December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Assasination Politics
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"jimbell(a)pacifier.com" "jim bell" 12-FEB-1996 04:18:43.34 >>How much weight is Lotus going to give the opinions of a bunch of >>unbalanced sociopaths when they're thinking about making deal to gak those >>extra 24 bits? Not much, I'll bet. >If "AsPol" actually WORKS, Lotus won't have to "deal" to get "those extra 24 >bits." >Lotus should announce that they have heard of this new idea on CP, called >"Assassination Politics," and have assigned a couple dozen programmers to >implement it by July 1996. They'd back (guarantee) the prizes for the first >such organization, and they'd sell the software to others. At that point, I >think the resignations from government office would skyrocket. It seems likely that any overt organization operating an Assasination Politics scheme will be outlawed... even though the most logical reading of current laws says that it isn't illegal (except for the gambling part). An anonymously constructed one seems a lot more likely - which Lotus could then anonymously patronize. I do have some ideas for making such possible, but I'm waiting on a defense of three points before I'll release them. These points are: A. My previously mentioned problem with a limited but non-libertarian organization. B. I don't trust the average person to look ahead enough to make this (or other Anarcho-Capitalist) schemes work. In other words, the average person has to be able to see that a non-limited organization is a danger to them, etcetera. Moreover, Jim Bell is ignoring the other sources of propaganda than government in convincing the average person that someone is doing something wrong (when, by my ethics at least, they aren't) - such as religion and various organizations like the PFDA. Admittedly, as I've stated before, the requirement for some money would help, at least to the degree that our economy is meritocratic. (A growing tendency, fortunately.) If most people are on a subsistence wage (the result of free trade & automation with varying human abilities), they can't afford enough money for Assasination Politics. (Yes, I'm an intellectual Elitist. Deal with it.) C. While I may not like dealing with the average person very much (see above), I don't want to see them starving in the streets. I can see governmental welfare as being necessary for this, although the private form is definitely preferable. (And yes, I can justify this as being a libertarian - if not Libertarian Party - viewpoint. If I recall correctly, I had a debate with Perry on this on Libernet, in which he tried to dismiss me as "just a Democrat." I was posting under the name ALLENS(a)YANG.EARLHAM.EDU at the time). -Allen

1 0

Re: Response to Perrygram
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:16 PM 2/13/96, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >I will repeat, Tim. You have no job and do nothing for a living. For >you it is probably hard to understand that some of us prefer to get >our mail segregated by topic so that we don't have to spend more time The issue of what I do with my time is a red herring. As it happens, many folks in the "cyberspace activism" spend as much time or more as I do on the Net. In any case, who cares how I spend my time? I also note that for several years Perry was clearly spending a whole lot more time than even I am now on the Net, making the "Top Ten Usenet Posters," or somesuch. I am sure that when Perry was a Shearson-Lehman, or Lehman Brothers, or whatever it was called, and was posting several articles an hour on Extropians, Cypherpunks, Libernet, Usenet, etc., that he would have roughly the same reaction I am now having to someone writing: "Perry, you are writing too much--some of us are trying to get some work done!" He would likely have dismissed their complaints as irrelevant, that no one is forced to read his articles. Likewise today. No one is forced to read my posts, Perry's posts, or anyone else's posts. This is what filters are for. As it happens, I do *not* read all of the posts here. In fact, I delete about 90% of them after scanning the first paragraph, the subject, and the author. Takes me about 15 seconds, tops, to do this, and sometimes I'm even faster. (Do the math: I can "dispose of" about 50 or 60 messages a day in 10-15 minutes...and this is about the best that can be hoped for, even if Perry were the moderator and the 10 or so messages a day that are truly off the wall were screened out...it just wouldn't change the basic time to screen all that much.) >than needed reading our email. However, for some of us, time is >money. I have failed to directly answer your comments on this sort of >thing out of deference to your "elder statesman" status around here, Spare me, Perry. As I mentioned, you certainly used to write a truly vast number of rants to Extropians, Libernet, and, yes, even Cypherpunks. A check of the archives will show this clearly. It is well and good that you apparently are now very busy and cannot write your customary number of articles. But spare us the insinuations (in several of your perrygrams) that because you are too busy to write you are doing critical work and because some of us use our time to write we are slackers. I write because setting down my thoughts and exploring ideas is far more important to me than just about anything else I can imagine doing, including writing C programs. If you don't like this, learn how to use filters and filter me out, or leave the Cypherpunks list. Seems simple enough to me. --Tim May >but this is getting silly. If you want to post about libertarianism, >libernet, so far as I know, still takes postings. If you want to read >about the habits of migrating birds, there are interest groups for >that. We don't have a lot of good places to discuss specifically >cryptography and its impact, and this group was set up *for that*. > >I mean, why not just have one mailing list for all topics of all sorts >if "filtering" and "hitting the 'd' key" are supposed to be the only >way we deal with this stuff, hmm? > >Perry Boycott espionage-enabled software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2

