December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: THAT is what makes John Gilmore an ASSHOLE!
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

aga <aga(a)dhp.com> writes: > > > > If you send mail to "cypherpunks(a)toad.com", either directly, OR > > in a "Cc:" which is a 'carbon copy', it will goto the the cypherpunks > > mailing list WETHER YOU ARE SUBSCRIBED OR NOT. It still goes. > > > > Well, that is really a fuck-up by John Gilmore, is it not? > Just when is the asshole going to learn how to run a mailing list? Never, but he might get some Cygnus support employee to do it for him. :-) John has the right to configure his private mailing list to reject submissions from non-subscribers or even sepecific people - but not the balls. > > In any case trying to reason with you is like trying to talk > > to a tree stump. It's giving me a headache. So I'm not going > > to accept any mail from you any more. Anything you send that > > get's to me via the cypherpunks mailing list, or via direct > > mail from yourself will be returned unread, to you. I'm not > > under any obligation to accept any traffic from you, so I won't. > > Good, just tell Gilmore what an asshole he is for letting > mail go to his mailing list that is not intended to go there. > And stop sending me your stupid e-mail. Send this shit to > usenet like Mr. Boursy told you to do. Again John Gilmore/EFF demonstrate their true agenda: they can filter out the e-mail they don't like, but they want to prevent others from reading it as well. Clearly their concern for free speech extends only to their corporate sponsors, such as net.pronography peddlers. > > You may have a right to a voice, but I have a right not to listen > > I'm not going to infringe on your right to rant, but damned if > > I have to listen to a single packet of it. The saw cuts both ways. > > time for the alt.asshole.john-gilmore newsgroup An excellent idea, Dr. Grubor! Shall we newgroup alt.flame.john-gilmore or alt.bonehead.john-gilmore or both? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

MSIE 128 Bit
by Steve Shelby 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Sat Nov 16 11:56:26 1996 "WorkHorse's interface is pretty ugly and the rendition is buggy, but the SSL connection does work: I got through mbanx's "Sign in" link at http://www.mbanx.com/banxing/5welcome.html , whereas MSIE and NS3 were kicked out due to their 40-bit RC4 limit." - ---- Microsoft has a 128 bit version of their Explorer available. You have to jump through a few hoops, but they have it. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMo3yP0F1dOf86f8dAQHs1QQAwYuTk5Lqvb2vBgvOVef1ToFIUtG5JN70 dBmD8JM23N0ZROsF03+wFGUT71pMAuu3BjuJQBOm0r9idPBwdcq6CaVf8QoU5+/Q tbj6b9PFx9EbpE4bZqoGPf3ePRFg6ImMSdyKDeM5vIMKJO8BwQZugqP2CgblkzlG yvEgPyiUlek= =ZlSn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Does John Gilmore...
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:37 AM 11/16/96 -0800, Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> wrote: [snip] >I have a suggestion for "Aga" and others who believe this sort of >nonsense. Please do us all a favor and try to sue John. I'm sure >that among all jack-leg and wannabe lawyers on this list that they >can come up with a viable cause of action. And John has deep >pockets; you could (literally) make out like bandits AND rescue >"freedom of speech" on privately maintained mailing lists. Such a case would obviously fail. John has the right to ban anyone he wants from a list that he is hosting. I do question, though, whether or not it was the best way to handle the situation. As I have argued, the availability of end-user filtering made banning Dimitri from the list unnecessary, IMHO. And the list owner giving people the boot sure doesn't fit with the picture I have had of what cypherpunks was about. YMMV. I think that John is doing a lot of great things for crypto (his participation in the Bernstein case, S/WAN, etc.) and I agree with at least 90% of the things I see him doing. I think he made the wrong call with Dimitri, though. >You >could be heroes (or look ten times as foolish as you already do). Actually, if John was trying to cut down on the noise by banning the Kook, I think it's backfired. It seems like there is even more irrational chatter now... Rich -- Rich Burroughs richieb(a)teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/

