a water pistol or a atom bomb, and this is the way it should be. The issue is one of a state level unless Congress wishes to propose a constitutional amendment changing or revoking the 2nd. (again as it should be). I personaly refuse to support any political party which does not support and intend on testing both of these amendments. At this time there is not one political party (even the Libertarian) who will touch this issue. I strongly suggest that you demand support for these two amendments from any legislator that you might support. Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

China Censors
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The NY Times today reports on China's new rules for censoring the Internet. URL: http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/front/china-censor.html

1 0

Boston Globe and Nazism
by bob bruen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I thought this clip would be of interest. Just in case you were not sure which directionship censorship on the net was heading. Anyone remember Joe McCarthy? bob ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Boston Sunday Globe page 74, February 4, 1996. Business Review section, Highlights of the week: Jan.28-Feb.3. Goosestepping in cyberspace The politics of the Internet make strange bedfellows. When the German government moved to bar German Internet users from downloading material on a neo-Nazi net site, the free-speech-in-cyberspace crowd reacted by downloading the stuff and posting it all over the net. Joseph Goebels would be proud.

1 0

verification of randomness
by andreas＠artcom.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi... I've built a random number generator based on the noise of a Zener diode. Now I'd like to verify it's correct operation. I'd be very grateful if someone could point me to existing software for randomness tests or additional tests not mentioned in Knuth. I'll make the design of the generator available as soon as I've verified it's operation. Andreas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAgUBMRVyMUyjTSyISdw9AQHUSQP/UK3ubued8U3iB4FDO5WAsiEV+F2/100O 0w42NSZbry5+07u+l9eJN/ogpECZ9yIltWM7slkKZS0q0TGQ4zCucHoDPKhubMHs gQqjkmgXTs0drqRn+BYPoQFYPyiYLeBr67BRqsQFyp7neuMC5NN10NpL9y4bcAS2 8NBB7yFh9d0= =RD04 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Nyms with keys
by Don 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am compiling a list of PGP keys from well known nyms. I only remember a few, I was wondering if anyone could think of any others: Pr0duct Cypher CancelMoose Cypherpunk Enquirer needs one, if nothing more than for kicks Scamizat any signatures on RC2, RC4 for HP, etc. I'd swear there's a couple more but I can't think of them. Also wondering if anyone besides Bill Stewart has been done anything with nym-key-signing, especially on a first-come first-serve, no verification basis. thanks Don Discovered today that secretly replacing your computer with a can of Folgers crystals(TM) undermines all online security. I will be applying for a patent soon which uses a Mr Coffee(TM) machine to detect this invasion. PS: ObNukes: None.

2 1

Turn yourself in!
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The alt.tasteless crowd is currently discussing the CDA, with some predictable results, and some not so predictable... If you wish to participate in mass civil disobedience, follow these instructions: Send a message CC'd to your local media's net address and to justice.usdoj.gov (Department of Justice) which contains something to the effect of, "I wish to turn myself in for the crime of distributing offensive material via the Internet and as evidence, provide the following:" Attach some sort of uuencoded data to your message as "evidence". Make sure that every possible media outlet hears loud and clear that you want every last case prosecuted.