Using /dev/random for PGP key generation? Be Wary
by rngaugp＠alpha.c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Subject: Using /dev/random for PGP key generation? Be Wary I have created a modified version of pgpi for use with a hardware random number generators. Recently, there has been some confusion because people have assumed that I wished people to use this version with NOISE.SYS or an RNG that gathers entropy from timing events called /dev/random. I did indeed mention /dev/random in the readme file, but I did this only because I thought /dev/random would be a likely path for a hardware RNG on a unix system. ( I have never tested this software under unix, but I see no reason why the "RNGDRIVER" feature of the modified PGPI would not work under unix.) Be assured that I originally planed the modification to be used with a real hardware RNG. I tested it with the CALNET/NEWBRIGE RNG under DOS and OS/2. The "RNGDRIVER" feature I tested with OS/2 and the driver in RNG810.ZIP available at ftp.cdrom.com. You may be able to compile and run it under other OSes as well. I see no reason why not. It is my understanding that NOISE.SYS gathers entropy from timing certain events. I have recently learned that a /dev/random works under Linux also by gathering entropy from timing. I am unsure about using my modification, together with these drivers that are not connected to a real hardware RNG. In what way would the use of these drivers' methods of gathering entropy be superior to PGP's method of getting entropy from keyboard timing? If you choose to do something like this, you should think carefully and make a careful study of the code. One thought for the future: It would be nice if BBS'es that run unattended could have a version of pgp that they could run without worrying about running out of entropy! (Because no one is there to type on the keyboard.) Perhaps something like NOISE.SYS (that would get entropy from the COM ports) put together with my mod to pgpi could be made to work. But careful thought an careful design should be done first. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: cp850 iQCVAgUBMR63hs29s2mG+tTVAQFyKwP+Mh95ZNwwrBF+UjEKlEcfaiWY5ab8NthC b3j4cmv9PUXLrCM4DUH2iXtY2f9YNN9GsWT1S1Eu2b0368VBkQTm1+eWcKiDVmlB DumNmt4rZPhYam7wc/5gyGdIyzhGJBeJ0ZOP1kd4w0TfLsDprwKGOD1a0N7T3Ycz gFqBX34x59s= =MDXi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Free end-to-end encryption code?
by Adam philipp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:48 PM 2/12/96 +0000, you wrote: >> Okay...well...here's another problem. You see, most of the clients are >> going to be Windows people. I can't use a Unix-only solution. > >There exists at least one ssh Windows client. Which was a beta that expired February 9th 1996... There is another in the works...REAL SOON NOW(tm). Adam, Esq. --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\ |PGP key available on my home page|Unauthorized interception violates | | http://www.rosa.com/~adam |federal law (18 USC Section 2700 et| |-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|seq.). In any case, PGP encrypted | |SUB ROSA... |communications are preferred for | | (see home page for definition) |sensitive materials. | \-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/

1 0

Re: Portland, OR, Key-Signing+
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:45 PM 2/12/96 -0800, Bruce Baugh wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >ANNOUNCING: >THE SECOND QUASI-MONTHLY PORTLAND CYPHERPUNKS SOIREE AND KEY-SIGNING >I really hate to add this particular paragraph (and it isn't in the >version that'll get posted to newsgroups), but...one person won't be >welcome. Jim Bell's conduct at the last meeting and on the list are >such as to make it quite clear that I don't want him in my home. Bullshit, Bruce! My "conduct" at the last meeting was quite acceptable (nobody else complained, BTW) ; the source of the entire dispute that ensued was completely the irresponsible conduct of Alan Olsen in flaming me on the national cypherpunks list, and my only "crime" was objecting to his flames. I was, quite frankly, shocked that Alan Olsen would behave as badly AFTER the meeting as he did. NOTHING that happened AT THE MEETING prepared me for his later abuse. It turns out, however, that he later incriminated himself by admitting to sending some anonymous flames on Cypherpunks to me; if anything you should be objecting to HIS behavior for this. The fact that you are not is QUITE REVEALING. (Clearly, Olsen was massively (and, at least on the record, at that time, secretly) strongly objecting to my political philosophy and ideas LONG BEFORE the meeting, yet he didn't have the guts to confront me before the meeting.) Even you apparently admit this to be true, by virtue of remembering (now!) to carefully point out that material discussed at the meeting is "fair game" for future discussion on lists. You're obviously trying to cover Olsen's ass on this matter by retroactively making it look like what Olsen did was somehow "acceptable". For the record, I object: Kow-towing to a few people by prohibiting cameras, yet flaming others (anonymously, no less!) for non-hostile commentary made at the first meeting makes Olsen look terrible, and defending him makes you look pretty bad. Olsen's setting up a local Cypherpunks area, adding my name to the list, then removing my name when things got a bit too embarrassing is clearly his standard (mis)behavior; you appear to be adopting his policies and practices. If you REALLY were well meaning, you would not tried to flaunt your rejection of me in a public message; you would have kept that part private. What you want to be able to do is to pretend that it is I who was at fault for Olsen's transgressions; you don't know newer attendees to hear both sides of the story. How does it feel to be a sleazy character, Bruce? Jim Bell Klaatu Burada Nikto

