December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

cypherpunk archives?
by an12070＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm looking for an official cypherpunk document on `pseudospoofing' -- I looked all over soda.berkeley.edu:/pub/cypherpunks, but couldn't find one anywhere. Does anyone have one, preferrably written or endorsed by E.Hughes or T.C.May? Also, any messages they have posted on the subject sought. I have some stuff, but they seem extremely reluctant to talk about it publicly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

1 0

True Name Keyservers
by Mike Ingle 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>"ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu" "L. Detweiler" wrote: >Subject: Key Servers >I wonder if anyone would want to start a PGP key server dedicated only >to *real* identities. Obviously, there is no such demand with the current >ones. >And please don't start with the `that would be impossible' arguments. A >key server that had the official policy `if you register here, on your >honor your legal name is what you give, under penalty of public >exposure if you are caught' would be enough for me. That might be somewhat effective if there was a way to expose the person's True Name if they were caught using a nym. If the only thing to be exposed was the falsity of the nym, the person could just create a new nym, with no penalty for lying except a bit of inconvenience. Another approach would be to have some people who certify keys as being True Name keys, using special signer keys which are labeled "True Name certifier key" or something similar. These certifiers would be risking their own credibility if they were tricked, so they would have a motive to be careful. If this was a for-profit undertaking (i.e. "send me ten bucks and a copy of your birth certificate, driver's license, and a third form of ID") then it could be fairly effective. Any of you capitalists out there...? Somewhere I read about "is-a-person" certificates, which, if I remember correctly, allow you to prove your identity is unique without giving out your True Name. How do these work? Is this a blind signature of your key? Whatever is done involving True Names, nyms should have a right to exist as well. --- MikeIngle(a)delphi.com

2 1

EDM--Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've gotten a few requests already for info on the book I mentioned. I usually avoid giving ISBN numbers for folks to order a book sight unseen--if they're going to spend $50-70 for a book, they at least ought to flip through it in person and see if they really want it. (Sidenote: Must be the electronic age...often when I mention a paper on something, I get notes asking me where it's available online! I admire these Net-dwellers (no relation to Detweiler!), but the fact is that most of the good stuff is only in print. The reasons are many.) Anyway, here's the EDM info: > > > ObCrytp Note: Just got the English translation in paperback of the > > > Japanese-published "Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics," a large > > > 2-volume set with detailed articles on many branches of math. If the > > > math talked about in crypto is sometimes obscure to you, check this > > > out. The cost is $59, a real bargain these days. > MIT Press, ISBN 0-262-59020-4 (paperback), "Encyclopedic Dictionary of > Mathematics," Second Edition, edited by Kiyosi Ito, 1993. For $59, a real bargain. But if you don't have a fairly good crypto library (Schneier, especially, and perhaps Denning, Salomaa, Brassard, Simmons, etc.), then you'd probably do better to get some of them first. --Tim -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.

1 0

Info on L.Detweiler
by Graham Toal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <9311151727.AA17924(a)illuminati.IO.COM> cman(a)io.com "Douglas Barnes" writes: > Here's some info folks might appreciate (all numbers area code > 303, unless otherwise noted): Oh for christ's sake, knock it off! If the poor bastard really is going through a paranoid phase (and I'll bet there more of us on this list who've been there than would care to admit it) this is just the sort of thing to push him over the edge. If you can't ignore him, install procmail and put him in your killfile. If you escalate this into a petty netwar, just think how hard it's going to be for him when he finally starts to get over it. Would _you_ want to be in that position? I suppose someone posting from a site called 'Illuminati' thinks this is all very funny. I don't. Neither would you if you were above the age of 14. G -- Personal mail to gtoal(a)gtoal.com (I read it in the evenings) Business mail to gtoal(a)an-teallach.com (Be careful with the spelling!) Faxes to An Teallach Limited: +44 31 662 4678 Voice: +44 31 668 1550 x212