2 1

Re: [noise] Re: Charter of PDX Cpunk meetings
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 07:18 AM 2/4/96 -0800, bernardo(a)alpha.c2.org wrote: >jim bell wrote: > >>> I think an explanation for this is due. Jim is going to move his complaints >>> here instead of dealing with them with me no matter what I do... >> >> Alan Olsen is correct, here. > >This is childish and pointless. Please shut up or take it to email. Odd that you would say this, even more odd that you would post it to the Cypherpunks list. The only reason I am posting this is that you appear to be taking a remarkably similar position to Alan Olsen. > >> But he (the anonymous poster): >> 1. FLamed me on this national list, similarly to the way Alan Olsen later did. > >FWIW, this is an _international_ list with a lot of people who are >just not interested in your petty bickering. If you want to argue >about this, please do it in private. Then why didn't you send me the email directly, and NOT copy the list. Somehow, it appears you have a double standard. The only reason I'm responding to you now, ON CYPHERPUNKS, is that you appear to be hypocritically asking me to "keep it off the list" at the same time to failed to do the same yourself. Sounds like a double-standard. Your behavior is remarkably remeniscent of Alan Olsen himself. > If Alan posts responses to the >list, that's his problem. You don't _have_ to answer in public. It's been pointed out to me that because Alan flamed me in public, anonymously, on Cypherpunks, I am entitled to have it known what he did. >> 2. Failed to be willing to sustain the debate in a more appropriate list, >> even under a stable nym. > >You have something against anonymity? In this case, perhaps this list >is not the best place to be. I think you're deliberately pretending to misunderstand. I have nothing against anonymity. While a "newbie," I was under the impression that the term "stable nym" (my usage) refers to an anonymous alias that is untraceable. In fact, it was _I_ who suggested that this anonymous flamer (now apparently self-admittedly identified as Alan Olsen himself) adopt a stable nym and debate me on some other area more appropriate for the subject. While I do feel there is CP relevance to the digital cash/good encryption/network applications of "Assassination Politics," I didn't want to force this on what I would like to think of as a "not particularly political" list. (Recent topics have battered the distinction, I realize. I don't want to make it "worse," however.) >> that I had been flamed by that anonymous poster. The fact that he was >> anonymous says it all. The fact that he has not returned says it all. The > >The fact that he was anonymous says nothing whatsoever. So what if >you received some email agreeing that you'd been flamed? The point is, some people seem to agree that what this anonymous flamer did was against "nettiquette," or at least against CP typical behavior. Had he made his criticisms with a stable nym and been willing to sustain a serious debate (possibly on another area) that would have signalled that he was believeable and serious. He was not, however. >> the fact that I am relatively new here. I have no intention of inflicting >> an unwelcome discussion of "Assassination Politics" on the list, and > >Actually, and Perry may disagree here, but I'd have no objection to a >discussion of "Assassination Politics", or any other nutty political >theories, as long as we can stick to reasonably mature discussion and >not flames and petty ego boosting. "..other nutty political theories"? Harummmph! Well, I guess you got your "not so subtle" dig in, there. I'd like to see a bit more widespread approval of such a discussion before actively starting it, anyway, especially by some of the "old-timers" here. (Sadly, as I newbie, I don't really even know who the "old timers" are!) But recently, there's been too much traffic anyway! >> suffered any longterm loss of reputation of his own. I, on the other hand, >> use my REAL NAME. > >Whoopie! A True Name! Big deal. I care not one jot whether or not >you use your REAL NAME. I have no way of knowing if it is, in fact, >your real name. Should it make a difference? Not necessarily. As I pointed out before, I'm happy to debate a stable nym (a term I learned only a few weeks ago, BTW). But completely anonymous flames from a person who cuts and runs does not improve the S/N ratio of this or any other list. >No one is going to "suffer any longterm loss of reputation" by >disagreeing with you, or anyone else, whether or not they use a nym >(or anonymity). I didn't want anybody to even be able to use the excuse of "I feared for my life debating with that vile purveyor of that