1 0

Re: CyberAngels
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Feb 12, 1996 23:23:59, 'ethridge(a)Onramp.NET (Allen B. Ethridge)' wrote: > >The Guardian Angels have decided to enter cyberspace and make it safe for >us all. They have a FAQ on the web - http://www.safesurf.com/cyberangels/ >. How is this relevant to cypherpunks? From their FAQ: > > >"9) What kinds of changes would the Guardian Angels / CyberAngels like to see? > >a) We would like to see an improvement in User identification. User ID is >impossible to verify or trace back. The very anonymity of Users is itself >causing an increase in rudeness, sexual abuse, flaming, and crimes like >pedophile activity. We the Net Users must take responsibility for the >problem ourselves. One of our demands is for more accountable User IDs on >the Net. When people are anonymous they are also free to be criminals. In a >riot you see rioters wearing masks to disguise their true identity. The >same thing is happening online. We would like to see User ID much more >thoroughly checked by Internet Service Providers." > See: _Computer underground Digest_, "CyberAngels in Cyberspace," #8.04, 01/13/96 (my original piece on the CyberAngels) _Computer underground Digest_, "CYBERANGELS," #8.06, 01/21/96 (the CyberAnels official response) _Computer underground Digest_. [ENTIRE ISSUE]. #8.13, 02/06/96 (the readership responds) CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest Also, I have been corresponding with folks at _Wired_ who are picking up the story, for their March issue I believe. On Feb 13, 1996 00:46:05, 'joseph(a)genome.wi.mit.edu (Joseph Sokol-Margolis)' wrote: >not sure if this is the right place. >I agree with allen, about the issues of 'nym. But looking at other aspects >of these cyberangels I'm unsure how to feel. On one hand they seem resonable, >protecting only the children. ... The CyberAngels want to do *far* more than "protect only children." --tallpaul

2 1

Stewart Baker's web site & OECD international crypto policy
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Stewart used to be General Counsel for NSA. He retired to move into private law practice with Steptoe & Johnson. He has a variety of short papers on encryption, network law & policy available on his law firm's web site, http://www.us.net/~steptoe/. My favorite was his summary report on the OECD meeting in December, ~steptoe/286908.htm, at which the US tried to parade some of the fruits of its behind-the-scenes efforts to convince other governments to become as authoritarian as the US government on crypto policy. If the US government can quietly convince other countries to support Clipper-like systems (including "mandatory key escrow" and "trusted third parties") then they can say, "See, this is a real problem -- all these other countries are having to deal with it too." Of course, if their covert US efforts to stir these people up become widely known, the technique will have less impact. The US government's efforts have failed to convince citizens and industry that there's a problem, when they won't tell us what the problem is but assure us that it's a really big problem. Our own government is now colluding with other governments -- against us and their own citizens -- in a joint attempt to attempt to rob the ordinary people of the world of our rights to privacy, free speech, and free assembly. It would be interesting to see notes from other participants in the same OECD meeting(s). Another 1-hour meeting was scheduled in Canberra on Feb 9. Anyone know what happened there? John Gilmore -- Love your country but never trust its government. -- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvania

1 0

Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:57 PM 2/12/96 +0000, Deranged Mutant wrote: >"The word to kill ain't dirty > I used it in the last line > but use a short word for lovin' > and you wind up doin' time..." But has anyone done time yet (recently) for "indecency." I don't think so. The radio stations were fined and/or threatened with license pulling but no one was put in stir. And since net access is not licensed, there's nothing to pull. DCF

1 0

Re: A Cyberspace Independence Refutation
by jim＠bilbo.suite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Well, that's the way the net is *now* - but it wasn't always > so. I remember the days when the net was composed of a > *lot* of point-to-point UUCP connections eventually > winding up at the backbone. > Don't forget FIDONet. Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

1 0

Re: A Cyberspace Independence Refutation
by lmccarth＠cs.umass.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I wrote: > (I agree with nearly everything in Strata's "Refutation" essay. In > particular, I find his comments [...] Someone pointed out to me that I made an incorrect (and worse, unsupported) assumption about Strata's gender there. I'm sorry. -Lewis

1 0

True democracy the electronic way
by lunaslide＠loop.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

}Is ok. I suspect that we are narrowing on a similar position. Would like }to see a time when net communications make "representatives of the people" }obsolete" since majority voting on any issue can be "anytime,anywhere". }Doubt that it will happen soon. <rm> I too would like to see a purely democratic process rather than a representative one. And I also agree that it won't happen soon. The question is, what do we keep of govt? How would the group propose electronic voting on legislation should proceed? What sort of technical solution could be arrived at to allow everyone in the country to vote on specific legislation and how would they get access to that legislation? I think _this_ is a cypherpunk topic for sure. }Take CDA (please) - obviously draconian and unconstitutional. Think how }much more difficult it would be to overturn if worded more reasonably. }Then ask if that was intentional 8*). I have to believe that Exon truly meant to castrate the net, but in his own zealous wording, made it easier to turn the law over. I think it is reasonable to hope that that will be the effect. Our doing our part to make enough noise about it will only help our cause. lunaslide "Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." - -- Abraham Lincoln On the meridian of time there is no injustice, only the poetry of motion creating the illusion of truth and drama. Henry Miller ________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCPAzEX3QEAAAEEAOGQjhnqGH29pO1WDaXs5GFOVPhCBWyYEk9XEwRmscjveWzH AhA6DeOA480zWNqQURyqE2yPmR8WzT+OXYqmeiQiycKyFA41Vs/Ruf+gXXxe7uXS L5BK3K8oKbfoH0D5/TAkMT4r6BprXFQz4pFc3gY2SSaSPElpMjKHaKBsRsyRABEB AAG0HUplZmYgQ29ubiA8bHVuYXNsaWRlQGxvb3AuY29tiQCVAwUQMRffHzKHaKBs RsyRAQGNhwP9E9xEZ9/LCKnhgtnrqgD7pDoXG2pCy8FoyfFjoImGkG+jF1wELXmB Z0mf8F8CgYkys0mif1XeGDMelr1gzlZAm6LgQt4kcvztMW/aRLn18QP+iwltVT/L p8D37mitOjvuk46sWgAChIaPPPIeg/EaYQjQkmlpWKsEYIoTRy+E8mU= =4Gku -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

