December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Some thoughts on the Chinese Net
by printing＠explicit.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 14 Feb 1996, Ed Carp wrote about Chinese censonship: >I think it *will* work, in part because China has a very long history of >repressing and persecuting its own people. Besides, if they really get in >a tight spot, there's always "the nuclear option." >If you think I'm kidding, read the news about China threatening to nuke >Taiwan if they declare independence. I dunno on that one, Did you see the tape of the Chinese rocket with the U.S. telecommunications satellite exploding? But they did censor that pretty quickly! William Knowles Graphically Explicit //!\\!//!\\!//!\\!//!\\!//!\\!//!\\!//!\\!//!\\!//!\\!//!\\!//!\\ Graphically Explicit Printing - Advertising - Graphic Design 1555 Sherman Avenue - Suite 203 Evanston IL., 60201-4421 800.570.0471 - printing(a)explicit.com Accept, Embrace, Adapt, Create \\!//!\\!//!\\!//!\\!//!\\!//!\\!//!\\!//!\\!//!\\!//!\\!//!\\!//

1 0

FW: Cyberspace Declaration Of Independence
by gorkab＠sanchez.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 20:53:34 -0500 From: janice <janice(a)mars.superlink.net> To: janice(a)artsedge.kennedy-center.org Newgroups: at.mail.com-priv Subject: (fwd) A Declaration of Independence, for Cyberspace. (fwd) Path: earth.superlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!Austria.EU.net!osiris.wu-wien.ac.at!news-mail-gateway From: avalon(a)coombs.anu.edu.au (Darren Reed) Newsgroups: at.mail.com-priv Subject: A Declaration of Independence, for Cyberspace. (fwd) Date: 12 Feb 1996 11:36:26 +0100 Organization: WU Mail/News Gateway Lines: 173 Sender: daemon(a)osiris.wu-wien.ac.at Message-ID: <199602121024.FAA25713(a)lists.psi.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: osiris.wu-wien.ac.at I haven't seen this on com-priv yet...but I may have deleted it without noticing....(sorry if it has been through it already). darren >>> John Perry Barlow <barlow(a)eff.org> dared to speak the following <<< From: John Perry Barlow <barlow(a)eff.org> To: watts(a)hawaii.edu Subject: A Cyberspace Independence Declaration Yesterday, that great invertebrate in the White House signed into the law the Telecom "Reform" Act of 1996, while Tipper Gore took digital photographs of the proceedings to be included in a book called "24 Hours in Cyberspace." I had also been asked to participate in the creation of this book by writing something appropriate to the moment. Given the atrocity that this legislation would seek to inflict on the Net, I decided it was as good a time as any to dump some tea in the virtual harbor. After all, the Telecom "Reform" Act, passed in the Senate with only 5 dissenting votes, makes it unlawful, and punishable by a $250,000 to say "shit" online. Or, for that matter, to say any of the other 7 dirty words prohibited in broadcast media. Or to discuss abortion openly. Or to talk about any bodily function in any but the most clinical terms. It attempts to place more restrictive constraints on the conversation in Cyberspace than presently exist in the Senate cafeteria, where I have dined and heard colorful indecencies spoken by United States senators on every occasion I did. This bill was enacted upon us by people who haven't the slightest idea who we are or where our conversation is being conducted. It is, as my good friend and Wired Editor Louis Rossetto put it, as though "the illiterate could tell you what to read." Well, fuck them. Or, more to the point, let us now take our leave of them. They have declared war on Cyberspace. Let us show them how cunning, baffling, and powerful we can be in our own defense. I have written something (with characteristic grandiosity) that I hope will become one of many means to this end. If you find it useful, I hope you will pass it on as widely as possible. You can leave my name off it if you like, because I don't care about the credit. I really don't. But I do hope this cry will echo across Cyberspace, changing and growing and self-replicating, until it becomes a great shout equal to the idiocy they have just inflicted upon us. I give you... A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather. We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do not know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders. Do not think that you can build it, as though it were a public construction project. You cannot. It is an act of nature and it grows itself through our collective actions. You have not engaged in our great and gathering conversation, nor did you create the wealth of our marketplaces. You do not know our culture, our ethics, or the unwritten codes that already provide our society more order than could be obtained by any of your impositions. You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don't exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract . This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different. Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live. We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth. We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity. Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are based on matter, There is no matter here. Our identities have no bodies, so, unlike you, we cannot obtain order by physical coercion. We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest, and the commonweal, our governance will emerge . Our identities may be distributed across many of your jurisdictions. The only law that all our constituent cultures would generally recognize is the Golden Rule. We hope we will be able to build our particular solutions on that basis. But we cannot accept the solutions you are attempting to impose. In the United States, you have today created a law, the Telecommunications Reform Act, which repudiates your own Constitution and insults the dreams of Jefferson, Washington, Mill, Madison, DeToqueville, and Brandeis. These dreams must now be born anew in us. Your increasingly obsolete information industries would perpetuate themselves by proposing laws, in America and elsewhere, that claim to own speech itself throughout the world. These laws would declare ideas to be another industrial product, no more noble than pig iron. In our world, whatever the human mind may create can be reproduced and distributed infinitely at no cost. The global conveyance of thought no longer requires your factories to accomplish. These increasingly hostile and colonial measures place us in the same position as those previous lovers of freedom and self-determination who had to reject the authorities of distant, uninformed powers. We must declare our virtual selves immune to your sovereignty, even as we continue to consent to your rule over our bodies. We will spread ourselves across the Planet so that no one can arrest our thoughts. We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before. Davos, Switzerland February 8, 1996 **************************************************************** John Perry Barlow, Cognitive Dissident Co-Founder, Electronic Frontier Foundation Home(stead) Page: http://www.eff.org/~barlow Message Service: 800/634-3542 ***************************************************************** It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. --Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia Signers of the declaration of Independence of Cyberspace: --- Andrew F. Daniels Computing Specialist http://nickel.ucs.indiana.edu/~andrew Pager: (800) 958-4503 adaniels(a)ais.net andrew(a)cic.net statements made represent the views of the author and no other organization finger andrew(a)hamlet.ucs.indiana.edu for further details --- PPP A TTTTT M M A N N P P A A T MM MM A A NN N Patrick C. Farabee PPP AAA T M M M AAA N N N P A A T M M M A A N NN pfarabee(a)intersource.com P A A T M M A A N N