3 2

HP does it
by mael＠umcc.umcc.umich.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9611/15/encryption.reut/index.html Hewlett-Packard to unveil encryption 'breakthrough' encryption links November 15, 1996 Web posted at: 9:00 p.m. EST PALO ALTO, California (Reuter) -- Hewlett-Packard Co. said Friday that it will unveil technology Monday that will provide a breakthrough in the long-deadlocked debate over use of software encoding for secure data traffic. If the encryption technology has won the backing of industry and the U.S. and other governments -- which Hewlett-Packard officials say is the case -- the development could eliminate a key obstacle to the growth of electronic commerce via the Internet. Hewlett-Packard Chairman Lewis Platt will provide details on the technology, which includes technology patented by the Palo Alto computer giant as well as other technologies, a company spokesman said. Technology from RSA Data Corp. the de facto standard-setter for Internet security, will be involved Hewlett-Packard officials said. Senior Microsoft Corp. and Intel Corp. executives were also scheduled to attend Monday's news briefing at the National Press Club in Washington, Hewlett-Packard officials said. The technology will make it possible to export products containing so-called "strong encryption," which have not been exportable under national security laws dating back to the Cold War. Under national security law, the U.S. government has allowed the export of software and other computer products containing only "weaker" data encryption technologies. Encryption has been classified as a munition because of its potential for use by terrorists, spies or other criminals to conceal messages. Encryption programs use mathematical formulae to scramble confidential information, such as electronic mail messages or credit card numbers, rendering them unreadable to computer users without a password or "software key" that can decode the coded material. For years the domestic computer industry has complained that such government restrictions have hampered its competitiveness in world markets, and that its customers did not necessarily want the government to be able to decode internal data. The industry says the laws have prevented it from offering some of the most recent Internet technologies, even within the United States, because it is impossible to prevent computer users outside U.S. borders from gaining access to technologies publicly available on the Internet. Companies and their customers want to use encryption to protect confidential communications and electronic commerce. Silicon Valley executives recently noted that consumer devices, such as WebTV Network's Web-browsing television device that hit store shelves this autumn, use the same levels of strong encryption as used in military systems. WebTV said it is using keys composed of 128 bits, or characters, of data to encode and decode its communications to its set-top boxes providing consumers with the best level of security available over the Internet. The government recently proposed that the constraint be eliminated by providing a key recovery system, in which authorities could recover keys to crack messages if they received a court warrant to do so. Industry has rebuffed this as difficult to manage. The solution being offered by Hewlett-Packard would be flexible, allowing customers to use the levels of encryption required by different governments, the company said. "This is going to allow very strong encryption," said a spokeswoman. Hewlett-Packard said its technology would provide a means of "solving the data security and integrity issues that have impaired and frightened users and companies from exploiting the full power of the Internet." Copyright 1996 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.

1 0

[NOISE] aga isn't on cypherpunks... (and I'm glad)
by Tim Scanlon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

all, "aga(a)dhp.com", that 'aga' guy, is NOT subscribed to cypherpunks. What has and is going on is that he was blindly Cc'ing cypherpunks on everything he wrote that had to do with this... I exchanged some mail with the guy, he didn't understand AT ALL that "cypherpunks(a)toad.com" was a mailing list address. He seemed to think that he had to be "subscribed" to the list in order for any traffic to goto it. When I pointed out to him that this was not the case, his attitude was that it was not his fault and that the list was "broken" etc. If you havn't figured it out, BELIVE ME, talking to this guy is a definative waste of packets. He's ranting with basicly no clue about how he's doing the ranting... And this stuff has now been cross-posted to about 6 newsgroups by him, in addtion to the 3 mailing lists he's been sending it to. I ended up asking him why he wasn't jsut cutting to the chase and posting "Make Money Fast" stuff instead. (he didn't seem to get it.) I'd suggest ignoring him & hoping he goes away. As it is it was a MAJOR mistake of mine to even attempt to interject sanity into the whole stupid thread on this... Why? Because there's better things to worry about in life. Like this H/P crypto announcment... Or anything crypto related for that matter. As it is the thread continues like some bad crack-addled version of the energizer bunny. Tim PS, I just realized my dog does better at staying focused on doing tricks that this list does on staying focused on crypto... That's a bit scary.

3 2

Re: THAT is what makes John Gilmore an ASSHOLE!
by Dr. Jai Maharaj 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> time for the alt.asshole.john-gilmore newsgroup > An excellent idea, Dr. Grubor! Shall we newgroup > alt.flame.john-gilmore or alt.bonehead.john-gilmore > or both? In that case, can Gilmore's inclusion in the NetScum site at http://www.mindspring.com/~netscum be far behind? Jai Maharaj %:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:% Om Shanti %:%:%

1 0

More Euro Key Escrow
by Ben Laurie 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've looked more closely at the "Royal Holloway" protocol, supposedly under consideration by the EC for key escrow in Europe, though I must say that anyone who deploys it will get what they deserve. I have discovered some further weaknesses in the protocol, documented at: http://www.algroup.co.uk/crypto/rh.html Comments are welcome. Cheers, Ben. -- Ben Laurie Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435 Email: ben(a)algroup.co.uk Freelance Consultant and Fax: +44 (181) 994 6472 Technical Director URL: http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL A.L. Digital Ltd, Apache Group member (http://www.apache.org) London, England. Apache-SSL author