2 1

1996-02-13 VP Gore Unveils On-Line Service for Businesses (fwd)
by Ed Carp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 22:28-0500 From: The White House <Publications-Admin(a)WhiteHouse.Gov> To: Public-Distribution(a)CLINTON.AI.MIT.EDU Subject: 1996-02-13 VP Gore Unveils On-Line Service for Businesses THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Vice President ________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release February 13, 1996 VICE PRESIDENT UNVEILS NEWEST ON-LINE SERVICE FOR U.S. BUSINESSES Gore Says U.S. Business Advisor Key To Governing In Information Age Vice President Gore today (2/13) unveiled the a new and improved "customer-designed" version of the U.S. Business Advisor. The "Advisor", which was first presented at the 1995 White House Conference on Small Business, underwent a six-month redesign that addressed the specific needs of the business community. The improved "Advisor" will provide users with one-stop electronic access to more than 60 different federal organizations that assist or regulate businesses. This on-line service, which directly links American businesses with the federal government, was originally developed by the Vice President's National Performance Review in cooperation with federal agencies and the business community. Today, at the annual convention of the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association (AFCEA) in Tyson's Corner, VA, the Vice President officially placed the new Advisor on the World Wide Web (http://www.business.gov) "By employing state-of-the-art information technology, the Advisor is improving communication between American businesses and their government," the Vice President said. "Because this version was developed with the support of the business community, the Advisor serves our customers on their terms. Both Fortune 500 companies and start-up businesses will benefit from this improved service." The Advisor provides an interactive environment where businesses can: file documents electronically with the government; retrieve documents, applications and other information; get answers to commonly asked questions; obtain names and contact numbers of business agencies; acquire news on specific business topics; and send feedback. The improved version of the U.S. Business Advisor was unveiled today as the Vice President delivered the second of three speeches on technology and the future of America. The "Technology Trilogy" began Monday (2/12), in Baltimore, MD, where the Vice President spoke to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The final speech is scheduled for tomorrow (2/14), in Philadelphia, PA, where the Vice President will visit the first programmable computer, also known as the ENIAC.

1 0

Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:36 PM 2/13/96 -0800, Bill Frantz wrote: >At 8:15 PM 2/13/96 -0500, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: >>That may well be true, but speaking as someone who's worked on U.S. >>Presidential campaigns, that kind of protection is expensive, >>time-consuming, intrusive, and unlikely to be extended. > >I assume that both Declan and Jim Bell agree that people high in the >government will be immune because they already enjoy this level of >protection (limitation one). So the only people we can hit are the cannon >fodder, not the ones who gave the orders. It has always been this way with >war. 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. Once the tax collectors/enforcers were targeted, the rest of the government wouldn't be able to operate, and would collapse. >If, after a couple of the Waco people had been hit, I was given the >responsibility to protect them I would proceed as follews: > >(1) Gather them and their families onto some Army base and step up the >patrols. Now I have them safe. And, of course, you've just ruined their lives. Think about it. By doing this, it is made absolutely, completely, and abundantly clear to them that THEY are considered "the enemy" and that their lives are forever put at risk. Previously, government employees could hold their heads up high and be proud of their "public service." Now, if they're discovered, they have to disappear. Does this treatment sound familiar? Their job description and circumstances will more closely resemble that of a Mafia enforcer than a proud public servant. They'll have to teach their children to lie about what their parent does, rather than risk getting exposed. Who, exactly, would want to work for the government under such circumstances? Remember, we're not just talking about a tiny fraction of their number; if the most egregious ones were hidden the ones that were less secure would be killed in their place. Remember, the only reason the government can even afford so many employees is because taxes are collected; what happens when literally every IRS agent resigns to avoid the bullet or bomb? The remainder, the "less bad" ones, couldn't be paid. At that point, government collapses. >(2) Train and release them thru the witness protection program. Cost >$20,000/person (if I remember the article John Young posted a pointer to >correctly. (Thanks John)) This is probably about the same as the cost of >their training, so it makes economic sense. Except that you can't do this for every government employee, and who's going to want to work for the government if it is made clear to them that someday they'll either be killed, or discovered, or they will have to "go underground" to survive. Not a very good prospect. And what happens if they think there's a fairly good chance that my system will succeed? Most people want to be able to retire with a pension; what's the prospect for collecting a pension from a demolished government?!? > >(3) Make sure that the names/faces of the cannon fodder in future actions >are not available to make it harder to target the guilty. > >Bill Then they'll target the "names," the ones who show their faces. See how this works? If the only way you can maintain the government is to keep them all absolutely anonymous, then that government has FAILED. Furthermore, this system's anonymity allows disgruntled public employees the chance to collect money by "turning in" their bosses to the public's ire; if the personnel list for the government is nominally a secret, it will "leak" eventually and those on the list will be followed, confirmed, and targeted. I'm not a betting man, but if I were forced to place a bet, your position doesn't have a prayer.