3 2

True Name keys
by Mike Ingle 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu" "L. Detweiler" complains: ><sigh> nobody is interested in preventing pseudospoofing here. the >people who have most maneuvered themselves into a position to aid >future cyberspace are instead constraining it. that's the point, isn't >it? gosh, how could I have been so blind... Not true at all. I proposed a more secure method, signing of keys by trusted certifiers, and JMDiehl said he'd look into implementing it. Warlord said that he didn't like the idea of having a separate network of keyservers for True Names, but that keys could be certified as True Name keys. Nobody said that they opposed the idea of True Name keys. Such certifications, especially if from multiple parties, would be much more secure than a network of keyservers. Remember that these exchange keys, and if you could hack one, you could put a phony key into the loop. JMDiehl: your service would be more widely trusted, and potentially profitable, if you bought a copy of ViaCrypt PGP for legality and charged a small fee for your services. If there is money and your reputation at stake, people will assume you are going to be more careful in checking keys, and they will trust your service more. You don't want any kind of automation; you want to verify each one before signing it. Warlord: Is there any way to clean out old keys from the keyservers? How about keeping track of when a key was uploaded, and killing them after a year or so. If a person wants to keep a key active, he can mail it to the keyserver again before the year runs out. The keyservers are full of old, dead, and revoked keys, and the number will continue to grow as more people use PGP. Present keys could be killed a year from now, or whenever. Detweiler: why don't you do it? You could advance your crusade and make some money in the process. Start a service to certify keys. If a key were certified by several services, you could be pretty sure of its authenticity. Everyone: is it possible to translate RIPEM keys into PGP keys? Can the signature be kept intact? Is it possible to use Mac signer keys for encryption as well as signing? Doesn't it seem just a bit political that the Mac system has RSA for signatures and a symmetric cryptosystem, but no public-key encryption? Maybe something could be done about this, but I don't have a Mac to try it. --- MikeIngle(a)delphi.com

4 4

UNIX: Chaos Gains Reliability
by Chael Hall 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, all, I am about six-thousand messages behind on the cypherpunks list, but I just wanted to tell everyone that I *finally* got a reliable kernel last night. The patch to my hard drive driver has been installed and verified to be avoiding the hang problems that chaos had. The system maintenance schedule has likewise been modified. It now reboots only at 5 am daily. If it holds up this week, I will change the reboot schedule to once a week (probably Sunday or Monday morning at 5 am CST). If anyone is interested in an account on chaos, they are freely available granted you have a good reason (i.e., intend to write code, be a productive user, etc.) by request. Telnet to chaos.bsu.edu (147.226.53.28) and login as guest (all lowercase). It will direct you through the account request procedure. **IMPORTANT** Chaos has very limited disk space (200 MB) right now. The planning committee has decided that once a reliable kernel has been installed (which I believe was yesterday), we would begin to solicit donations for an additional 500+ MB of storage. The deal is (and I think this is pretty fair), once the users have raised enough to pay for half of the new hard drive, I will chip in the rest. Anyone who donates money toward the acquisition of a new hard drive will be given extra space on the new drive (we haven't quite decided how it will be done, but two plans are: give donated users write access to an additional partition OR move their home directory to the new partition). Either way, all non-donated users will be the recipients of a brand-spanking-new QUOTA! I'm sorry, there just isn't the space. Oh, another thing, when the new drive arrives, it will supplement what is already there. The old hard drive will not be removed. Any comments? Reply in e-mail, this is not particularly relevant to cypherpunks. BTW, what does everyone think of the gopher site? I'm going to work on the FTP/NFS site some more one of these days. Chael Hall -- nowhere(a)chaos.bsu.edu nowhere(a)bsu-cs.bsu.edu chall(a)bsu.edu 00CCHALL(a)bsuvc.bsu.edu

1 0

Re: "Applied Cryptography" at Cody's
by Jef Poskanzer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>As of 14:30 today, Cody's in Berkeley has 4-1=3 copys of >"Applied Cryptography" by Schneier. One fewer as of 16:30. They had it hidden in the back room upstairs, but I made them file the rest in the math section. I'm about halfway through it now. It's pretty nifty! --- Jef

1 0

Re: LAW: Wireless interception
by karn＠qualcomm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike is correct that early models of cordless phones could often be picked up on broadcast radios. Their base stations transmitted just above the AM broadcast band (in the 1.7 Mhz region). Since then, all new cordless phones operate on the 46 and 49 Mhz bands, which generally require a scanner to receive. However, cell phones still operate in what used to be UHF TV channels 70-83, and it is still possible in some cases to intercept cell phone calls on a UHF TV set. So much for *that* theory. :-) I still think my original explanation for the ECPA's distinction between cordless and cellular phones is the dominant one. Phil

3 2

D. Barnes
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>You have become major pest, you have done more than anyone else to >disrupt this list and make it next to impossible for real work to get >done on it (including work that would help mitigate problems of the >kind you believe your "enemies" are perpetrating on you.) please, characterize this `work' and your own involvement in it. >we don't see pseudospoofing as a "danger" like you >do. Personally, I consider it a necessity. I like being able to hide >behind an anonymous identity (not that I do, mind you). I don't see >pseudospoofing as "constraining". On the contrary, I see it as >freeing us. oh.