2 1

Don't Feed the Animals!
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fact is, I now have more people in my Eudora filter file that at any time in the four years this list has existed. Also a fact, there are more people on this list that at any time in history (despite what some of the New Wave journalists are writing about "the death of the Cypherpunks list"). Fact is, the attention being given to Vulis, Aga, Stathis, Boursy, and other list disruptors (or clueless cross-posters) is _exactly_ what they thrive on: controversy. Being the center of so much attention strokes their egos. I suspect John Gilmore made a tactical error in kicking Vulis off the list, as there are so _many_ workarounds. Vulis is clearly posting more messages, of even greater vitriol, than ever before. Dozens of messages just so far today. And his supporters and detractors are chiming in with equally juvenile taunts. This "aga" personna, for example, seems dead-set on doing whatever he can to get himself added to the "Unwelcome on Cypherpunks" list. A predictable effect, I'm afraid. Not that I question John's right to do as he pleases with his machines. This list is, after all, operated at his expense on his hardware. [A minor note, though. I disagree with the abstract notion that John "created" the list, and now "owns" the list. Eric Hughes, Hugh Daniel, and I proposed a mailing list after the first Cypherpunks meeting, and Hugh set it up. John volunteered his machine, toad, as he has volunteered it for so many other projects in the past. While John is in an important sense free to discontinue his hosting of the list, it is also true that traditional notions of "ownership" are not the full story. For example, if the San Francisco Marriot Hotel plays host to the CFP Conference, in any sense is it proper to say they "own" the conference? If a church volunteers space for a club meeting, do they "own" the club? However, in both cases the host may kick out an especially uncouth or disruptive attendee, modulo specific contract language agreed to by the parties, and this is, I think, all John has claimed to be doing with Vulis. Perhaps a mistake, but certainly within reason. I think John has taken a hands-off attitude toward the list, and has never imposed restrictions on topic, membership, etc. This one case involving Vulis was well-described by John: he asked Vulis to stop sending 50K byte rants about the Armenians and Turks to the list--consider that 50KB x 1500 destinations = 75 MB of outgoing traffic, modulo corrections for aliases, compression, etc. Vulis responded with more insults, basically saying "Make me!!!!" Gilmore said, "OK."] And the issue is not just killfiles and filters. It's a matter of not giving the juvenile disruptors the results they crave. Yes, this message is itself likely to trigger at least a couple of "More lies from Timmy [fart] May" spews from Vulis, and a couple of incoherent rants from newcomers Stathis and Aga. I've been saying little on this issue, compared to dozens of Vulis rants every day (ironic that he calls _me_ the main ranter!), but it's time to remind folks of a basic Net maxim: DON'T FEED THE ANIMALS. --Tim May "The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos,.."We warned IBM that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology." [NYT, 1996-10-02] We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

6 5

Re: Members of Parliament Problem
by Hal Finney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk > You could also have an arbitrated blind signature protocol whereby > trent shares a keypair with all users. bob encrypts his comment, M > with the key he shares with trent. On recieving it trent carries out > a blind signature on it and publishes it, as trent knows only bob has > the shared key, K he knows bob said M but as it is a blind sigature > and he is likely to be signing a lot of messages (trent is of course > a computer program) he doesn`t know which message came from bob. I don't quite follow how this would work. If Trent issues a blind signature, then that means (doesn't it?) that he doesn't see what he is signing. So how can he confirm that the message is actually from a member of the group when he doesn't see it? > Also Chaums group signatures could be used but unfortunately the > arbitrator can find out who said what, but does not normally know. > Also trent can forge digital signatures with this protocol. > Chaum further mentions protocols for this sort of thing that do not > even need an arbitrator but I don`t have the papers on this. Not all of Chaum's proposals in the original paper from Eurocrypt 91 have this property. Here is what he has, somewhat simplified. Z is the trusted party for those protocols which use one. 1) Each group member makes up a key which he will use for one signature. Z signs each key to certify that it is a member of the group. People don't re-use keys so that messages are unlinkable. Z can tell who sent which message since he knows the keys. 2) Z publishes an RSA modulus N, gives each group member a secret exponent si, and publishes v = the product of all the si. Members sign message m by producing m**si mod N. Then to confirm the signature they engage in a zero knowledge protocol to prove that the signature is of the proper form and that si divides v (without revealing si). Chaum gives a protocol for this. 3) Z again publishes an RSA modulus N, and each group member chooses his own RSA modulus Ni = pi * qi. To sign message m he produces m**pi mod N. He then proves in zero knowledge that the signature is of the proper form and that pi divides the product of all the Ni (without revealing pi). This is the same zero knowledge protocol as in (2) above. 4) Members agree on a large public prime p with generator g. Each member chooses a secret exponent si with public key ki = g**si mod p. (This is a standard discrete log cryptosystem setup.) To sign message m he produces m**si mod p. He must then prove in zero knowledge that the signature is of the proper form and that si is the private exponent corresponding to the public key of some group member, without revealing exactly which group member it is for. The protocol for this is not very efficient. It uses a cut and choose concept and has to be iterated multiple times. In methods 1, 2, and 3, Z can tell who made a signature. In method 2, Z can forge signatures for other members. Method 4 doesn't use a trusted party. Method number 4 is very similar to Chaum's original proposal for undeniable signatures, although the zero knowledge proof is very different since he doesn't want to reveal which particular key his exponent corresponds to. In the Eurocrypt 94 paper by Chen and Pederson they show a very nice protocol for proving that you know the exponent corresponding to one of a set of Diffie Hellman public keys. This is similar to the problem in (4) above. Given k1=g**s1, k2=g**s2, ..., you can prove that you know one of the si without revealing which one. The protocol is pretty simple and just requires one challenge and response, although the amount of data sent is proportional to the number of ki in the set. This could be used to prove group membership anonymously. If there were a list published of public keys of people on the cypherpunks list, you could prove you were on that list without revealing your identity. I think it could be made a signature protocol by having the challenge c depend on a hash of the message. But the authors don't do it that way, they do a more complicated protocol because they are seeking to achieve unconditional rather than cryptographic anonymity. Hal