1 0

Re: Science News - article on Quantum Crypto
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>The new Science News that showed up in today's mail >has a short but informative article on quantum >cryptography. It explains what quantum crypto is for >us newbies and gives the history of a recent success >in Lake Geneva (Switzerland, not Wisconsin) - an >encrypted message was sent 22.7 km over fiber-optic >cable successfully. It's a nice article. Does anyone know if the new in-line optical amplifiers (not switches!) have any effect on quantum crypto messages? Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Reality is not optional." --Thomas Sowell The e$ Home Page: http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/

3 3

National Cryptologic Museum (Noise)
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I peeled this off of Usenet, Wondering if this is Tim doing a little trolling? Cheers! The Christmas Troll --(fwd)-- Hi all, If you've never heard of the National Cryptologic Museum and have an interest in this kind of stuff, you MUST go take a look. It's at Fort Meade, outside Laurel, Maryland, and actually lies on the grounds of the NSA. I dropped by the other day and was very impressed. The NSA is to be grudgingly %^) commended, although the material on recent operations (post-1950) is understandably a little thin. The very coolest exhibit is a functioning Enigma machine on which visitors are allowed to encrypt/decrypt messages. It really does work well, and I got the same gloating thrill I felt the first time I decrypted a PGP message from a friend. There is also a piece of Gary Powers' U2, a Cray X-MP processor that you can sit on and peer into, several specimens of old Japanese crypto machines, and incontrovertible proof of the Rosenbergs' perfidy and treason, among many other interesting displays. The staff is friendly and informative, but you will not get the current key codes for ICBM launch control out of them, of course. I did not see any mention of PGP or related topics in my brief visit, either. Oh, and most surreal was the entrance: at the end of the road, an almost unmarked gate a yard wide in a razor wire fence, dangling a padlock. I wondered for a moment if it were the right place and if I would be shot if I actually went inside. Allow half a day if you are a serious student of these topics, and an hour or two if not. All in all, it was the second most interesting museum I saw in Washington (after Air & Space). I still don't trust Clipper, but it was certainly nice to see the human side of the big bad spooky NSA. They have done an important job for the country and don't deserve most of the abuse that I see heaped on them on the Internet. --ccm Christopher C. May, M.D. Univ. of Texas Health Sci. Ctr. San Antonio may(a)uthscsa.edu * 72707.413(a)compuserve.com "Too much Law; not enough Order." --

2 1

Re: Online Zakat Payment: Religious tithe.
by Steven C. Perkins 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am resending Mr. Gabb's message edited to show that Mr. May wrote the three lines in question. SC Perkins At 10:34 AM 2/13/96 +0000, you wrote: >On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > > Once again, the gutter religion of Islam reveals the derangement of its > so-called Prophet. > > The world really needs to get around to nuking these folks. > >Oh, Come now! Islam may in its present form be a religion deeply hostile >to liberty. But since "nuking" the whole Islamic world would not be >itself much of a defence of freedom, the only long term answer is to >promote within Islam the same kind of Reformation as eventually made >Christianity half decent. And Tim's comments do not contribute to that. >I don't know how many internet servers there are in the Middle East. >But, if I were an intelligent fundamentalist, I'd be copying it all over >the place. "Look", I'd be saying, "these people really do mean another >crusade to destroy us and our faith". > >I can understand Tim's disgust with these people. But I do question his >manner of expressing it. > > ***************************************************************************** Steven C. Perkins sperkins(a)andromeda.rutgers.edu User Services Coordinator, Rutgers School of Law at Newark 15 Washington Street Newark, NJ 07102 VOX: 201-648-5965 FAX: 201-648-1356 http://www.rutgers.edu/RUSLN/rulnindx.html http://www.rutgers.edu/lawschool.html "Raise your voices to the Sky. It is a Good Day to die." Chief Crazy Horse *****************************************************************************

1 0

Canada (was Re: Regulation of citizen-alien communications (Was: Choices))
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Attributions lost in the flow] > >Oh? You mean that I can get busted for giving my Canadian spouse a copy > >of PGP? > > > > Nah - Canada is America's 51st state :-) Until you try to bring your laptop back across the border. On a recent trip, I was actually stopped at customs and asked about my 4 year old Dell. Of course, I had purchased it in the US, but I didn't even want to think about the .. er .. things that I had on the hard drive. Linux with pgp, cfs, ssh, and a number of other interesting packages installed. Should I have been worried? yup

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ready the article about the COOKIE.TXT file that Netscape creates. Apparently my copy has yet to modify it since it was installed... so much for 'hacking' it (I decided to try and leave it write-protected for now). I'm curious if anyone knows which sites use/modify it. Also wondering why Netscape seems to touch/modify the certification key files every time it runs. Rob. --- Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" (not in quotes) to <WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com> for a copy of my PGP key.