1 0

*hot* pseudospoofing ideas!
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

here's an interesting idea. Suppose that whenever cypherpunks in favor of pseudospoofing emailed me, I put all their posts into a big pot. Since they all advocate the same ideas, I would just file all the different paragraphs in favor of pseudanonymity, against democracy, in favor of anarchy, in favor of tax evasion etc. in different folders. Then, whenever one of the cypherpunks sends me mail, I just pick a paragraph at random from the folders that match his idea. I could do this with public postings too. I have been filling out very many form letters lately anyway on the same old tired, depraved ideas. And I might even have a lot of fun with misattributing people's writing. That would be quite clever! I'm sure the cypherpunks would get a great kick out of that. The blurring of identities is perfect. No one would know who said what! Why, I might even put together software that promotes all this, and turn it loose on the Cypherpunks list (but of course, not tell anyone--that would take all the fun of it, and besides, if they knew they might leave). There's nothing unethical about it, because I *can* do it. It would be like those scenarios right out of that great science fiction, like Enders Game. I could pretend that different cypherpunks existed. No one would care. The effect would be the same. They are all interchangeable anyway. there is only a message.

1 0

Re: *hot* pseudospoofing ideas!
by Jef Poskanzer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>here's an interesting idea. Suppose that whenever cypherpunks in favor >of pseudospoofing emailed me, I put all their posts into a big pot.... Say.... Does anyone have an archive of Detweiler's messages handy? There's this nifty program called "travesty" that I suddenly have an urge to play with. --- Jef

1 0

A Glimmer of Light
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Some miscellaneous psychopunk (I forget who, they are all interchangeable) said >> <sigh> nobody is interested in preventing pseudospoofing here. the >> people who have most maneuvered themselves into a position to aid >> future cyberspace are instead constraining it. that's the point, isn't >> it? gosh, how could I have been so blind... > >I think its because we don't see pseudospoofing as a "danger" like you >do. Personally, I consider it a necessity. I like being able to hide >behind an anonymous identity (not that I do, mind you). I don't see >pseudospoofing as "constraining". On the contrary, I see it as >freeing us. wow! a break in the clouds! a breath of fresh air! who is `we'? please elaborate! This miscellaneous psychopunk is posting from MIT. Do you think his burdensome flesh-cucoon is in Boston? or California? AT LAST! HONESTY! (even if it is criminal or perverted) Psychopunks, I'm most impressed with this new atmosphere of open advocation of pseudoanonymity instead of all the black disinformation snippets about `true anonymity' and all the other nonsense about it not being widespread, no cypherpunks being personally involved, etc. for the dreary 10 months or so I've been here. What trouble and heartache for all of us you have caused me in pretending it isn't! Finally, they Come Out of the Closet. Imagine -- having to hide in your own neighborhood for so long. Really, it's all right. There, there. When will the articles on Pseudospoofing come out in Wired and NYT? Oh, let's see, there's Newsweek and all those other places too. Please, tell me, I'm really in a tizzy. I'll have to call Mr. Kelly and Mr. Markoff and tell them of your new openness. I'm sure they will be quite interested! So, I would like to collect a list of all the Psychopunks who are PSEUDOSPOOFERS and PROUD OF IT. Please, describe your lovely techniques, all the pain and victimization you have gone through from your tormenters (like me), and how you are going to Change the World so that Pseudospoofers can Live without Harassment. `Live and Let Live'. Sort of like Gay Pride. When are you going to stick it in your charter, anyway? How pseudospoofing == privacy == anonymity == pseudoanonymity == pseudonymity == holy liberation == bliss? What a delicious mystery. Life a SF book by Card. What a Card. Also, I'm still waiting for some kind of comment from those *fabulous* leaders of yours. They're so coy with me. They've been flirting with me since I've been on the list. It's really sexy and erotic, actually, the way they strut around. You can look, but you can't touch! They're real masters at the dance. Ooooooh... just FABULOUTHS.