2 1

Re: Remailer Abuse Solutions
by Hal Finney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Bryan Reece <reece(a)taz.nceye.net> > But what about Okamoto and Ohta's digital cash scheme published in > Crypto '91? It appears to be fully untraceable and transferable. Of > course, I haven't heard of anyone trying to use this scheme (has it > been broken?) This digital cash scheme has a big disadvantage which the authors try to play down. The problem is that all spending by a particular user is linkable. It can't be connected to his True Name but all of it is linked, in effect, to his nym. This is bad because it allows profiling and dossiers to be built up about nyms with interesting spending patterns, which could then be used to identify which ones should be candidates for intensive efforts to discover their identity. Most other digital cash schemes don't allow linkability of the payor's activities, which is a much better approach. Hal

1 0

Re: San Jose Mercury News declares encryption battle over
by Hal Finney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From the article <URL:http://www.sjmercury.com/business/compute/encrypt1115.htm>: > Under the plan computer makers could equip their machines, including > personal computers, with electronic ''locks'' of almost any strength. A > single computer model with strong built-in encryption could legally be > sold in both domestic and foreign markets. > > The key is that the encryption circuitry would be inactive in exported > machines, unless both buyer and seller obtained all legally required > licenses to turn it on. > > Domestic customers, and export buyers with a license, would get a special > key card to turn on the encryption, according to HP. Manufacturers would > thus be relieved of the burden of making different computers for export > than for domestic use. So it sounds like the idea is to build crypto around card tokens. I think HP has been pushing this for some time. The question is, will this somehow become the only way to get access to crypto? Unlike the earlier IBM/CIA announcement, this time Netscape and Microsoft have apparently been brought on board. That is a lot worse because these companies are where most people are going to get their crypto in the future. If they have open standards, we can make good crypto available. But if this announcement signals some kind of closing of the system so that only hardware tokens will be used, it could become a lot harder to make strong crypto available. There are also the economic questions about how much these key cards are going to cost, and whether they are going to be routinely supplied with computers or an extra cost item that consumers have to go out and buy. If the latter, a lot of people won't bother, and we'll just have that much larger a barrier to widespread use of crypto. It is certainly very disturbing to see these new moves. Obviously a great deal of behind the scenes negotiations and pressure has been occuring. You have to wonder why Netscape, for example, would forego the opportunity to differentiate themselves from rival Microsoft by positioning their product as the one which refuses to bow to government pressure on crypto. It's also not clear what the hardware manufacturers get out of this. Their sales overseas have never been blocked. There has been no demand for custom crypto hardware. I don't see how they have been harmed by an inability to ship computers with built-in encryption hardware. Granted there are some possible applications for such systems but I don't see the market demand which would drive this decision. Hal