1 0

Net Police, Red and in Bed
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

WSJ, 15 February 1996: China Tells Internet Users To Register With Police Beijing (AP) - China ordered all users of the Internet and other international computer networks to register with the police, as part of an effort to tighten control over information. The order came in a circular issued by the Ministry of Public Security, according to the state-run Xinhua News Agency. Xinhua didn't give a date by which current users must register but said new users and those switching or terminating services must inform police within 30 days. It was unclear how foreigners would be affected. The rules haven't been published in detail, but previous Xinhua reports warned network users not to harm national security, reveal state secrets or disseminate pornography. China embarked on a broad crackdown on Internet users and other sources of information potentially harmful to government interests in December. The Ministry of Post Telecommunications was made the sole provider of channels connecting Chinese computer users with international networks. ----- Financial Times, 15 February, 1996 Cyberlaws [Editorial] Communication *sans frontieres*. To the Internet's fans that is the essence of its appeal. But to anyone putting information on the Internet's World Wide Web, its global nature is the cause of a growing headache: how to uphold intellectual property rights to the rivers of information pouring over its wires. Online computer systems such as the Net are among the fastest growing ways to distribute information -- music and pictures as well as words and numbers. But existing copyright laws deal inadequately with digital transmission. Regulation is complicated by the way that information downloaded in one country can have originated almost anywhere in the world. The $35bn-a-year music industry now believes that digital copyright abuse is a big future threat to its revenues. The century-old Berne convention on copyright and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade represent a degree of international agreement on the treatment of such issues. However, many countries are not signatories, while standards of intellectual property protection vary widely among those which have signed. Moreover, there are technological problems in enforcing agreements even where they exist. At present, it is often difficult to identify both those who have accessed information, and those who have entered it on the Net. Given that problem, some groups want companies providing Internet access to be responsible for upholding rules, rather than users or publishers. But this is highly unattractive: service providers will be unaware of much on the Net. The currently imperfect state of protection is one reason why much cyberinformation is junk, of value to almost nobody, deposited partly to stir up interest in paidfor services beyond the Net. However, new ways to restrict access to parts of the Net, and to charge for subscriptions to that information, may address that shortcoming. Companies are also working on "electronic tags" which will show whether information is passed to unauthorised users. If such technological developments bear fruit, the whole game may change. The mainstay of the Internet may no longer be information already published in another medium. Instead, publishers could put material of real value on the Net, knowing they would be paid. Other media may be squeezed as the Internet assumes some of their role. In this respect, copyright problems are a symptom of the Internet's immaturity, rather than a sign that electronic sophistication has made regulation impossible. The Net itself is a creation of technology, not policy, and the solutions to this problem are more likely to be technological than legal. But solutions must be found if the Net is to realise its enormous commercial potential. ----- FT has a front page article on what China may do if the US imposes sanctions for copyright violations. It includes overtures by the Chinese to Britain to reap the benefits of shutting down US businesses in retaliation. Noting the well-oiled handover of Hong Kong to China as an example of the mutual benefits of imperialist most- favored status, and sharing tips and tricks of crackdown on civil disorder.

1 0

2.5_bil
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The 2-15-96 NYT reports on the design and manufacture of the new high-tech Swiss bank note: The 50-franc bill is the world's first digital bank note -- designed on a computer that resolves its design into 2.5 billion points, each of them individually accessible electronically. There are more than 20 security features, though the precise number is a secret. Its design is vertical rather than horizontal. Ten printing processes are involved, including silk screening for the chameleon numbers and hot stamping for the silvery elements. The Swiss say American bills are "a little outdated, even the new ones, as far as the state of the art goes." 2.5_bil

1 0

Re: Netscrape's Cookies
by jf_avon＠citenet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Alex Strasheim <cp(a)proust.suba.com> said: >The best answer would probably be to use the kind of pop-up messages you >get when you're going to submit a secure or insecure form. "You're about >to send a cookie back to a web server, continue or abandon?" "You're >about to send mail from a web page, do you want to do that?" Give people >the ability to turn the messages off -- that way functionality isn't >impaired. I find that a very good solution providing that the browser say: >"You're about to send a cookie...." Here, I would add: "... that contain the following information:" (information list) "... back to a web server, continue or abandon?" Otherwise, it not as worse, but still in the same spirit as to sign a blank check to a stranger... ( I am telling you... it's been *at least* a million years that I did not exagerate! :) Regards to the vast majority of CPunk JFA **** NEW PGP 2.6.2 KEY ********* 2048 bits Key ID:24201BA1 1996/02/13 Jean-Francois Avon <jf_avon(a)citenet.net> Key fingerprint = 23 B6 24 31 86 67 FB 35 C7 A7 AF 12 A1 61 E9 3D **** OLD KEY: DO NOT USE ANYMORE UNLESS FOR VERIFYING SIGNATURES **** 1024 bits Key ID:57214AED 1995/10/04 Jean-Francois Avon <jf_avon(a)citenet.net> Key fingerprint = 84 96 76 AE EB 7C AB 15 88 47 87 B0 18 31 74 9F