1 0

some pseudopool FUN
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

S.Boxx: > <sigh> nobody is interested in preventing pseudospoofing here. the > people who have most maneuvered themselves into a position to aid > future cyberspace are instead constraining it. that's the point, isn't > it? gosh, how could I have been so blind... T.C.May: >I think its because we don't see pseudospoofing as a "danger" like you >do. Personally, I consider it a necessity. I like being able to hide >behind an anonymous identity (not that I do, mind you). I don't see >pseudospoofing as "constraining". On the contrary, I see it as >freeing us. E.Hughes, on Pseudospoofing software >No the software isn't mine, but I consider myself it's God Father. >Tim May and I were talking about this a long >time, and he just beat me to learning enough PERL to write the thing. >But I'd like to think that the two of us did most all of the design of >it. So, in a way, it is my software. Nick Szabo: >As an example, look at Ender's Game, where Ender's brother and sister >get on the net under pseudonyms, and get treated just like everyone >else. There is no biases. People are judged on their actions and >words, not by who they are, how old they are, what they look like, or >anything like that. Maybe you are blind, I don't know. I've never >met you. Arthur Chandler: >And, as I said, it is not the job of the Keyserver to provide any sort >of policy. The job of the Keyserver is to distribute keys. Nothing >more. Nothing less. The job of identifying True Names is solely a >job for Digital Signatures, not a job for the Keyserver. Jamie Dinkelacker: >I oppose using it in a bogus fashion because the software is not >designed for such a use, there is absolutely no protection for it (any >key can be added), because I, and all the other Keyserver admins, >believe that all the keyservers should be interconnected, and because >I feel the job for determining a True Name on a key is a job for >Digital Signatures, not for the Keyserver. Perry Metzger: >I am a cypherpunk. I don't believe in trusting something on faith >alone, but you seem to be asking for that. There is no way to protect >such a reckless use of the Keyserver. The only way to provide a >secure way for True Names is to Cryptographically identify them. Hal Finney: >So, Mr. Detweiler, why do you oppose using Digital Signatures to >verify True Names? I mean, besides that you consider yourself a >Cypherpunk? ;-)

2 2

Re: The Contortions of Cypherpunks
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>N.Szabo <szabo(a)netcom.com> in RISKS > >>I'd like to assure the readers of RISKS that I am in fact a unique person, >>distinct from the other names L. Detweiler listed. Of the people on his list >>I know from personal contact, all are distinct people in Real Life(tm). > >Give specific evidence to support your claim or retract it. Who do you >know from personal contact? What do you mean that you are `distinct >from other names'? I have had lunch with both Tim May and Nick Szabo, and can verify that they simultaneously sat in different seats, wore different clothes, ate different lunches, and had different quantities of facial hair. I have, further, had lunch with Perry Metzger on another occasion and will testify that he is, to the best of my ability to ascertain, neither of the aforementioned people. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

ANON: pseudospoofing confusion
by Karl Lui Barrus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Does the ECPA (the law regulating communications privacy) or the >copyright laws apply to material that was written under a >*pseudonymous* identity? I would consider this a grey area. A court Well, there may be some legal precedent to look up: some of the greatest works of literature were published under "pseudonymous" identities. Lewis Carroll, George Orwell, Mark Twain, George Eliot: none of these people ever existed. In fact, Mary Ann Evans published under "George Eliot" in order to pretend to be male; I guess you could call her master pseudospoofer, since she specifically created a fake identity in order to fool others. I suppose "Publius" doesn't qualify as a pseudospoofer since the three gentlemen who were responsible for the _Federalist Papers_ were probably just trying to hide their identity (at first) and not go about creating new ones. I'm sort of fuzzy on the distinction between pseudonymous and pseudoanonymous; is it that a pseudonym is obviously so? For example, an id on anon.penet.fi is obviously a pseudonym, so if I were to use it, I would be pseudonymous. In a sense, every mail address you see here is a pseudonym. Now, pseudoanonymous is when a fake identity is created, without it being obviously so. (Right?) So if I were to obtain another account with a different user name, etc. and use that account, I would be pseudospoofing. (?) But the difference between these two seems so slight, a semantic one rather than practical. For example, suppose several people were in communication with someone they had never met. One person (of the several) is curious as to the identity of the mystery person, and tries to find out information about this person. Very little is turned up. So little, it could be that the mystery person is "pseudoanonymous", a fake identity. Are the several people being pseudospoofed? How can they tell one way or the other without actually meeting the mystery person? If they can't tell, then what difference does it make? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLOcsTYOA7OpLWtYzAQFKzAQAyx5MNNNyjs/BeJLLqM0EX5A0ZQADCLge fNkndrgT/nSWiVGubE58girFQdNZlI5a50swKeKOqEHo8zxdqYSEIw8mrAm8iXeB mH5uOi2KHpxuWHQ+nkgmEi+KKkFNI6PQH7jR0euVPgu+GZsj40V52mJ9Z9ZYP/EV GvE6VvFkux8= =CA2o -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