7 7

PGP acquires PrivNet
by Hal Finney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The company I work for, PGP, Inc., announced yesterday that it had bought PrivNet, makers of Internet Fast Forward cookie-blocking software. More info is on the PGP web site at http://www.pgp.com/. Personally I have a passionate and irrational hatred of cookies so I am very glad to see this move! I can accept them if I'm browsing through an online store and they're being used to keep track of what I've bought, but so many sites these days are just snoopy as far as I can tell. Down with cookies! Hal

1 0

Re: Giving Kill Files a Workout...
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:48 AM 11/16/96 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >Alan Olsen wrote: >> What a week! What is this? "Net Loon pig-pile on Cypherpunks day?" >> So far i have killfiled three people in the past two days. (That is the >> total number I filtered to trash before that date.) >> For those of you who are sick of wading through this mess, I am willing to >> show you what it will take to filter those of your choice to /dev/null or >> its local equivelent. (procmail can be your friend!) > >Thank you in advance for your filtering instructions (yawn). > >BTW, why would anyone give a shit whether you killfiled anyone or not? The point is not who or what I care to killfile. The idea is that it can be done by most people without a whole lot of hastle. There are a number of people who do not have experience in setting up procmail. I am offering to help them out in the hope that it will strain out some of the resultant noise from these "Freedom Knight" loons. (Or at least keep a number of people from dropping the list from the bogosity.) I suspect I am in a number of killfiles already... --- | "Remember: You can't have BSDM without BSD." - alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0

Re: Validating SSNs
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Timothy C. May wrote: >> >> Indeed, I protected my privacy decades ago by discarding my issued SSN >> and substituting a different one. This "phony SSN" is what I use on my >> tax returns, my credit cards, and for my employers. >> >> Ha! None of them know that this is not my True Social Security Number! >> >> By this I protect my privacy. "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey" were not written by Homer but by another Greek of the same name. Old joke. Might I suggest though that you use varying SS numbers and varying names, addresses, and Dates of Birth so that you deny The Great Enemy a Key_field in the database of life. DCF

1 0

Re: Mirror of new export control regulations
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:10 PM 11/15/96 -0500, Alan Davidson wrote: > http://www.cdt.org/crypto/clipper311 > I'm holding out for Clipper '95 myself. DCF

1 0

RE: ideal secure personal computer system
by John Fricker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Igor Chudov @ home (ichudov(a)algebra.com) said something about Re: ideal secure personal computer system on or about 11/16/96 7:41 AM > >Bill Frantz wrote: >> Protection against strangers walking up to your machine and using it is >> nice, and easy to do. Protection against viruses which install Trojan >> horses in your system would also be nice, but is very hard to do in systems >> where programs run with all the privileges of their users. Examples >> include (in alpha order): DOS, MacOS, Unix, and Windows (including NT). > >I wonder what are the operating systems where programs may be run with >_less_ privileges than the user who starts them? Is VMS one of such >systems? > >thanks > > - Igor. >End of message In WinNT a program may impersonate a user such as Guest. Also, trojan horses are ineffective in NT as typical users do not have write permission to system binaries. --j ----------------------------------- | John Fricker (jfricker(a)vertexgroup.com) | -random notes- | My PGP public key is available by sending mail with subject "send pgp key". | www.Program.com is a good programmer web site. -----------------------------------

1 0

Re: Why I shall never undescribe
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:50 AM 11/15/96 -0500, Alec wrote: >>From: Bovine Remailer <haystack(a)cow.net> >>To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >> >>Foulmouthed Timothy May rehashes his lies like a rabid parrot >>choking on a stale mantra stuck in its poisonous beak. > >Where else today can one find such prose? Nay poetry! > >And they say poetry is dead! I thought they said that chivilry was dead.