2 1

Re: anonymous age credentials, sharing of
by gw 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:38 PM 2/14/96 -0500, you wrote: >Suppose Alice is a CA who issues anonymous age credentials. >Bob is 15 >Carol is 25 > >Carol gets a legitimate anonymous age credential from Alice bound to an >anonymous public key generated for this purpose. Carol then gives the >key pair to Bob. Bob uses to do things only adults are legally permitted >to do. (It's not bound to Carol's everday keypair because that's not >anonymous....) > >What can stop Bob and Carol from subverting a scheme that relies on >anonymous age creditials in this manner? > >If the answer is "nothing" this might mean that purveyors of "adult" >material might have no defense against a law requiring that they collect a >True Name + age creditential.... > >A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) >Associate Professor of Law | >U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu >P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin >Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. > > I believe the answer is nothing ... but the situation is no different than Carol going into Le Sexxey Shoppey, buying a porn-pack of restricted material, and then giving it to Bob. As has been said in this forum and others before, in the limit all access control comes down to positive identification of an individual. Unless We, the People, want to support permanently binding a traceable, non-anonymous identity to all certificate attributes that are used in electronic exchange (age, etc...) then there is going to be the potential for someone to deliberately allow their credential to be misused. IMO, to prevent this totally would require implanting a non-forgable i.d. chip in everyone at birth ..... not very appealing.

2 1

sameer's lawsuit??
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Some entity calling itself Sameer may have said: > One of my ex-users who is now suing me has posted to > alt.anonymous. You might want to read about it. Look for the subject > "THE FACTS ON COMMUNITY CONEXION" > (this guy is a wellknown spammer) Could someone forward this post to cypherpunks? I can't get ahold of a reliable newsserver ...... Thanks, Micahel Ellis <mellis(a)alpha.c2.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMSKE2Qqs/Oe38tFJAQG8nwP/RCqIfKZrSXfhgsGBG+P61fBvzzXM6fdR QmRtA/xYcxTUW7TZmjvsvQAnpUQYSpywB84FFUhHB7w8cdxJBZVHg53tYyuDuAHU q4InJbbS+9AsFeoCGspy7ADqn4DU8gmLpIZ6mxGb37hBav10xlVYaUm7IyYjej+Z WWSakPnjcVk= =W2v0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Some thoughts on the Chinese Net
by cme＠cybercash.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>The more complex portion (from my perspective, at any rate) is a >modification of the standard TCP/IP protocol, requiring that each packet >be signed by its originating user. That's the killer. Signatures take a huge amount of CPU time. Signing each packet is not going to be cost effective. However, they could have an authenticated key exchange and then symmetric- encrypt each TCP/IP connection. That can perform -- and has the nice side effect [from the Chinese POV] of depriving the NSA of Chinese civilian net intelligence. As long as the key exchange is signed, everything travelling using that key is authenticated implicitly. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Carl M. Ellison cme(a)cybercash.com http://www.clark.net/pub/cme | |CyberCash, Inc., Suite 430 http://www.cybercash.com/ | |2100 Reston Parkway PGP 2.6.2: 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 | |Reston, VA 22091 Tel: (703) 620-4200 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

2 1

DES_ono
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Citing the crypto-expert BSA study noted here by Matt Blaze, Computerworld of 2-12-96: "Standard Encryption Vulnerable To Attack. Banking's most trusted technique for funds transfer questioned." It reports on puny crypto and DES desperation, with an "Oh, no, please" by the ABA. DES_ono [Thanks to BC]

3 3

Re: Online Zakat Payment: Religious tithe.
by Ashfaq Rasheed 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steven I was referring to Tim May comments. I am sorry if I was not clear in my response. Thanks! Ashfaq Ahmed > From sperkins(a)andromeda.rutgers.edu Thu Feb 15 13:45:35 1996 > X-Sender: sperkins(a)andromeda.rutgers.edu > X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4b11 (32) > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > text/plain> ; > charset="us-ascii"> > To: Ashfaq Rasheed <ashfaq(a)corp.cirrus.com> > Subject: Re: Online Zakat Payment: Religious tithe. > Content-Length: 2796 > X-Lines: 67 > > Ashfaq: > > Please note that the lines you underlined were written by Mr. May and not by > me. As a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, blessed be his name, I would > not write such comments. > > Steven C. Perkins > > > > At 07:28 PM 2/14/96 -0800, you wrote: > >> From owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Tue Feb 13 10:34:37 1996 > >> To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> > >> Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >> Subject: Re: Online Zakat Payment: Religious tithe. > >> In-Reply-To: <ad4541d1000210045325(a)[205.199.118.202]> > >> Mime-Version: 1.0 > >> Content-Type> : > TEXT/PLAIN> ; > charset=US-ASCII> > >> Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >> Precedence: bulk > >> Content-Length: 971 > >> X-Lines: 20 > >> > >> On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > >> > >> > At 10:07 PM 2/12/96, Steven C. Perkins wrote: > >> > Once again, the gutter religion of Islam reveals the derangement of its > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> > so-called Prophet. > >> > > >> > The world really needs to get around to nuking these folks. > >> > > >> Oh, Come now! Islam may in its present form be a religion deeply hostile > >> to liberty. But since "nuking" the whole Islamic world would not be > >> itself much of a defence of freedom, the only long term answer is to > >> promote within Islam the same kind of Reformation as eventually made > >> Christianity half decent. And Tim's comments do not contribute to that. > >> I don't know how many internet servers there are in the Middle East. > >> But, if I were an intelligent fundamentalist, I'd be copying it all over > >> the place. "Look", I'd be saying, "these people really do mean another > >> crusade to destroy us and our faith". > >> > >> I can understand Tim's disgust with these people. But I do question his > >> manner of expressing it. > >> > > > >Actions of certain individual or group does not reflect what the actual > >religion is. Examples of this can be found on every religion. > > > >Somebody generalizing as above reflects his/her own closed/blocked mentality. > > > >Look at yourself, if you can fall to such degrading levels and since you > >happen to be a member of this mailing list, it is not ration to think as > >every cpunks as demented as you are. > > > >Ashfaq Ahmed > > > > > ***************************************************************************** > Steven C. Perkins sperkins(a)andromeda.rutgers.edu > User Services Coordinator, Rutgers School of Law at Newark > 15 Washington Street Newark, NJ 07102 > VOX: 201-648-5965 FAX: 201-648-1356 > http://www.rutgers.edu/RUSLN/rulnindx.html > http://www.rutgers.edu/lawschool.html > "Raise your voices to the Sky. It is a Good Day to die." Chief Crazy Horse > ***************************************************************************** >