the Pseudospoofer Game
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey guys, you are so clever with the cyberspatial software tricks. Here's something I think you should come up with. THE PSEUDOSPOOFING GAME I haven't got all the details of this worked out yet, but bear with me. The scenario is that this would be a game you play on a machine that is a lot like a mail server, except that it is dedicated to the game and everyone knows it (I know you guys won't like that idea, but bear with me.) The object of the game is to uncover each other's true identities. When you start the game, there are a certain number of other real people out there. They all get a fixed number of `pseudoanonyms' (of course, names that look real but aren't). There would be both public and private postings. You have to try to determine who everyone is by analyzing their style and subjects (and of course, evade detection with ingenious cypherpunk techniques). You could use any of your tentacles in any way, public or private, just like on this list (which is a great inspiration for the game, BTW). Every once in awhile, you might make accusations on true reputations, after you have built up enough certainty. The points of the game would depend on how correct you are. You might `bet' different points on various identities. You might be able to bargain with others to collude with you by trading points or something. Maybe there is some kind of mechanisms whereby tentacles are weakened after a lot of accusations or something. Obviously, the possibilities are really endless. All the agent provacateur, double agent, etc. gimmicks you inflicted on me (your white lab rat) could be used there. Maybe `credit' could be synonymous with `reputation' -- when you flame someone successfully others can transfer points between the two, rate your reputations explicitly. You could always rate other people at any time. There might be `public ratings' that are the averages of all the private ratings that everyone knows about. These ratings might tend to fluctuate based on behavior. For example, when somebody lies their rating would go down if other's suspected it. If someone was a hypocrite, it would come back to haunt them in the `bottom line'. The more confused and insane you drive someone with disinformation and lies (dishonesty is the name of the game, after all!) the better. Who knows, you might be able to *really* upset someone over nothing but meaningless ASCII text! Nothing but messages. That would be their own fault for taking it seriously. These `pseudospoofed virgins' should be raped for great sport and satisfaction. You could get together afterwards and drink a few beers and brag about your scores and conquests, and how they wailed or cried at the end. I suppose you could even figure out how to have imaginary postmasters that can censor various real identities if their reputations drop too low, or some other capricious criteria. Maybe you could even design in mail bombs. I'm sure you guys could bang this whole thing together pretty fast, with all your skill, ambition, and practice. But you might have difficulty attracting players if you want to keep it secret and all to yourselves. Another thing, is that everyone would learn about pseudospoofing. That is what you want, right? Since it's their stupidity if they fall for this kind of puerile fantasy, it's an ideal situation if *everyone* knows about it. The Cypherpunk Way.

1 0

LD Admits he is S.Boxx (oops!)
by Mike Ingle 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

LD really blew it this time. One has to be very careful when one maintains multiple identities - it is easy to mix them up and reveal one's deception. As we will see: In the following message, LD quotes S.Boxx: =========================================================================== From: IN%"ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu" "L. Detweiler" 15-NOV-1993 To: IN%"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" CC: IN%"ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu" Subj: some pseudopool FUN S.Boxx: > <sigh> nobody is interested in preventing pseudospoofing here. the > people who have most maneuvered themselves into a position to aid > future cyberspace are instead constraining it. that's the point, isn't > it? gosh, how could I have been so blind... =========================================================================== However, that quote was not from S.Boxx. It was from (who else?) LD himself, in this message: =========================================================================== From: IN%"ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu" "L. Detweiler" 14-NOV-1993 To: IN%"warlord(a)MIT.EDU" "Derek Atkins" CC: IN%"ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu" "L. Detweiler", IN%"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" Subj: RE: Key Servers >> I wonder if anyone would want to start a PGP key server dedicated only >> to *real* identities. Obviously, there is no such demand with the >> current ones. > >This defeats the purpose for which the PGP Keyservers were created. >The Keyservers were created to give a *SINGLE* place where you could >go to request a PGP key for some name (and it doesn't matter whether >that name is real or not). <sigh> nobody is interested in preventing pseudospoofing here. the people who have most maneuvered themselves into a position to aid future cyberspace are instead constraining it. that's the point, isn't it? gosh, how could I have been so blind... =========================================================================== Now, LD wrote that quote himself. How could he forget that? How could he mistakenly attribute it to S.Boxx, unless he is S.Boxx? In this message, LD makes a very valid point: =========================================================================== From: IN%"ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu" "L. Detweiler" 14-NOV-1993 To: IN%"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" CC: IN%"ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu" Subj: Soothing Sayings Mr. Barnes, you tried to convince me of the Joy of Pseudospoofing, for which I suggested you were trying to convert me to the Dark Side (actually, I am indebtedly grateful for that beautiful inspiration for my essay). You told me that E.Hughes' lectures on the subject of pseudospoofing were what drew you to it in the first place! But this is buried very deep in my comprehensive archives, from many weeks ago. (I encourage all other cypherpunks to keep very good archives, because some day we will be able to separate all the pseudospoofed identities from real ones, and it will be quite shocking, I assure you. Some prominent cypherpunks are extremely terrified and staunchly opposed to archives, for obvious reasons.) =========================================================================== Yes, LD, good archives certainly do help in catching pseudospoofers. Like you. You have been using S.Boxx to post some of your rants and create a false consensus - exactly what you have argued against so loudly. How hypocritical can you get? Why don't we post this on comp.risks and discredit him and his rants once and for all? Enough of this crap! --- MikeIngle(a)delphi.com

