December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> It makes me very wary of them. What gets me are all the people here who > talk about them as if they will have useful features. They will be about as > useful as the ratings on video games. ("Hey, theres a cool one! This one > has flying mangled bodies! Its OK though. No sex!") What's the line in the song "Father Bruce"? "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..." --- "Mutant" Rob <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" (not in quotes) for a copy of my PGP key.

1 0

Re: Using /dev/random for PGP key generation? Be Wary
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:56 AM 2/12/96 -0500, rngaugp(a)alpha.c2.org wrote: >... >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. If there are no common-mode sources, xoring two streams will not reduce the entropy. If you use PGP's keyboard timings for one stream, and (e.g.) disk drive randomness for the other, the output of the xor of the two streams should have at least as much entropy as the best of the two. However, I would be worried if /dev/random and PGP were both using keyboard timings to generate entropy. Bill

1 0

Portland, OR, Key-Signing+
by Bruce Baugh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- ANNOUNCING: THE SECOND QUASI-MONTHLY PORTLAND CYPHERPUNKS SOIREE AND KEY-SIGNING Yes, it's that time again. When: Saturday, February 26, 1996 come 4:30-5 pm to join those of us watching the new episode of MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATER 3000, or come 7:30-8 pm to avoid it Where: my apartment, in SE Portland e-mail me for directions This meeting is about to be announced in a bunch of local and regional newsgroups; I hope to get a crop of novices as well as the more experienced folks. A keysigning will take place, with instructions for it mailed out later in the week. I have a PC running Windows 95, and it'll be available for use in key verification and the like. If anyone has a portable computer with another OS to bring, please do. Proposed topics: 1) Alan Olsen is working on an e-mail client with PGP integration. Let's talk interface. 2) I'm working on a guide for crypto newbies. Come and tell me what works or doesn't. 3) So, just how lame is the Communications Decency Act, anyway? :-) 4) Whatever of crypto relevance is on your mind. Since there was confusion last time about expectations, let me spell out of a few things up. 1) Since some participants have expressed the desire not to be photographed, no cameras. 2) Insofar as others have other concerns, e-mail me. No guarantees on what we can do or not, but I'd like as many people as possible to be as comfortable as possible. 3) What's discussed during the soiree _will_ be fair game for comment later. Interesting insights, dramatic news, stunning rhetoric, the whole deal, may all be continued on the net later. There are, alas, some restrictions on partying tools, imposed by my chronic immune problems. If you smoke, a) please hold off if possible or b) take it outside and away from my door. (I have a nice back patio suitable for this purpose, since I never use it for anything.) I will have quite a variety of drinks on hand, but please, leave the alcohol at home. Ditto for any scents or perfumes you might usually wear. This way I get to have fun, too. :-) 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. I won't send him directions. I ask that nobody else do so. If he shows, he will not be allowed in. I have no interest in hosting a get-together dominated by the perpetuation of an increasingly dull flamewar. (And if he can stop grinding the usual axes in the next two weeks, I'd be delighted to drop this.) The time and energy I, and other participants, have are too valuable to waste that way. (And if he thinks I'm being unreasonable, he is of course free to organize his own gathering.) [Note: I will not pursue this matter further on Cypherpunks. I needed to announce it; I don't need to sustain the flame fest.] Regards, -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEQAwUBMSAW8X3AXR8sjiylAQHECQfRAVlw1MzEpCceLzxM3LbwuLwmSpgacLFi 8eUNFGNHis1xwpOvYpY/u/6WQXScI00oq/44euY8N6bzUxV6djbhIPR1jX+J0KrQ 2Dl8gZgaRNdo69nBabIt3gBG4OZzWiqX2g7YLOcr4I7rcNvCPn0SbaIayb5trgjh AWSVnC1g8gy17XBpAZMrLurgQQx0ul5CS0RreO6/Tpqy3P2V2ly0+k3k9p29RJly Y/Ug7KSYxirXUt07eeI8HCXzEtJ8DvN133Nwbos7WZvXitR5fzf0eXbxGSe7WXay KB0olIiWEi/r0q7xP8GdE07WcBzbXCfH5Uf6VPr9F34rig8= =p6BW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Bruce Baugh bruce(a)aracnet.com http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce

1 0

Give it a rest Perry
by jdoe-agamemnon＠alpha.c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cpunks, On Mon, 12 Feb 1996 Ray Arachelian wrote: >I personally like reviews of messages that are posted regarding other >people's posts, however I prefer to read them in email. Cypherpunks >isn't for "this doesn't belong here" messages. :) I personally agree with him.

1 0

Cypherpunks vs. Coderpunks
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Much has been written by people about the "appropriate themes" of the Cypherpunks list. I'm sure I don't need to remind you all of this ongoing debate. Well, the "coders" have formed their own list, closed to non-coders, and known as "Coderpunks." More power to them. (Archives of this list may now be found at Todd Masco's site: http://www.hks.net/cpunks/index.html. Apparently the Cyphepunks list is thus being left to those of us who either don't want to code, or have no skills at coding, or who think the sociopolitical issues are more interesting. It may turn out that the "gated community" of Coderpunks is ultimately more influential, and that the "favela" of Cypherpunks is filled with the rants and raves about "Assasination Politics," who deserved to be nuked in WW II, whether Vince Foster was killed by the NSA or the Mossad, and so forth. Whatever, this ought to once and for all answer the question of whether only _coding_ topics alone belong on Cypherpunks: the answer is, clearly, that they _don't_. If you want to discuss coding, go over to Coderpunks and see if you have the magic password that gets you in. Otherwise, we have political rants over here to get back to. (ObPerry: "What does this have to do with crypto or coding?" ObAnswer: "Nothing, this is Cypherpunks, not Coderpunks.") --Tim May, an unelected spokesman of the Cypherpunk Ghetto (tm) 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."

2 1

Re: Put the Protest where your money is.
by Ray Arachelian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Mark Allyn (206) 860-9454 wrote: > What do you mean by a speech bubble? > > "write in a speech bubble to the president dude" > > Does this mean a transparent plastic bubble over his head?? Like in comic books. i.e: __________________________________ /CDA is unconstitutional and sucks \ | Exon sucks rhino dick for lunch | ___ \ _________________________________/ / \ |/ |O O| \ ^ / -~- :-) ========================================================================== + ^ + | Ray Arachelian |Emptiness is loneliness, and loneliness| _ |> \|/ |sunder(a)dorsai.org|is cleanliness and cleanliness is god-| \ | <--+-->| |liness and god is empty, just like me,| \| /|\ | Just Say |intoxicated with the maddness, I'm in| <|\ + v + | "No" to the NSA!|love with my sadness. (Pumpkins/Zero)| <| n ===================http://www.dorsai.org/~sunder/========================= [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the Communications Decency Act] And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why don't you boys just come on in and do em right here in my house - I'll just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said. "Dad's getting old. I say we should do him." So the two daughters got him drunk and did him all that night. Sure enough, Dad got em pregnant....Onan really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant while his brother got all the credit, so he whacked off first....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular Translation, TCM, 1996]

3 2

Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:36 AM 2/13/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: > >You mention the issue of Rushdie, as if it is some sort of refutation of my >idea. Quite the contrary; I think it actually supports me. > >How so?, you ask? Well, let's consider any potential assassin who might be >interested in this "contract." Aside from the obvious moral issues involved >here (Rushdie has, presumably, done nothing to warrant his death), the truth >is that such a potential assassin would see a number of problems that would >strongly dissuade him from attempting to kill Rushdie. > >1. There is no way he could be assured that he could collect the award >anonymously. His name would certainly "get out," and then he would be >subject not merely to "the law," but also anybody who wanted revenge for >Rushdie's death. > >2. There is no way he could be assured that he would actually receive the >award. (How would he prove HE did it?) > >3. That's because there is no way he would enforce this "contract" should >the offerer refuse to pay. These points would not affect a devout Iranian Muslem. To him the death warent has already been issued by legitimate authority. It is not even clear that money would be his princple motivator. I must respectifully disagree with Jim in this case. I believe that Rushdie has not been hit because the protection he enjoys is sufficent to repel the potential assassins. Note that he has an advantage over the US president (who probably has as many potential assassins) in that he does not need to make public appearences. Adding money to the pot will attract rational (and amoral) people who will then make a determination based on (1) profit, and (2) risk, which includes getting caught or killed. It seems to me that Secret Service levels of protection can protect a public figure against even Assassination Politics. Bill