1 0

Re: Some thoughts on the Chinese Net
by cme＠cybercash.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:31 2/15/96, Jon Lasser wrote: >How would packets coming into the country be marked / passed on? Presumably, you'd need a Chinese-approved identity key in order to get packets into the country. >So it seems that, in general, the Chinese supression of the net is >possible. A frightening thought. Or, if you think about potential >implications 10 yrs down the road here, a sobering thought. Hold on.. Assuming we really believe the net is a good thing, if the Chinese block it, they're hurting themselves. We don't need to get bent out of shape. They could as easily refuse to connect to the rest of the world. The more they repress their population, the more their population will want to rise up in protest -- maybe not this millenium but probably in the next. All we have to be sure of is that we don't let the Chinese dictate to us what content we can provide. It's like the CDA. The Chinese might choose to implement a nation-wide SurfWatch at all connection points at its borders. ...their problem, IMHO.... +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Carl M. Ellison cme(a)cybercash.com http://www.clark.net/pub/cme | |CyberCash, Inc., Suite 430 http://www.cybercash.com/ | |2100 Reston Parkway PGP 2.6.2: 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 | |Reston, VA 22091 Tel: (703) 620-4200 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

2 1

Re: The Emotional Killer (or out of the frying pan and into
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 02:51 PM 2/14/96 -0500, tallpaul wrote: >On Feb 11, 1996 23:48:29, 'jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com>' wrote: > > >>At 11:59 PM 2/11/96 -0500, tallpaul wrote: >>>I want to write on the theme posted to the list in the message below >where >>>J. Bell wrote "It is their ACTIONS that I feel violate my rights; that is > >>>what justifies my seeking their deaths, should I choose to do so." >>> >>>First, one thing that marks the sane adult from the child and the >floridly >>>psychotic adult is the sane adult's knowledge that "feelings" and "facts" > >>>are two different things. >>> >>>It is one thing to "feel," as J. Bell or all of us might, that our rights > >>>have been violated. >>> >>>It is another thing to maintain, as J. Bell uniquely appears to do, that >>>the "feeling" gives him the right to seek another person's death. >> >>You're clearly confused. I was responding to an accusation that I was >>defending seeking somebody's death simply because of a disagreement of >>OPINION. My comment was intended to remind the reader that it is the >>ACTIONS of a person which justify the self-defense; not simply the >>disagreement. > >I disagree and I believe that my quote (reposted by J. Bell) of his >original statement supports me. He mentioned "ACTIONS" and he mentioned >"OPINIONS" but he relied on his "feelings" as the touchstone of reality. >More than ever I believe that he genuinely cannot understand the >difference. He still confuses his "feelings" which exist nowhere but inside >his head with "ACTIONS" which exist outside his head in the real world. Frankly, I think you are deliberately engaging in nit-picky semantical arguments when your fundamental position is bankrupt. I've always made it clear that I don't "assume" that every person is right in his belief that his rights have been violated; rather, I point out that whether they are right or wrong, ultimately you (and me, and society) must deal with the FACT of that belief. If the person (people?) in question is actually wrong, then consider it a useful task to explain to that person WHY his beliefs are wrong. If he's RIGHT, he has the right to act to defend his rights. The question of whether any given person is right, in any given belief, is an interesting matter, but it is only marginally relevant to the subject of "Assassination Politics." Ultimately, people WILL act on what they believe to be true; you can't just stick your head in the sand and make them go away. You can try to convince them they're wrong, or you can try to defend yourself against their (allegedly misguided) actions: That is your choice. Get back to the subject at hand and I'll be happy to continue to debate. Engage in silly semantics and I'll be pleased to ignore you. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMSN1V/qHVDBboB2dAQFObAQAnYKsS2YqWwWVatdTCYBvcq2eGdXD4UNf 0hLC15BHPcK7PPNx2RbgevjatE8+NFCDXsgOYdANDDcCLo9KiXGtHjOg9790msuX sCLGKkZkijXNe64Bu2tpvcYT1Aqs+PVrYiAad/itieIvCQ3v1GdWSAvuULuNVqP0 TZptrXTDYtE= =SJtm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Remailers Pose Risk