1 0

Re: Spin Control Alert (LI Newsday, 2/12/96)
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:22 PM 2/13/96 -0500, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: >I do hope the religious right keeps fighting against GAK. However good >their intentions may be on *that* issue, it is transcendently obvious to >anyone who has been following the flux on Capitol Hill that they were >behind the recent push to regulate the Internet. Not obvious to me. While the religious right clearly supported the push to regulate the internet, the main push seemed to me to come from the existing mass media, primarily the three big TV channels. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1

More DaveMail: New Date: 2/22/96
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 17:27:12 -0800 To: telstar(a)wired.com (Todd Lappin -- Wired), davenetworld(a)wired.com, eric.alderman(a)hmg.com, shabbir(a)vtw.org (Shabbir J. Safdar), sac88867(a)saclink1.csus.edu (Allen Cole), nagel(a)applelink.apple.com (Dave Nagel -- Apple), apj7(a)columbia.edu (Andrew Johnston), strindberg3(a)applelink.apple.com, robg(a)prognet.com (Rob Glaser -- Progressive Networks), esp(a)montreal.com (David Kramer), ebelove(a)staff.ichange.com (Ed Belove -- AT&T Interchange) From: dwiner(a)well.com (DaveNet email) Subject: New Date: 2/22/96 Sender: owner-davenetworld(a)wired.com Precedence: bulk --------------------------------------- Amusing Rants from Dave Winer's Desktop Released on 2/12/96; 5:18:26 PM PST --------------------------------------- Rob Glaser, robg(a)prognet.com, was the first to question the choice of 2/12/96 for the 24 Hours of Democracy project. He said: "I think this is a very good idea overall. But I think it is unnecessarily (insanely?) ambitious to try to pull it off on Wednesday." Many more emails like that followed. As the day progressed, I realized that while I'm itching to get the ball rolling, it's taking longer than I thought it would for the pieces to come together. So we're pushing the date back. ***February 22, 1996 The start time will be: 12:01AM, Pacific, 2/22/96. The end time will be: 11:59PM, Pacific, 2/22/96. February 22 is George Washington's Birthday. A national holiday in the United States. It's a bank holiday. The post office is closed. We celebrate the birth of our founding father. The leader in our war for independence. He was the first president of the United States. The man who, according to legend, could not tell a lie. So -- instead of writing a love letter to the Internet, tell the truth about democracy. The founding principles of the United States. The Declaration of Independence. The Constitution. The Bill of Rights. How would George Washington feel about the Internet? And even though 2/22/96 is not Valentine's Day, if you want to write a love letter to the Internet, that's probably OK too! Stay tuned to <http://www.hotwired.com/userland/24/> for news on sponsorship, press information, free web posting via email, clip art, and information about how you can contribute to the success of 24 Hours of Democracy. Thanks! Dave Winer PS: Remember Abraham Lincoln, whose birthday is today, and remember slavery, the Civil War, and then freedom. Can it happen here? It did! ----------------------------------------------- 2/22/96: <http://www.hotwired.com/userland/24/> --- end forwarded text -------------------------------------------------- The e$ lists are brought to you by: Making Commerce Convenient (tm) - Oki Advanced Products - Marlboro, MA Value-Checker(tm) smart card reader= http://www.oki.com/products/vc.html Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion http://www.hyperion.co.uk info(a)hyperion.co.uk See your name here. Be a charter sponsor for e$pam, e$, and Ne$ws! See http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/ or e-mail rah(a)shipwright.com for details... -------------------------------------------------

1 0

Pointer to pro-"compromise" analysis of Japanese Crypto Policy
by johnsonr＠hoshi.colorado.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Japanese encryption policy evidently has no room yet for key "compromise" by the Japanese government. However, Mr. Baker holds out hope that that may change. Forwarded-by: bostic(a)bsdi.com (Keith Bostic) Forwarded-by: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> EMERGING JAPANESE ENCRYPTION POLICY by Stewart A. Baker Steptoe & Johnson sbaker(a)steptoe.com http://www.us.net/~steptoe/276915.htm