wacky idea, 'Assassination Politics.' " I invited him to use a stable nym. >> Only a fool would have taken an anonymous flamer seriously under those >> circumstances. > >An anonymous post is no less valid for being anonymous. You may be surprised that I absolutely agree. However, the post was not merely "anonymous" but flaming, and the poster didn't stick around. In other words, its anonymity didn't do it in, the motivation of the poster did, however. > The only >advantage of a stable nym, whether or not it's a True Name, is the >ability to gain (or lose) reputation through the content of its >posts. Perhaps a nym with some reputation is taken more seriously >than an anonymous poster, but so is an unknown nym. Neither you nor >Alan has any reputation to speak of (to me, at least), so an anonymous >post has no less. But on the other hand, a flaming "debate" on CP doesn't help any of YOU guys, the other readers of CP. >>> Jim ignored that request and I removed him from the list. >> >> Read: "Alan Olsen exercised his authority in his own personal fiefdom, the >> "PDX Cypherpunks list." > >Are you saying he doesn't have that right? If it's his list, he can >do whatever the hell he likes with it. No, I merely translated "Olsen-speak" into language most of the rest of us could understand. He had that right. On the other hand, the exercise of this right displays Olsen's behavior for all to see. I wanted there to be no doubt on the national list what Alan Olsen was doing. >> On the contrary, I have no interest in dealing with this sleazy character in >> email. He was the one who chose a national list to do his flaming and >> baiting, and I think he deserves full "credit." > >In other words, you are not interested in resolving any problem you >have with Alan, you just to make a lot of noise in public in an >attempt to "embarrass" him. Go play on some other list where this >kind of thing is appreciated. > >>> The following is the last I will say publically on the matter. >> >> You're going to take your bat and ball and "go thwait home!" You hear your >> mommy calling, Alan. > >This list periodically devolves into this childishness. I'm glad Alan >is not going to say any more. I am, too. > I award Alan 20 Reputation Points for >being mature enough to walk away (delayed long enough to see whether >he does) As long as the record reflects his misbehavior, I am satisfied as well. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMRVpWfqHVDBboB2dAQEzVgQAgIjr4L3tYYgoIAe+H25y8b/Z+mIRq+xz HaTNntpFyBmIO3hGFLYNW90QurXd0sFHgRQJ0ohN103buI1j1NkqX1O7seKv3FaG 0png19/IkbrssZ7QwXUJU5tVuRY9h6eGi7pt2Rdj/OpkL3neyqKmYu3UmmOHZtMa j2R/pWwdCwE= =WXd4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Jamming and privacy problem
by Phil Agre 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The emissions tracking proposal might have another sort of relevance to cryptography. Assuming (it's a big assumption, but entertain it for a moment) that we agree that some type of automatic enforcement mechanism for emissions-based repairs were a good thing, how could it be built without identifying any individuals to the authorities? What I find so utterly over-the-top about the ARB proposal is that it is capable of maintaining records on everybody everywhere, whether they are violating any laws or not. Of course they'll promise to protect privacy, and they may even promise not to capture any records for people whose emissions fault codes come up clean (though they say nothing about this in the RFP). But such assurances would be nonsense, since once the system is in place a simple software change would cause the system to revert back to the total-surveillance functionality described in the RFP. The key, then, is designing systems so that simple software changes under the control of the authorities can turn them into instruments of oppression. This design consideration is hard to even formulate accurately in the context of traditional system design methodologies, which assume that everything in sight comes with identifiers and that *the* way for a system to relate to something is to represent it in terms of those identifiers. Digital cash and other such schemes are so profound precisely because they break with this underlying assumption, forcing systems to think thoughts like "this person (whoever s/he may be) has paid $1 to travel on this road", "this person (whoever s/he may be) is eligible for an upgrade to first class", "this person (whoever s/he may be) is obeying emissions laws", and so on. Philosophers and linguists call these "indexical" (or, more precisely, "deictic") because they identify an individual contextually without appealing to a name or other universal identifier. Phil