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Computerworld, February 12, 1996, Front page: Stealth E-mail poses corporate security risk By Gary H. Anthes Anonymous remailers on the Internet are emerging as a threat to national and corporate security, some experts warn. These remailers are Internet sites that strip the names and addresses from electronic-mail messages before passing them along anonymously to prople or newsgroups. For corporate information systems managers, stealth E-mail is especially troubling because it allows hackers to attack systems, steal trade secrets and broadcast them worldwide without leaving an audit trail for authorities to follow. "Anonymous remailers have a lot of nasty potential," said Stephen T. Kent, chief scientist for security technology at BBN Corp. in Cambridge, Mass. "They have the broadcast potential of the news media but without the possibility of recourse if something is unsubstantiated or defaming is published." Critics are calling for strict limits or an outright ban on remailer sites, but others insist they are a safeguard against electronic snooping by abusive governments and should be considered a political freedom. Anonymous remailers have been used in a variety of criminal acts, including distributing pornography and computer viruses, violating copyright laws and harassing people with nasty messages. One snowy day last month, for example, about 25% of the workforce at a defense contractor in Rockville, Md., went home after they received a bogus E-mail message dismissing them for the day. The message originated from an anonymous remailer that allowed the user to impersonate a senior company official. But there are more scary, less publicized uses of remailers, said Paul Strassmann, former director of defense information at the Pentagon. Stealth E-mail also is used extensively by Russian criminals, often former KGB agents. "This method of communication is a favorite for engaging the services of cyber-criminals and for authorizing payment for their acts through a third party." Strassmann said. Its Reputation Precedes It Perhaps the best-known remailer site is in Finland at anon.penet.fi. The Finnish server was used last year to publish confidential and copyrighted scriptures from the Church of Scientology. It also was used to reveal the secret source code used by RSA Data Security, Inc. in some of its encryption products. Last year, police raided the Finnish site and seized records and computer gear as part of an investigation of alleged copyright infringement. The administrator of anon.penet.fi offers this warning to new users: "I believe very firmly that it's not for me to dictate how other people ought to behave. But remember, anonymous postings are a privilege, and use them accordingly. Remember, this is a service that some people who use newsgroups such as alt.sexual.abuse.recovery need. Please don't do anything stupid that would force me to close down the service." One remailer advertises itself as a way to thwart attempts by intelligence agencies to trace illegal traffic, Strassmann said. It holds all incoming messages until five minutes after the hour, then remails them in random order. The messages are sent through five to 20 other remailers, with a stop in at least one of the several countries noted for lax law enforcement, he said. Yet other experts say the threat from remailers is greatly exaggerated. "We've had remailers around for a while, and society hasn't fallen," said Mike Godwin, staff counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "We've had anonymous communication in the U.S. for years, you can use a public telephone, send a letter without a return address or engage in a cash transaction." Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an Ohio law that required the authors of political posters and pamphlets to identify themselves. "In the case of political speach, you can't make people tell you who they are," said Patrick Sullivan, executive director of the Computer Ethics Institute in Washington. But Sullivan said the police raid on the Finnish remailer was prompted by the Church of Scientology's legitimate complaint about violations of copyright law. "I haven't heard many uses of remailers that haven't involved, at the very least, being disrespective and, at the most, trying to cause harm of some sort." he said. _________________________________________________________ Battle against remailers an unfair fight Think of anonymous remailers as enemies you can't fight face to face, says Paul Strassmann, former director of defense information at the Pentagon and now a lecturer at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. "Anonymous remailers are here to stay," he said. "That means the old military paradigm of retaliation falls apart. The whole theory of warfare has been if someone attacks you, you can attack them. But when you are anonymous, there is no one to shoot at." Strassmann said society myst look for defenses in the health sciences, not among electronic technologies. "The history of public health teaches us that suppression of any disease must be preceded by a thorough understanding of its behavior, its method of transmission and how it creates its own ecology," he said. "As in the case of smallpox, yellow fever, flu epidemics, AIDS or malaria, it will take disasters before the public may accept that some forms of restrictions on the electronic freedom of speech and that privacy may be worthwhile." - Gary H. Anthes _________________________________________________________ Do's and don'ts Unethical or illegal uses of anonymous remailers: - To spread viruses or other malicious software - To harass or commit libel - To violate copyright laws - To encourage others to commit unethical or illegal behavior Legitimate uses of anonymous remailers: - For "whistle blowing" - For political speech - For encouraging frank but constructive exchanges of opinions _________________________________________________________ Article also contained chart on how to use anon.penet.fi, not included here. [Thanks to BC for transcribing]