1 0

The unmentionable word
by bart＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm kind of glad not to have just used filter to remove all of his posts sight unseen. Better to see, and note their frequency. Sadly when I instantly hit delete for them and their replies, there is very little left on the list. It's hard to maintain a coherent conversation in the presence of his raving. Won't he ever run down? Sigh Bart

1 0

souls and Multiple Personality Disorder
by an12070＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When a baby is born, a soul enters the world. When a person dies, a soul exits. Reality is like the Internet. There are legitimate ways for souls to enter and illegitimate ways. You could be `born' under your true name, or you could get in through the subversive route and infect an outlet susceptible to Multiple Personality Disorder, or possess someone. It's very difficult to detect, of course! When it happens, Call 1-800-EXORCIST ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

3 2

Great quote from public NIST comments on Clipper
by gnu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

EFF has made available the full file of public comments that were submitted to NIST through the "cryptnow(a)eff.org" service. I found this great quote in there: However, if this standard is adopted, we at least have the opportunity to reduce our dependence on imported oil substantially. All we need do is hook up generators to the bones of the authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I estimate their rotational speed at 2000 RPM now and rising rapidly. Sincerely yours, Richard B. Mott Ringoes, New Jersey The comments are in ftp.eff.org:/pub/crypto/EES_FIPS_Comments.txt . -- John Gilmore gnu(a)toad.com -- gnu(a)cygnus.com -- gnu(a)eff.org ``This committee has not tried to determine whether the National Security Agency tendency to advance exaggerated claims of authority ... stems from conscious policy or the actions of individual NSA employees.'' The Government's Classification of Private Ideas, House Report 96-1540, p. 67