1 0

Fair Credit Reporting Act and Privacy Act
by Frank Willoughby 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FWIW, while the goal of the cypherpunks in helping to promote secure private communications by making encryption publicly available on a worldwide scale, definitely helps socially backward countries which have dictators (communist or otherwise), it misses its mark somewhat in the USA. Personally, I think that in the USA, this is treating the symptom, but not the disease. Probably the easiest way of ensuring that personal information isn't wantonly distributed by credit agencies or (anyone else) is to update our Privacy Act - which is ridiculously out-of-date and badly in need of being re-written. It is also hampered by its apparent lack of teeth. My personal recommendation would be a law like Germany's BDSG. The BDSG (BundesDatenSchutzGesetz which translates to: Federal Information/Data Protection Law (aka Privacy Act). Even better would be a law like the one in Austria (which I understand has the world's strictest privacy act. (Hooray for the Austrians). 8^) If the Privacy Act were rewritten to be as strict as the BDSG, businesses would have a (mandatory) legal requirement to: o Ensure that personal data is stored properly (by encrypting it, etc) o Ensure that personal data is not distributed o Ensure that databases are *not* being maintained which describe the characteristics of individuals (buying habits, income, property ownership, etc) wantonly propagated by marketing (direct mail, telemarketing, etc) companies. (Note that credit bureaus still have a function, but they would be (forced to be) responsible for ensuring that compliance with the Privacy Act would be maintained. This could result in better safeguards being implemented by the credit bureaus.) resulting in the following by-products: o the promotion of the use & implementation of encryption - including the possibility of ITAR being reduced or eliminated for the export of encryption products o reduced propagation of personal information o reduced amount of junk mail that winds its way to our mailboxes each day 8^) o reduced amounts of tele-marketing 8^) If pressure were brought to bear on the law-makers to rewrite the Privacy Act to give it qualities like the BDSG, etc, then this would significantly help achieve the cypherpunks' goal of promoting secure private communications. (I realize this isn't the only goal of the c'punks, but its a start). As the changes would be made within "the system" as opposed to outside of it, there would be virtually no hassle from the government. IOW, changing the Privacy Act will probably solve a variety of problems while achieving the c'punks goal of secure personal communications. Food for thought. Best Regards, Frank <standard disclaimer> The opinions expressed above are of the author and may not necessarily be representative of Fortified Networks Inc. Fortified Networks Inc. - Management & Information Security Consulting Phone: (317) 573-0800 - http://www.fortified.com/fortified Home of the Free Internet Firewall Evaluation Checklist

1 0

RE: Protecting the innocent on the nets
by A. Padgett Peterson, P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David rote: >If so, then using the dictionary as the key seems bad---the >compression dictionary is not designed to obscure the data, but to aid >in compression. The dictionary might well be easy to guess. For >example, some compression schemes use a Huffman coding on their >dictionary. If so, one can guess that short pointers into the >dictionary correspond to common plaintext strings. Using such a >dictionary as an encryption system is security through obscurity. Oh Heavens to Betsy, I was not trying to describe *crypto*, that might be regulated. Was describing a mechanism to comply with the new Scudderite laws concerning protecting the innocent from nasty sights. Figure it this way: can duplicate CD-Roms for a quarter. If a subscription costs $19.95/yr then who is going to bother with cloning it ? "controlled circulation" magazines would save postage. Web pages could be posted with nothing but pointers (don't tell me you have never sat waiting for a little red bar to reach the end) and assurance that only a specified audience could look at the pretty pictures (which compress the best of all 8*). Further, if the intent is to satisfy a law then would this not be a "good faith" attempt to do so ? Zippy's friends have decided what is not safe to be on the net in the clear but they have not said what it takes to protect the innocent while allowing consenting adults their freedom to communicate. If I want good crypto I just use PGP (and the Enclyptor makes it real easy). This is something completely different. Warmly, Padgett

1 0

Re: free speech and the government
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:25 PM 2/4/96 +0000, Stephan Mohr wrote: >Actually, I am glad that the whole story started over some neo-nazi stuff >and not a recipe to easily make a very potent poison. For some strange reason, people believe it is difficult to find information on such things. I picked up my copy of _Poisons and Poisoners_ by C. J. S. Thompson at Barnes and Noble in the discount section for $9.98. Books on the topic can also be picked up in bookstores catering to Murder Mystery fans. (Some excelent descriptions of esoteric poisons can be derived from these books.) "Forbidden" information is hard to forbid with the existance of the printing press. Electronic networks make the information even more available. Are you suggesting that we burn all the books with "dangerous" information? And who's definition of "danger" do we take? Yours? Mine? The National Council of Churches? Crypto relevence: Some people regard the ability to hide "dangerous" information to be as "dangerous" as the information hidden. Freedom of Speech includes the right to choose who can listen to that speech. Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ Is the operating system half NT or half full?