2 1

Re: Remailer Abuse Solutions
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:38 PM 11/15/1996, Adam Back wrote: >Peter Hendrickson <ph(a)netcom.com> writes: >> However, if you restrict postings to an approved group of people, perhaps >> everybody on the mailing list, you can eliminate spam. How, then, do we >> allow anonymous postings to come through? Individual people on the list >> can receive the proposed post and forward it to the list if it is >> appropriate. They could even charge a fee for doing it. That's easy to >> do if there is a "paying" remailer which will handle the money for them. > Not necessarily a good idea. The post may be a hot potatoe, and the > forwarder may find themselves in legal trouble. (Say RC4 & RC2 source > code, NSA handbook, the results of the Mykotronic's dumpster diving > spree, etc). Exercising `editorial control' has landed some ISPs in > trouble, to the extent that some are specifically avoiding it for that > legal reason alone. Being _paid_ for forwarding the message may make > that even worse. Yes, this is the part of my proposal with which I felt least comfortable. Actually, not to flog a dead horse or anything, this is a perfect application for semi-anonymous authentication. Anybody on the list could forward the mail, but nobody need know exactly who sent it. > Howabout someone liberates skipjack and forwards it to you via > remailers with $50 for your trouble. Do you bite? I thought not, NSA > interviews, ITAR violation, etc. Well, there are ways to do this. For instance, you can send it to a bunch of other people anonymously at, say, a dollar each. It will get around quickly, albeit at greater inconvenience and a higher cost. But, for something this important that would be acceptable. > Ecash for email works better to stop spam sent directly to email > addresses where you don't cash the money as a curtesy, and your > software junks if it doesn't have valid ecash. Email spam itself is > getting mildly annoying lately, I get a couple a day average at the > moment. Except most people don't have e-cash accounts, software that handles e-cash, or the interest in keeping a site which is secure enough to handle e-cash. This is the feature of having the remailer operator deal with it. The technology can be introduced to the existing system with minimal hassle and cost. All you need is one remailer operator to do it. Incidentally, a similar idea can be used to handle flooding attacks on remailers. A bad person could take down a remailer by directing many encrypted packets to it that did not contain any payment. This is hard to solve, of course, because the mail all comes from other remailers. The solution is for the remailer itself to not accept mail from other machines that do not pay. The other remailers in the network make a payment themselves (out of money they already received) to make it worthwhile for the remailer to look inside the message and see if there is even more business. Does anybody know if military communications systems ever take this approach? I know that a highly redundant network is used when any part of it can be taken out. What is awkward about this is that everybody wants to send messages at the very same time the bandwidth is attenuated; i.e., during battle. I'm guessing that in practice everybody in the network - all of whom are basically trusted and identifiable - is ordered to send only urgent traffic. But, it would be neat if there was a way to budget bandwidth for every unit, just like we do for ammunition. Peter

1 0

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:29 PM 11/15/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 4:46 PM -0800 11/14/96, I wrote: >>>On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Mark M. wrote: > >>To which, at 08:42 AM 11/14/96 -0500, aga wrote: >> >>>Why? Are you a criminal? >>>What are you hiding behind your PGP? >> >>Okay, I'll bite. Where is it said that a person who wants h[is,er] privacy >>is a criminal? Charlie McCarthy might have said that. > >You mean in his book "Crypto by Dummies"? > >Or were you perhaps thinking of Joe? > I was probably thinking of Joe. I keyed on McCarthy and Charlie was the first christian name to mind. I intended to give the name of the former Senator. I apologize for not checking the historical accuracy of the name I did use.

1 0

Re: Remailer Abuse Solutions
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:38 PM 11/15/1996, Adam Back wrote: >Peter Hendrickson <ph(a)netcom.com> writes: >> However, if you restrict postings to an approved group of people, perhaps >> everybody on the mailing list, you can eliminate spam. How, then, do we >> allow anonymous postings to come through? Individual people on the list >> can receive the proposed post and forward it to the list if it is >> appropriate. They could even charge a fee for doing it. That's easy to >> do if there is a "paying" remailer which will handle the money for them. > Not necessarily a good idea. The post may be a hot potatoe, and the > forwarder may find themselves in legal trouble. (Say RC4 & RC2 source > code, NSA handbook, the results of the Mykotronic's dumpster diving > spree, etc). Exercising `editorial control' has landed some ISPs in > trouble, to the extent that some are specifically avoiding it for that > legal reason alone. Being _paid_ for forwarding the message may make > that even worse. > Often the posts which would get the anonymous poster (or the true name > forwarder) into the most troublle, are the ones which are most > interesting, and also very on topic. (In case you get this out of order, this is my second response.) Another way to have anonymous posting but not be subjected to spam and the like is to dispense tokens every week to the subscribers. They can be signed blindly so that anonymity is preserved, just like e-cash. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