1 0

Re: Assasination Politics
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:48 PM 2/12/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > I have changed the subject header (despite its destroying threading >with the way my mailreader works) so that Perry et al can more easily filter >this out. I have concluded that Assasination Politics, since it is a possible >development of true anonymnity, etcetera, is a proper discussion topic for >cypherpunks - while not cryptography in and of itself, it is a possible result >of cryptography. I'm glad some people see that. This may, in fact, turn out to be one of the most important products of modern, public-key cryptography. >From: IN%"frantz(a)netcom.com" 12-FEB-1996 03:24:07.29 > >>Again, absolutely. Hell, I can't even devise a filter that will let me >>filter out Jim Bell's rants while letting me see his reasoned arguments on >>anonymous assassination. (I would love to have him address the Salman >>Rushdie issue, a man who is still alive despite a considerable announced >>price for his head. There appear to be limits to who can be subject to >>assassination for pay.) > > Actually, that's an argument for non-misusage of Assasination Politics. >If the person hides, there's not much one can do about it. But a hiding >law enforcement agent can't be out violating people's rights. Bingo! That's why this system will be so effective; it will DETER bad behavior on the part of the government and its agents. >(I will mention >that whether a right is violated or not is essentially a matter of the >perceiver - under any system, whether governmental or not. All ethical >arguments assume either some degree of common ground that can be argued from, >or the finding of logical inconsistency). Those who do so via the net can be >taken care of via the other mechanisms discussed here. It's just that the >physical part is a possible net weakness. > Moreover, just because _some_ rights-violaters (not that Rushdie was >one) aren't killed doesn't mean that all of them wouldn't be. A system doesn't >have to be 100% efficient to be effective. Yup; it's interesting that Franz didn't see this... Maybe he just didn't WANT to see it! > However, the Rushdie case does bring up one problem I have with >Assasination Politics as currently constructed. While people are unlikely to >patronize a general/non-discriminatory organization, a more particular but >non-libertarian one is still possible. For instance, if the Christian >Coalition put together an organization, anonymously, what would prevent them >from offing everyone who was a major leader against them - such as a doctor >researching new abortion techniques, or a geneticist (such as myself) doing >gene therapy work they found offensive? The patrons would know that _they_ >wouldn't be targeted after all... I would appreciate a response from Jim Bell >on this subject. > -Allen Your question was actually a two-parter. I will separate it below and comment on the pieces: >For instance, if the Christian >Coalition put together an organization, anonymously, what would prevent them >from offing everyone who was a major leader against them - "Who needs leaders"? Think about this, carefully. The current political system is based on the idea that if you don't like the way things are being done, you have to publicize your unhappiness, to organize, and for that you normally "need" leaders. With "Assassination Politics," _leaders_ will not only not be necessary, they might be the prime targets for unhappy people! But this will work both ways: "Christian Coalition" LEADERS will be targets themselves if they publicly advocate the killing of abortion doctors. > such as a doctor >researching new abortion techniques, or a geneticist (such as myself) doing >gene therapy work they found offensive? I wish there was some sort of "perfect, easy solution" to this dilemma, but it's possible there isn't. Ultimately, anybody who does anything that angers enough people, ENOUGH, will be a potential target. I don't think this is a major admission however; society has ALWAYS been this way. In the early 1600's in Salem, women were killed simply due to false accusations that they engaged in 'witchcraft." Governments have prosecuted (and persecuted) people for violation of what we now call victimless crimes. In the pre-1960's South, being black was a de-facto "crime": They could be arrested, tried, and convicted on a pretense. Over 60% of prison cells are filled with people who sold chemicals (drugs) to willing buyers. I think it's clear that there are ALREADY plenty of violations of rights going on; at most, you can claim that "Assassination Politics" is "imperfect" in the sense that it doesn't completely solve this problem. But since I do genuinely believe it will eliminate war, militaries, governments, taxes, and other evils, I think we'll end up with a far better society than we have today. >The patrons would know that _they_ >wouldn't be targeted after all... I would appreciate a response from Jim Bell >on this subject. All is not lost, however. I contend that society would likely IMPROVE to the point where the kind of behavior you want to avoid will not commonly happen. Wishful thinking? Well, consider a point which was driven home to me a week ago at a dinner with my parents, sister and brother in law, and my two nieces, ages 4 and 9. We were eating spareribs, and my father (age 65) commented that such meat used to be considered trash meat, and "only the niggers bought it." (BTW, my father was not and is not a bigot, quite the opposite; he used this terminology to relate the general opinion during the time frame he grew up in; he used this terminology to reflect on and deride that public opinion back then.) My older niece looked mystified, and said she hadn't even HEARD the term "nigger." (and she's substantially above average in vocabulary and intelligence for age 9, BTW) While I am not going to claim that bigotry is dead in the younger generation, I think it's clear that it went out of style in the 1960's and progress has since been made in eradicating most of its more egregious effects. In short, in that issue, society has improved, if by no other method than waiting for the bigots to die off naturally and develop a new generation of more tolerant people. Call this "political correctness" if you wish (and I'm about as much an opponent of "political correctness" as you'll find) but the fact is that things are getting better with regards to race relations. Similarly, I think that once public advocacy for killing abortion doctors and others was deterred (by judicious use of Assassination Politics, for example, even if a given example of such use might be considered "wrong" because it was a violation of "free speech") pretty soon it would be hard to gather much enthusiasm for such bad acts. Few people would risk calling publicly for that; the next generation will "never" hear such a thing, etc. Is it unreasonable for me to suggest that over time, the faults you fear will tend to disappear?