1 0

Re: Assassination Politics(tm) was V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[I've changed the Subject: to more accurately reflect the contents] My purpose on this thread is to examine the limits of Jim Bell's idea of Assassination Politics. My ground rules are to assume that it is a natural outgrowth of the technologies of anonymous cash and anonymous remailers. As such arguments that it is immoral are only valid to the extent that they bare on individual's decisions to particpate in an assassination. I believe that we have general agreement that high government figures are not subject to sanction via assassination politics because they already enjoy Secret Service levels of protection. I also believe that Jim and I disagree about the significance of Salmon Rushdie. Jim thinks that the lack of anonymity in the Mullah's assassination bounty is repelling possible assassins. I disagree. A question worth asking is, How much does it cost the British government to protect Mr. Rushdie by keeping his location secret and providing other unspecified protection. If anyone knows the answer, it could help build an economic model of Assassination Politics. Jim Bell said: >Actually, I think the primary targets will be either the middle level >manager types, or the ones who have attracted a substantial amount of bad >publicity by "following orders." Lon Horiuchi (the sniper who shot Vicki >Weaver) for example, would be a excellent example of a person who'd try to >claim, "I was just following orders." Okay, maybe he was, but so was Adolph >Eichmann. I agree that Jim's idea of targeting certain specific individuals, such as the sniper above might work. >Once the tax collectors/enforcers were targeted, the rest of the government >wouldn't be able to operate, and would collapse. However if you tackle the whole tax system, you get into problems of scale. The IRS alone (according to their web page) has over 110,000 employees, and we havn't even mentioned the state and local employees. I don't think killing one or two will have a sigificant effect (that is occuring now). I will assume that you have to successfully kill about 10% to have enough effect to shut off the government's money supply. Attacks at this scale will be difficult because while people will have perfect anonymity in cyberspace, they won't enjoy it in physical space. Neighbors, survalence cameras, etc.; in fact all the technology that makes privacy so hard to achieve today will be available to catch the assassins. The police will also be more motivated to utilize the technology for this class of people than they would for drug dealers, pimps and other low lifes. These points will tend to raise the price of assassinations. Let us assume that we can buy assassinations for $50,000 per person. Times 11,000 people is $550 million dollars. That is quite a sum. I need to see an analysis which shows how to raise money on this scale. Bill

1 0

Re: Netscrape's Cookies
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:34 2/14/96, Alex Strasheim wrote: >> >>I'm curious if anyone knows which sites use/modify it. >> >AFAIK, the only site that uses it is *.netscape.com >> >> That is not quite true. There are other sites that use the cookies. (It is >> not very common though...) > >A good place to read about cookies is http://www.illuminatus.com/cookie; >I think there are pointers to cgi/perl stuff that manipulates them. > >Cookies are very helpful for database and commerce applications. I'm >using them for a crude online store, as a way to let the web server keep >track of who has what in their shopping basket. Cookies are a godsend for shopping baskets. Saving state without them is a major pain. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

1 0

RE: Cookie Crumbles
by Blake Coverett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >What are the chances that NSCP might add a feature that would >allow customers to say yes or no at login to tracking their >movements at any site visited, with a friendly notice that >tracking analysis was being done? The netscape browser could assert that tracking was not desired to it's heart's content, but that doesn't prevent the server from tracking any state it wants about you. (The typical non-cookie approach being to include a session identifier in all URLs) regards, - -Blake -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAwUBMSOODrmr67p11D8rAQHg8wP/fdjXkJFGuFCyCFr7oyP+z5B6a4S4RNd7 3nkzLVIhil6fHW78CKohGmjVPwuwiz81FGRobfsAoQKgUW0zCMI4SmI9Parxk63A Ly5ckTVf+oDI6WWbyXg39xr7lMPKUqzfyzi3M7nDVXEPNZXLKH58+WJoR0eUsUyW 7AWwcEOducM= =DGYR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Using lasers to communicate
by hoz＠univel.telescan.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:38 AM 2/14/96 -0500, you wrote: >This idea of sending data via laser beams across open spaces has some >very useful potential. ... >Eavesdropping and channel-blocking and physical-location-discovery are >related threats to which most traditional data channels are susceptible. >Any link which depends on a physical conduit (phone line, fiber, coax) >is relatively easy to interrupt and to trace to its end points. >RF links, even with frequency hopping, are subject to triangulation and >jamming. All these kinds of links can be eavesdropped. >Point-to-point conduitless laser signalling, as envisioned by "Bill" and >Tim in their quotes below, eliminates or reduces these threats Dust will cause diffraction of the beam (at a reduced intensity, of course). Near the source, a detector tuned narrowly to the wavelength of interest would probably succeed quickly. If you have a line of sight channel, there are many other ways to signal that will preserve some deniability. Rick F. Hoselton (who doesn't claim to present opinions for others)

1 0

Re: AT&T Public Policy Research -- hiring for cypherpunks
by ethridge＠Onramp.NET 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Alan Olsen wrote: > >| > Addresses will not be easily 'transferable.' The IETF is >| >discussing a 'Best Current Practices' document that talks about >| >address portability. Basically, it can't happen, because the routers >| >only have so much memory, and the routers at the core of the internet >| >can't keep in memory how to reach every one; there needs to be >| >aggregation. The only feasible aggregation seems to be provider >| >based, ie, MCI, Alternet, and other large ISPs get blocks of >| >addresses. They give them to smaller companies, like got.net, which >| >gives them to customers. The result? The core routers have a few >| >more years. >| >| A good point. Having parts of subnet shifting around could be pretty painful >| from an admin point of view. > >Its not an admin's point of view thats worrisome. Whats worrisome is >that the routers at the core of the net only have so much memory, and >if the routing tables grow beyond that, we're all hosed, becuase the >core of the internet will start thrashing. So, in essense, you taking >your network address with you when you switch providers ('address >portability' causes costs that must be borne by the entire global >internet. Given that the world of telephony is moving towards Local Number Portability, isn't it inevitable that the internet will be expected to provide the equivalent functionality? In the world of telephones it's being mandated in the name of local loop competition, which presumably isn't a problem for the internet. But if someday i can move across the country and keep my telephone number, i'd expect the same of my internet address. That said, the issue of who manages the database is a significant one, but more political/economic issue than technical. allen