1 0

LD
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -> - From owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Mon Nov 15 01:49:02 1993 To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Cc: ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu Subject: A Glimmer of Light Date: Sun, 14 Nov 93 23:32:06 -0700 From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu> Some miscellaneous psychopunk (I forget who, they are all interchangeable) said <- You know, I've been listening to our Mr. Detweiler here for some time without voicing much other than the occasional "let's get on with more serious business" message to the list. It wasn't until I realized how well Mr. Detweiler fit into a persona archetype I recognized that I even thought I'd dignify his posts to the list with a response. I guess it was this quotation header that clicked it. - -> Some miscellaneous psychopunk (I forget who, they are all interchangeable) said: <- A cynic recognizes the bad in everything and the good in nothing. (Or something to that effect.) Mr. Detweiler seems to have to have a face to associate with all of us to consider us distinct. While he may consider this "normal" I think it's just behind the times. It seems that Mr. Detweiler is offended by the idea that he may not have superficial criteria to judge his associates by in the coming decades. Color of skin, tone of voice, sexual preference, this sort of thing. I think this might make some more sense after we look at some more of Mr. Detweiler's quotes. Just consider the percentage of content in his posts that actually contains some constructive criticism or commentary, this passage is illustrative: - -> wow! a break in the clouds! a breath of fresh air! who is `we'? please elaborate! This miscellaneous psychopunk is posting from MIT. Do you think his burdensome flesh-cucoon (sic) is in Boston? or California? AT LAST! HONESTY! (even if it is criminal or perverted) <- It seems possible that Mr. Detweiler is unable to conduct an open debate without resorting to sarcastic and unprofessional barbs. His arsenal is obviously reduced with the lack of physical characteristics to criticize. Consider: - -> Psychopunks, I'm most impressed with this new atmosphere of open advocation of pseudoanonymity instead of all the black disinformation snippets about `true anonymity' and all the other nonsense about it not being widespread, no cypherpunks being personally involved, etc. for the dreary 10 months or so I've been here. What trouble and heartache for all of us you have caused me in pretending it isn't! Finally, they Come Out of the Closet. Imagine -- having to hide in your own neighborhood for so long. Really, it's all right. There, there. <- Seething with self righteousness and condescending remarks, behind a electronic veil just as much as the rest of us, it seems Detweiler has little of substance beyond emotional appeals that seem to shout "Far right - Lambs of Christ." in their methodology. Given the length, number and intellectual diarrhea styles of his posts, it seems Detweiler has little else to do. It looks to me as if this goes a long way to explain the need to dominate and attract attention. Consider again: - -> When will the articles on Pseudospoofing come out in Wired and NYT? Oh, let's see, there's Newsweek and all those other places too. Please, tell me, I'm really in a tizzy. I'll have to call Mr. Kelly and Mr. Markoff and tell them of your new openness. I'm sure they will be quite interested! <- I'd be surprised to find that Mr. Detweiler has not read any Mike Royko, he tries so hard to emulate him. - -> So, I would like to collect a list of all the Psychopunks who are PSEUDOSPOOFERS and PROUD OF IT. Please, describe your lovely techniques, all the pain and victimization you have gone through from your tormenters (sic) (like me), and how you are going to Change the World so that Pseudospoofers can Live without Harassment. `Live and Let Live'. Sort of like Gay Pride <- Mr. Detweiler really throws his hand here. I suppose we are supposed to be insulted with the analogy to the Gay Pride movement? Perhaps homophobia and privo-phobia are linked somehow? This lofts the scent of the far left centralist socialist or the far right fascist, terrified by discontinuity and even more mortified with the thought that it might be difficult to keep tabs on such individuals. - -> When are you going to stick it in your charter, anyway? How pseudospoofing == privacy == anonymity == pseudoanonymity == pseudonymity == holy liberation == bliss? What a delicious mystery. Life a SF book by Card. What a Card. <- Note the religious reference. - -> Also, I'm still waiting for some kind of comment from those *fabulous* leaders of yours. They're so coy with me. They've been flirting with me since I've been on the list. It's really sexy and erotic, actually, the way they strut around. You can look, but you can't touch! They're real masters at the dance. Ooooooh... just FABULOUTHS. <- I shouldn't need to point out the homosexual references again, but I think it important to note that they are all derogatory in nature. The slur on FABULOUTHS just kills me. - -> Hey guys, you are so clever with the cyberspatial software tricks. Here's something I think you should come up with. THE PSEUDOSPOOFING GAME [About 600 words deleted] These `pseudospoofed virgins' should be raped for great sport and satisfaction. You could get together afterwards and drink a few beers and brag about your scores and conquests, and how they wailed or cried at the end. <- Between homophobia, the introduction of non-consensual sex and Viking locker room talk, the conclusions about Mr. Detweiler's own feelings of inadequacy jump out without much need of assistance. Regardless, Mr. Detweiler's posts are just not present in any constructive commentary it all. He is quite good at stirring up emotions and irritating people beyond their ability to restrain themselves (note my post). But when it comes to any original thought, I've seen little or nothing. He's what I used to call "fluff" in law school. Great at cutting people down with words, but couldn't win an oral argument with a live judge present if it meant his life. Mr. Detweiler seems to think that cute one liners are fatal to reason. Unfortunately, cute cut downs do not a well structured argument make. Middle management material if I ever saw it. Maybe a shift supervisor? "C'mon Williams, your 'ole lady keep you up late last night? Or was it your boyfriend, you queer? Stevens, how nice of you to join us, you're ready for work this morning? Wow! A break in the clouds! A breath of fresh air! Now get to work you bums!" Perfect illustration that a saboteur need not be clever at all, but only disruptive and persistent enough to be annoying and prevent anyone from unharassed constructive discourse. In this regard I'm afraid he's won. There is a agenda here, it seems to me that if Mr. Detweiler is not willing to follow it, and stay ON the path, perhaps he should be asked and then encouraged to leave. I'm sure cries of censorship would abound, but at this point, I feel that these could hardly cause more trouble. - -uni-(Dark) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLOdDSxibHbaiMfO5AQElkgQA4HasxhdjBGFHlLNHpuZz2GtQO25fv/A0 vWiWT4ZGsZ8d1zGT4GxfG8LJv0xcXgIhPFDmw2V8Das1WxhomMsbEcYIxbBU5QCC 2uuT643BBzQpiMLdLMIm1kpkTuAK35dOdnUyBmD5kU5yv8NLPiKa43pGsD9xB891 yv4J9J075rs= =jxF3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Key Servers and True Names
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"L. Detweiler", or someone using his name, is a bit confused about what keyservers are for - they're a convenience for making keys readily available, and reducing the chances of getting a spoofed key. The way to do a True Name Users Group is through key certification - create a key called "L. Detweiler's True Name Certifier <ld(a)true.names.org>" and use that key to sign keys for people who present real, non-forged authentication papers, signed statements, or whatever credentials you trust for demonstrating True Names. People can add that signature to the list of signatures they haul around on their public key. I normally only use variants on my real name, with the exception of one nym I use for anonymous posting, which is clearly a non-real name, except when I'm using someone else's name for humor value, or bogus names for junk mail reduction/identification (e.g. Time Stewart or Junk Mail Stewart). John Doe # Bill Stewart Old address: wcs(a)anchor.ho.att.com AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ # After 10/15, NCR, 6870 Koll Center Parkway, Pleasanton CA, 94566 # Voice/Beeper 510-224-7043, Phone 510-484-6204, email bill.stewart(a)pleasantonca.ncr.com