1 0

Re: MS CryptoAPI (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 07:28 PM 2/13/96 -0500, Rich Salz wrote: >Okay, so how the hell did Microsoft get export approval for this? I mean, >this is the classic crypto-with-a-hole; a service-provider interface (SPI) >with DLL's means "plug your crypto here". This is usually considered an >"anciliary" device in ITAR language, and therefore export controlled. I >mean, how long until you see MSWord with "full privacy" option? > >Word I've heard is that the office of Export Control has had a lot of >turnover and "nobody knows anything" anymore. At the risk of blowing my usual horn, I would argue that one advantage in vocal, common, and loudly hostile talk against government is that they have begun to understand how unhappy we are with them. To make an analogy with late-1700's France, the sound of a guillotine being tested probably had a remarkable effect on the upper strata of their society; likewise, dicussions of how we can all chip in and bump off the whole lot of the bastards might remind a few of they key government players that they are not immune from eventual retribution. Resulting in "a lot of turnover." If we make a "reasonable assumption" that most of those government employees aren't stupid, and they discover that the prospect for Crypto-Anarchy (trademark owned by Tim May?) is good, it seems reasonable to assume that they'll want to avoid being around when THE END comes for their employer. Jim Bell Klaatu Burada Nikto -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMSF8vvqHVDBboB2dAQExXQP+JHO6P80VfXE1+x5JmstA14dg+wlmXBK2 +8UYUnD7IpK2QzIKoEbmot2/WfUK/9zzOiuRuXvzc6FxfscRm7xNzNO28vviTN5U osVNgm72t/R2jZspMPr+cYE3GcxDIcQvTEOth5Tz9J9q7TfI4+NPl68fN7sqEOsG m44PPIy6F2I= =m3hQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Off topic - research query
by Mark Neely 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Howdy from Australia. I am in the process of doing some research for an article on our present bandwidth difficulties in Oz. As a side issue, I wanted to cover the "overhead" factor inherent in the TCP/IP (v4?) protocol which I understand is reduced under the proposed IPv.6 protocol. I'd also like to discuss the "unfriendly" manner in which web browsers such as Netscape hog resources by sending multiple port access requests. Can anyone point me towards recent papers which deal with these issues? TIA Mark ___ Mark Neely - accessnt(a)ozemail.com.au Lawyer, Professional Cynic Author: Australian Beginner's Guide to the Internet Work-in-Progress: Australian Business Guide to the Internet WWW: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~accessnt

2 1

Re: AT&T Public Policy Research -- hiring for cypherpunks
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:03 PM 2/13/96 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: > IP addresses are a scarce resource today. Try getting a /16 >allocation (what used to be a class B). There are politics in the >process already. I know they are getting scarce. I just find the "let's sell IP addresses on the open market" do be a scary though. it will make them less available. > 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. > Lastly, 32 bit addressing is going away. IPv6 offers 128 bit >address space, and (hopefully) much more efficient allocation, as well >as such useful things as hooks for automatic renumbering of address space. I just hope that the AT&T scheme does not get put into place. Otherwise it will be just viewed like a stock split. ("Wow! We have more addresses to sell!") The AT&T plan as described sounds like something dreamed up by a marketing droid as a way to "Make Money Fast Off Of The Internet". What is the timeline for implementation of IPv6? --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "I, Caligula Clinton... In the name of the Senate and the people of Rome!" - Bill Clinton signing the CDA with the First Amendment bent over.

2 1

Why There Exists No Middle Ground in the Crypto-policy Debate
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Why There Exists No Middle Ground in the Crypto-policy Debate [This message only appears to be posted anonymously, if you have the correct tools, you can learn my name and e-address. Take that auto-WWW indexers!] Decius <decius(a)ninja.techwood.org> recently presented an essay, entitled ``Crypto-Absolutism,'' which described ``Why and how the middle ground should be found in the crypto-policy debate.'' The essay is clearly wrong in its assumptions and thus its conclusions. Given the perceived flaws in the assumptions, his commentary must be rebutted. Within the context of this rebuttal, ``T-Camp Cypherpunks'' are those ``Cypherpunks'' (whatever they are :-) that follow a technology evolution-based line of reasoning to arrive at the inevitable coming of crypto-anarchy. As well, ``A-Camp Cypherpunks'' are those that advocate crypto-anarchy because they like the social and political implications. It is possible to be an A-Camp Cypherpunk or a T-Camp Cypherpunk without being the other. Of course, it is quite possible to be both. It has often been said on Cypherpunks, that ``we'' are not a ``we''. Decius falls into a trap by assuming that all Cypherpunks are in the A-Camp. This mistake colors the entire essay. The main problem with Decius' essay is that it assumes that Cypherpunks _merely_ advocate crypto-anarchy. In fact, T-Camp Cypherpunks do not stop at this puny point. They observe that crypto-anarchy is the _likely_ _outcome_ of the current technology trend (this trend is discussed below). Note that this observation of fulfillment, if correct, is a far stronger statement than merely advocating that crypto-anarchy should happen or would be a really good idea. A-Camp Cypherpunks also advocate that this trend should be exploited to its conclusion, sooner rather than later, to preempt any massive government crackdowns that would only prolong the transition pains. The rationale being that these supposed government crackdowns have no place in the natural evolution of a free society. And that the continuance of a free society is preferable to that of a move towards a police state, which would be required to facilitate the useless --- in the end --- crackdown on this information technology. Decius is also wrong when he states that crypto-anarchy means people will never again be accountable or recognized (pure A-Campers might like this to be true, although I doubt it). In the T-Camper's view, crypto-anarchy means that people have the choice of when they wish to be accountable and recognized for their statements and information movement-related actions and when they wish otherwise. People are not forced under the crypto-anarchy model to be unaccountable or unrecognizable. Likewise, the crypto-anarchy model allows people to ignore those that are unaccountable and unrecognizable, if they wish. Decius fails to recognize that people could be recognized, and even paid, for example, when operating under a pseudonym instead of completely anonymously (this concept links two Cypherpunks favorites: untraceable anonymous e-cash and anonymous reputations). As primary counter-points to Decius on this issue: - - The people who wrote the Federalists' Papers did so anonymously, yet I suspect that all were well-known and transacted business and other politics under their ``real names'' most of the time. - - Individual articles are anonymously published in the _The Economist_ yet I suspect that people are being paid to contribute information to this newspaper (at least, I know I am paying a lot per year, for a newspaper, to get the information :-). - - The recently released ``Primary Colors'' book by Anonymous. Yet this person, if the publisher is to be believed, is well-known to President Clinton (I think it may all just be a good marketing scam :-). Back to the main point of unstoppable --- in a free society, at least - --- technology trends. Decius has not, but must, account for the following change due to technology: Up until now, communication system deployers (e.g. The Phone Companies) have been basically blackmailed (through easily applied laws and licensing) into creating systems with backdoors for government's use. As system intelligence moves to the end-user devices away from the internal network devices and encryption moves to end-to-end encryption from link-based or non-existent encryption, this form of blackmail will no longer work since there will no longer be a small number of easily controlled entities building and deploying the systems. There will be open standards for the interconnect itself [IPng or whatever]. And anyone will be able to implement end-user devices that layer end-to-end encryption on top of the raw interconnect services provided by the new network model. In some ways, we have already arrived at the new interconnect model: the Internet based upon IP. In the form of today's computers, we also have a rudimentary incarnation of the required intelligent end-user device. In sum, I am a T-Camp Cypherpunk not because I necessarily think crypto-anarchy is a good idea but rather because the technology trend will continue to make it happen. I also happen to be an A-Camp Cypherpunk but it is for the reason that I am a T-Camper alone that I derive that there can be no compromise on the issue of crypto-policy. Not only would it be a bad idea to compromise, but also any compromise will fail due to continuing changes in technology that favor intelligence in the end-user devices and end-to-end encryption over intelligence in the internal network components and easily controlled encryption. It is better to see the technology trend and embrace it to prepare for the new crypto-anarchy to come. ~``Those that prepare for the change will have a lot of success, while those that ignore the technology trend in this area will be left behind.''~ Truer words have never been spoken. Regards, Loren -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMSGeTP8de8m5izJJAQFFrQP/ZQFu64mGC/u4YC7jAsnv22Cx3Eub+xVw i3IYX7aHJopfG3g6IVifaGuEJmHxF6mZDHj+YSS/9fQfHUm7QZtoXmgmvxgWpP3s KiUVLgYA3/cVfZn/6iOUHlQCehzj2N4IPdW2QGWbe2rbk1i1YaiGLpnB+RRXo4nW r7mKrSVOjOQ= =TIOb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Regulation of citizen-alien communications (Was: Choices)
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:24 AM 2/11/96 +0000, Ed Carp wrote: >> A foreign person is defined in S 120.11, and means anyone who's not a U.S. >> citizen. Technical data is defined in S 120.33 > >Oh? You mean that I can get busted for giving my Canadian spouse a copy >of PGP? A US *permanent resident* who is not a US Citizen is still a "US Person" for ITAR purposes. DCF