3 2

META: Filtering/Posting advice
by Leslie Todd Masco 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "I have a concern..." Cypherunks First: Stipulated that any traffic has a 'right' to be on cypherpunks. However, cypherpunks is what we make it. Every time you post a message, consider the desirability of seeing a hundred or so messages just like it from every other readers' point of view. Content control begins at home. Second: I'll remind the reader that one can easily evaluate an individual's past contributions to cypherpunks by looking at the archives' "by author" listing. If you post to cypherpunks, I'd suggest that you go back and look at what you've posted in the past to get a feel for how other people on the list see you. Third: Filtering isn't just a game for the vocal: as noise begets noise, I'd encourage everybody to filter out people whose prose they simply can not stand. While this is an important aspect to creating a more readable list, I can't imagine anybody really caring who else has been "plonked": to me, in seems no more than a preadolescent "nyah nyah, I'm not listening..." I'm half- (only half-, as I'm a free-speech absolutist) tempted to write a tool that would automatically remove any person from cypherpunks who posts a "plonk" message. Until the total lack of security in majordomo is addressed, this is a game that anybody who can telnet to an smtp port can play. Fourth: Cypherpunks is fast becoming a ghetto. My first reaction (which I did not follow) to several crypto posts in the last few days has been to refer the posters to coderpunks. While there is some signal that will always remain uniquely suited to cypherpunks (Tim May's contributions, Strata's response to JPB, and Jim Bell's Assassination idea -- though not all of the messages he's sent since -- immediately come to mind), any signal that has another place to migrate will do so if the noise issue isn't addressed better. Words of wisdom from the past: This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire civilized world. Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what you are doing. Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny] IE, please... if you aren't adding *new* *signal* to the list, please refrain from posting. If you must flame a person, do it in private email. -- Todd - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMR/CnioZzwIn1bdtAQEG6gGAsw6qzFNpiRLGRW0n7qdHDIJ+Yf+XmBIC dnntiQ+UbXODeNLwsp4jVPSFVETAkCJj =GAYX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3

(Fwd) UPDATE: DoJ Brief is Filed
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just received this... (apologies to crypto-only folx on the list) ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 14:26:38 -0800 (PST) To: protest(a)wired.com From: telstar(a)wired.com (--Todd Lappin-->) Subject: UPDATE: DoJ Brief is Filed At long last, the U.S. Department of Justice has filed a brief in Philadelpia, in an effort to persuade Judge Buckwalter NOT to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that would block implementation and enforcement of the Communications Decency Act. As you'll see below, the DoJ, much like Cathleen Cleaver, seems all too eager to equate "indecency" with "pornography." Grrrrrr. Even worse, the DoJ brief apparently cites Marty Rimm's discredited study about the "pervasiveness" of online pornography as evidence of the urgent need to outlaw indecent material. (TIME Magazine used Rimm's study as the basis for it's sensationalistic "Cyberporn" cover story back in July. It was later revealed that Rimm was an undergradute at Carnegie Mellon University when he did the study, and that his research contained so many methodological flaws that it was all but worthless. TIME even printed a retraction of the story. For more information, visit http://www.hotwired.com/special/pornscare/) According to Ann Beeson, Staff Counsel for the ACLU, "We never thought DOJ would be dumb enough to cite to the Rimm study, so it wasn't mentioned in our initial brief! We expect the judge to rule on the TRO without further reply from us, so we'll have to wait until the next round (the preliminary injunction hearing) before getting in all the info debunking Rimm -- in any event, it is certain to be *very* embarassing for the government." Grrrrrrr. No word yet on when we can expect a decision from Judge Buckwalter, but the ACLU tells me they plan to issue a press release later today. If so, I'll immediately pass it along. In the meantime, here's a CNN update on the DoJ action from http://www.cnnfn.com/news/wires/9602/15/telecom.lawsuit/index.html Stay tuned! --Todd Lappin--> Section Editor WIRED Magazine ================================================================== Justice Department responds to telecom lawsuit February 15, 1996 Web posted at: 12:30 p.m. EST PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) -- The Justice Department filed its written response Wednesday to a lawsuit seeking to block the new computer "indecency" law, saying criminal prosecutions are needed to stop a huge increase in the availability of pornography. The government urged a federal judge not to issue a temporary restraining order against provisions that would make it a crime to send "indecent" and sexually explicit material to minors over computer networks. "Individuals undoubtedly have an important interest in being free of purposeful and direct intrusions on First Amendment freedoms," the brief said. "But the governmental interests at stake here in controlling access by minors in indecent sexually explicit materials is compelling." The American Civil Liberties Union and 19 other groups sought the temporary ban Feb. 8, the same day President Clinton signed into law the Telecommunications Act of 1996. U.S. District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter said then that he wanted to see a written response from prosecutors before issuing a ruling. The law defines indecent as that which, "in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs." Opponents say the standard is too broad and would criminalize information, even in private e-mail, that has educational, artistic and social value, simply because it relates to sex. The government said the indecency standard has been upheld as constitutional in previous cases, and argued that the law's purpose is to restrict access to widely available pornographic images and materials. Violators would face up to two years in prison and $250,000 in fines. A temporary restraining order should only be granted in extraordinary circumstances and if there are no other legal remedies available to plaintiffs. Meanwhile, the situation is dire, the government said. "In the end, plaintiffs cannot dispute that a large and growing amount of pornography is presently available on-line and easily accessible to children in the home, far exceeding anything available prior to the advent of on-line computer services," the government said. ### Rob. --- Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" (not in quotes) to <WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com> for a copy of my PGP key.

1 0