1 0

Crypto Chango
by P. J. Ponder 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steps to changing US encryption policies: (Note, you must be logged in as US President for this to work.) 1. Try to bug everyone's phone and computer with special chips. 2. Get your butt kicked at and missed by technical weenies, and eventually stomped on by your own national research council. 3. Wait for Congress to show leadership. (Lose two turns if you actually thought they would do something.) (Return) 4. Try to tap everything without using any special chips. (Goto 2) 5. See if any other governments want you to be able to tap their stuff, too. 6. Try to tap everything with half the key tied behind your back when you start. (Goto 2) 7. Issue the new policies. Play Again [Y/N]? Michael Foomkin and John Young have links to the edict. You may try: <A HREF="http://www.jya.com/" <John Young (look under Crypto)</A> <A HREF="http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/" <Prof. Froomkin's Page[?]</A> please excuse the handmade-from-memory URLs above if they don't work. . . . a little snippet from the Internet Scout Report . . . New from Net Scout ------------------ 1. The Scout Toolkit Version 2.0 http://www.cs.wisc.edu/scout/toolkit/ http://wwwscout.cs.wisc.edu/scout/toolkit/ http://rs.internic.net/scout/toolkit/ The most trusted source for information on how to make the Internet work better for you is now available in extra strength. Version 2.0 of the Scout Toolkit debuts today, with a completely new interface, many new sections, and a focus on the future. In addition to the current awareness you've come to expect from Net Scout, we've added an increased emphasis on analysis and insight. Sections include: Searching the Internet, Latest Tools and Technologies, End User's Corner, Net Scout Sidekicks, a Selective Guide to Publications on the Internet, and Future Internet Directions. The new Toolkit is mirrored on three sites to allow Internauts unhindered access. . . . Copyright Susan Calcari, 1996. Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of the Scout Report provided the copyright notice and this paragraph is preserved on all copies. The InterNIC provides information about the Internet to the US research and education community under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation: NCR-9218742. The Government has certain rights in this material. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Wisconsin - Madison, the National Science Foundation, AT&T, or Network Solutions, Inc. . . .

1 0

Re: The TRILATERAL COMMISSION -was: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on...
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:01 ðì 16/11/1996 -0600, snow wrote: >> As regards the "gullibility", it's plainly dangerous; And cultivated >> by the Media, apparently stronger in the U.S. than in many other places. >> (written by E. Francis, on the "Trilateral Commission", and distributed >> to all members of his own -private- mailing list, of which I'm a part). >> >THE LAND OF SHADOWS >> > >> > Early this month is the last presidential=20 >> >"election" before the year 2000. As of this writing and=20 >> >long before, the election was decided in favor of Bill=20 >> >Clinton. It works out astrologically, but the real=20 > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > I think this just about says it all. A ha ha ha!!! ROTFL. You forget that Astrology is... unsuitable for gullible children. :-) > Go talk to Don Wood. Don't know who the hell Don Wood is. However, I bet you _also_ don't know who Mr. Stringas is. Well, he is the author of several books about his experience as a prominent C.I.A. official working for the Trilateral Commission, a former NATO official who acted as a "link" between the Athens government and Washington, and he also (at the age of 70+) doesn't give a damn about anyone putting a bullet in his head (or so he says) which is unlikely anyway since it would be too "obvious". Mr. Stringas is not the only one who wrote thousands of pages about the Trilateral Commission's activities and members (e.g. Clinton). However, you seem to dismiss well-known facts for the simple reason that they were originally posted by an astrologer (E. Francis) and apparently you believe astrologers are by nature non-credible. That's fine with me. As a highly analytical Virgo with Venus in Libra, I understand you very well. :-) I will reply with a real life JOKE, in this case: Two days ago I had a rather official meeting with some nice people with whom we negotiated a contract (of details irrelevant here). Carrying my notebook computer (as I always do) with several astrology programs inside it, I actually took it out and made a horoscope for my... lawyer, who ALSO happens to be a Virgo with Venus in Libra, and this was hilarious, since we _now_ understood our... similarities. Then a gentleman came into the room who remarked that Astrology is only suitable for loonies and gullible morons. He added that for these people, the Greek word "zodion" applies except without the 'd' and the 'i' in the 3rd and 4rth places inside the word 'zodion' ('Zodion' means 'Zodiac sign'). (If you delete those characters, you are left with the word 'Zoon' which means 'animal'). An astrologer friend of mine, also in the same room, immediately replied: Aha! But the way you phrased it, Sir, makes you surely a virgo, too; probably with a Virgo ascendant, I would say. The guy stared at us in terror. He WAS a Virgo, and had a Virgo ascendant, as he himself said. He promptly stopped talking and looked rather thoughtful... Perhaps a... coincidence? :-) Have fun (with astrology). George

1 0

The Utility of Privacy
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Privacy is a hassle. Is it worth it? Which unfortunate situations does privacy prevent? What are the odds that they will occur? How much effort will it take to prevent these outcomes? As a model, use the present and future situation of a typical reader of this list.