1 0

Smart cards
by A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> The largest demand, though, will come from government agencies, like > Spain's Social Security Administration and the Czech Republic's > Healthcare Ministry. China, with a population of 1.2 billion, is > considering a national identification card using this technology, said > Waqar Qureshi, Motorola worldwide marketing manager for smart-card > chips. Been around for quite a while - expensive part is not the cards themselves ($1-$3) but the card *readers*. Warmly, Padgett

2 1

Firewall USA to Firewall China
by A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Q: The Chinese government has declared its intention to filter out > what it considers to be objectionable material from the Internet. If > you were a consultant for the Chinese government, what technology > would you recommend that they use to do that? Multiple layers would probably do it: 1) Acces only to/from sites with which they have a formal agreement 2) Using secure channels 3) With good application filters (could be created - that I do not know of anyone who has is irrevelant - MIMEsweeper is a start.) Mostly it depends on how seriously they want to block certain kinds of traffic and what of the I'net's capabilities they are willing to give up to achieve that goal. Now before I get flamed again, please understand that I separate what *can* be done from what *should* be done. This is a "can" and is also considering the fact that a sovereign nation has the *right* to do this unless it gives up that right. A US company also has that right where it pertains to their property unless again they give up that right (see: common carrier). Warmly, Padgett ps wife informed me that when traffic backs up, it is ok to leave a hole for cross traffic to use but if you make any sort of gesture to indicate that is what you have done, *you* become liable for the cross traffic's actions. Absurd, no ?

1 0

Communication
by A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim rites: >Logic lesson for Padgett: >There are at least three categories here: >1. Government restricts communication. >2. Government neither assists nor restricts communication. >3. Government assists communication. (through stolen tax dollars, BTW.) Oh, now I see where you are confused. To me there are at least six categories - the three you mention but in matrix form with two columns: Wholly inside the USA and from the USA to/from "elsewhere". (2) applies inside the USA and in some cases (3) - and tax dollars are not necessarily "stolen", the Constitution specifies that taxes may be levied for certain matters. (1) does not apply though through the rationale/excuse of "maximising the use for all" some regulations have been enacted primarily by the FCC. It is not improbable that the FCC's area of responsibility might extend to the Internet once considered a "national resource". Not saying right or wrong, just "could" & would not be surprised. In the case of communications with "other" entities, I expect all three to apply in different instances - what makes anon.penet.fi different from the L. A. Times. Now in the case of extra-National communications, I believe that in certain cases the Nation-state has not only the sovereign right of control but the obligation to control. For example just to pick a popular example, France might negotiate a trade agreement with the USA that included an agreement to block all PGP communications between the two countries. That would be legal. What the US does not really have is the *ability* to control communications. Warmly, Padgett

2 1