1 0

S.Boxx v. L.Detweiler
by cman＠IO.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'd like to mention for the record that I don't give a pair of dingo's kidneys whether S.Boxx and L.Detweiler are the same person. Whether they are, or not, it makes no difference. I'm sure in the twisty little passages (all different) that are LD's brain, he could easily have some justification for posting as S.Boxx. Or not. What's important to me is that I have associated with both a remarkably similar reputation, such that both entities have a substantially larger than ordinary burden to overcome to convince me of anything; if either said it was raining, I would pack an umbrella *and* sunscreen. This is how a sane person deals with the current sorry state of authentication on the net, possibly accompanied by actual work participating in research and coding to remedy this sorry state. -- ---------------- /\ Douglas Barnes cman(a)illuminati.io.com / \ Chief Wizard (512) 448-8950 (d), 447-7866 (v) / () \ Illuminati Online metaverse.io.com 7777 /______\

1 0

Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?
by habs＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The FCC can already regulate what is on any broadcast medium that is FCC regulated, (Tobacco Ads, for example). The ONLY way, IMHO, to have a national data highway (not regulated and thus censored by the FCC) is to have it operated by the post office. Since I don't want the government opperating any data network I feel the result will be freedom of "broadcast" IS DEAD. E.g., I can send Tim live porno from my home, but as soon as I make it available on a point to multi-point basis, the FCC steps in.... -- Harry S. Hawk - Extropian habs(a)extropy.org In Service to Extropians since 1991

1 0

Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?
by habs＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have stayed quiet on this topic but now feel I should put my views forward. 1) I feel the government, in this case and others, should never force the adoption of any particular technology (ISDN, ATM, etc) 2) While I am pro-market in the Extropian Way, I think that what we need from the government is the following: a) recognize that Cable and Telco are the same business b) set very minimum standards required for basic services (basic telco, basic cable (e.g., local broadcast channels) c) I don't see data as a basic service d) apply the same regulation to both companies. e) Let cable and telco compete head to head 3) Let the rich pay for it ;) There is this liberal idea that only the rich will get the "good stuff" That their kids will study on-line with Nobel prize winners while the poor kids will still be using chalk and erasers in the "slums." The same liberals what to raise taxes "on the Rich," so they can pay for things. I feel if you don't "push" for universal access the systems will be build that way anyway. They will cost $$$, and the "rich" will buy into it. As economies of scale and scope come into pay, the cost of these systems will come down and the poor will get it too. Thus, the rich have paid for it, and the poor have got it cheap. There is one problem with this. In NYC, the "POOR" are already bigger users of CLASS services (call waiting, three way dialing, etc.), and of Cable premium channels; no marketer is going to leave this group unwired. No one is going to do an Interactive Test Market in the Lower East Side, but trust me systems will be built there. -- Harry S. Hawk - Extropian habs(a)extropy.org In Service to Extropians since 1991

5 7