2 2

Re: Censor John Gilmore -- EFF is a disgrace!
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:24 ðì 16/11/1996 -0500, Tim Scanlon wrote: >Between >the 2 lists & various people I see represented here, with all due & >serious respect, you folks have GOT to have better, more important, >and far more deserving issues to devote your time to. I would hope >that you would take a few moments and think about those things, and >consider acting appropriatly in light of those thoughts. [...] >And it's >gotten way, way out of hand. I suggest that it might be better not >to spam cypherpunks with this stuff, and to give it a rest. >Tim Scanlon I think the expulsion of Dimitri Vulis is HIGHLY on-topic inside the Freedom Knights List. As it happens, it is ALSO on topic in the cypherpunks list, no matter how HARD you try to forget this. After censoring Dimitri, you will also NATURALLY try to censor others too, such as myself (receiving notices that I stop "cross-posting" to the cypherpunks list). However, you are a HYPOCRITICAL ASSHOLE, becayse you ALSO cross-post to your own (cypherpynks) list. What you CLEARLY want is to HAVE THE "LAST WORD" ABOUT THIS ISSUE. This is typical of all censorship. If your request was SINCERE, you would be the FIRST to NOT CROSS-POST IT to the cypherpunks list. Oh Gods of Olympus! :-) >Stephen Boursy wrote, along with a horde of others with no lives: >[lots of worthless crap snipped out] You mean whatever you disagree with, or perhaps don't bother to read, you dismiss as 'worthless crap'. It's funny, this attitude. I find it philosophically inexcusable. I never dismiss the opinions of others as "worthless crap" when they are expressed eloquently. What I said instead is that "VERY important ideas have been expressed from all sides". Perhaps you didn't notice. >> When a list gets as big as that, it it no longer to be considered >> a "mailing-list" but it is a _public_ forum. The whole problem >> here is the abuse of power by both the EFF and John Gilmore. >> >It's not an abuse of power. It was an effort to curtail inappropriate >SPAM. Much like this entire topic has become non-crypto SPAM on the >cypherpunks list. You have begun REDEFINING "SPAM" according to your personal feelings and opinions. "SPAM" as EVERYONE ELSE understands it, implies some kind of _gain_ (e.g. from advertising) inside a posting. Redefining "SPAM" is consistent with attempts to redefine other known words as well. Like the word "Censorship", which has been redefined to mean "ONLY official censorship". The tendency of closed-minded internet communities to REDEFINE common words as they deem fit, is RATHER WELL KNOWN, where I come from. I am a dictionary maker by profession, BTW. (I write some of the software for it, and run the business. OK, I also do spelling mistakes. It's not my job to know everything, ya know! :-) :-) ) However, if you take my own opinions for instance, they are expressed without ANY thought of gain (by definition impossible, since I don't advertise anything. I write these texts at the intervals of a very real life, involving a lot of swimming, and a lot of Research. When my friends and I meet, we laugh a lot with the situation thousands of miles across the ocean, where... EVEN a "cypherpunks" mailing list has evicted someone forcibly. Rather typical, as it happens. Gives you people a bad name you know... >> The first time is the time when you lose all credibility, and there >> is never any forgiveness for a plug-puller. > >All bullshit aside, this whole thing has NOTHING to do with crypto. >And it has very VERY little to do with censorship either. Which means you probably didn't read much of what was said anyway. Typical... George

1 0

It Used to Be Eric's Inscrutable Deficiency
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In glancing through and deleting so many messages about how blasphemous and perverted John Gilmore is for having "censored" one list afficionado (more symbolically than in actual fact), I am amused to recall that it used to be Eric Hughes who was the bad guy identified as the Egotistical Slave Master who abused his ownership privileges. Now he's left the list, it is JG who gets the drift & drivel about list management. Strange, too, that those who clamor for freedom of speech are accusing JG of being contrary to his principles. They expect that just because individuals should be at liberty to speak, everyone must therefore be prepared to tolerate all manner and kind of insults against themselves (or be a passive witness to it). In that case, it would mean that because individuals are to be free "to do" as they will, therefore that courtesy and manners are no longer valid, that high standards of personal behavior are not important, that self-command is not required, that exercising one's best judgement is of no practical value for life in the real world. It would mean that in the environment of liberty, it would be incorrect for individuals to prevent assaults against themselves or their morals, against their personal preferences, or against their choice of topics for a discussion list which they started. This would mean that, for instance, it wouldn't be right for free individuals to prevent from being sexually molested, because it would be "censorship" against the perpetrator. These complaintants against censorship must not understand the purpose for freedom of action, of expression, etc.; that they do not understand the need for being "free": it is so that one may, without interferance from uninvited participants, engage in arranging the elements of one's existence for the greatest benefit to oneself. Tolerating insulting drivel does not fall into that category. The environment of liberty to express oneself also permits the exercise of the highest logic possible to an unfettered intelligence. Filling up the mailing list with irrelevant accusations about bizarre sexual practices is not of any logical benefit towards enlightenment on the subjects of encryption or privacy. .. Blanc

3 2