1 0

No Subject
by karl.ike＠sihope.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Attila: I'm not in the business of running or hiding. I'm just an average, everyday working guy that doesn't like credit reporting agencies, what they stand for or what they do for money. I didn't say that I was going to do this. I just had the idea! I don't have the knowledge or the money to spend. That doesn't mean that there is someone out there that would jump at the idea. I just don't like the idea that these assholes know more about me than my mother and sell my private and personal information to anyone for big bucks. My credit is fine, just ask my banker or better yet, my mom. I am assumming that you know far more people on the internet since I have only been on for a month and have done three e-mail. I'm just suggesting to get the idea out and someone will take the ball and run. Yes, they will be a hunted man, but not a US citizen. Someone out there with a laptop and a cellular, living on a cruise ship, just may enjoy the idea. Just me, Karl

1 0

Re: Encryption and Backups
by Robert A. Rosenberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 20:33 2/4/96, John Pettitt wrote: >On Sun, 4 Feb 1996, Alan Olsen wrote: > >> Something that I have not seen addressed is the need for strong encryption >> in backup software. >> >> Most backup software has an "encryption" option, but I have seen few that >> have anything resembling strong encryption. Furthermore, I have seen no >> real push for strong encryption for backups at all. >> ... >> Might be an idea for a product there... (And you can bet law enforcement >> would throw a hissy fit about its existence.) >> >CP Backup (part of PC Tools for Central Point aka Symantec) has DES. As to >how good the implementation is: I have no idea. Retrospect (a Mac Tape/Floppy Backup Utility) also has an Encryption Option I think.

1 0

RE: [NOISE] Futplex makes the news!
by A. Padgett Peterson, P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

OK, I give up. Took off the head phones connected to the TO, went downstairs, set the V-15 Type II on the Dual 1019 to 7/8 gm. Patched to the Pioneer 1500TD amp feeding front AR-5's and rear AR-2ax's, cranked to "pain" and spun some vinyl. "Freedom's just anotha' word foa nothin' left to lose." - Janis Joplin & Full Tilt Boogie Band, Columbia PC 32168 (first one I found in the pile - believe the original was on a album with her standing spraddlelegged with the big grin - is here *somewhere*. Credit on th record was K. Kristofferson and F. Foster. (Had to go downstairs, contrary to popular belief, everything is not in my den 8*). warmly, Padgett

1 0

Songs, Janis, Left to Lose, and Salinas
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:57 AM 2/5/96, "A. Padgett Peterson, P.E. Information Security" <PADGETT@hobbe wrote: >OK, I give up. Took off the head phones connected to the TO, went downstairs, >set the V-15 Type II on the Dual 1019 to 7/8 gm. Patched to the Pioneer 1500TD >amp feeding front AR-5's and rear AR-2ax's, cranked to "pain" and spun some >vinyl. You might want to explain to the GenXers what "vinyl" is. >"Freedom's just anotha' word foa nothin' left to lose." - Janis Joplin & >Full Tilt Boogie Band, Columbia PC 32168 (first one I found in the pile - >believe the original was on a album with her standing spraddlelegged with >the big grin - is here *somewhere*. Credit on th record was K. Kristofferson >and F. Foster. (Had to go downstairs, contrary to popular belief, everything >is not in my den 8*). Speaking of this song, I live "near Salinas." --Tim Boycott espionage-enabled software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0