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

At 2:04 PM 2/14/96, Robert Hettinga wrote: >Perry and Tim, > >Why don't you two have sex already? The tension around here is getting >unbearable... And why don't you stop cluttering up the list with supposedly cute stuff like this? The couple of fairly short messages I've written in response to comments by Perry are *as nothing* compared to the tons of verbiage in the Jim Bell flame wars, the VZNUri/Detweiler flames, and even the Black Unicorn vs. Netscape battle. (If anyone can point to examples where I have engaged in protracted--more than a couple of short messages--flames, please send me pointers to these examples in private mail. I claim no especial morality, but I do think I've stayed out of ongoing flame wars. I haven't even commented on "assassination politics," even though it's just a watered-down and poorly-thought-out version of what I wrote about in 1988...easier to just delete the ramblings.) And yet people like Bob and Uni feel compelled to throw their two cents in about what a spectacle this is. Get real. --Tim May 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."

2 1

An entity calling itself Kilroy was probably here (was: Web Page Authentication (was: Anti-Nazi Authentication) )
by Bryce 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- This quotes some mail sent directly to me by (probably) an entity calling itself "Jiri Baum". I apologize in advance if said probable entity is offended at my broadcasting his words, but I thought it was a good contribution to cpunks. (Which, cosmos knows, could use some good contributions that aren't just rehashes of the eternal floating "libertarianism" Usenet flamewar/rantfest.) (Hereafter knowns as "the EFLUFR", pronounced "Effluffer".) +---+---- Bryce | | +---+------ Probably an entity calling itself Jiri | | | | v v v v > > > > An entity calling itself Jiri Baum > > > > <jirib(a)sweeney.cs.monash.edu.au> probably wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > Probably? Didn't I sign it? :-) > > > > > >Ah, grasshopper... If there was a good path between you and > >I in the Web of Trust, *then* I would take out the > >"probably". :-) > ... > > I guess it depends on whether we are talking about "Jiri Baum wrote" > (about which you'd be perfectly right) or "An entity calling itself > Jiri Baum wrote". Witness: > + there exists an entity which controls the PGP key in question > (*) > + that entity calls itself "Jiri Baum" (key signature) > + that entity wrote the text in question (text signature) > > Therefore, an entity calling itself Jiri Baum wrote the text in > question. No need for a web of trust - as they say on Star Trek, > simple logic will suffice :-) Well now let's say that an active attacker had supplanted your public key with his own. He is not, really, an entity who calls himself "Jiri". I mean, sure by using a public key which he controls and which has "Jiri" on it he is calling himself "Jiri", but he rarely if ever actually talks to people and says things which those people associate with the name "Jiri". More significantly, he never thinks of *himself* as "Jiri". So in this most fundamental sense he does not "call himself Jiri". *You* are the entity who calls yourself Jiri, and I can only say that you "probably" wrote the above because I'm not sure if you actually control the public key associated with your name. Tim May's solipsistic conflation of appearance and identity notwithstanding. I guess we are just using different semantics for "an entity calling itself". I didn't want to say "an entity whose One True Name is 'Jiri Baum'", because I don't believe in One True Names. I can see how my choice of words was confusing though, since Mitch (the Man In The CHannel) can be seen as "calling itself 'Jiri Baum'". Maybe I'll start saying "An entity who creates the output which we associate with the nym 'Jiri Baum'...", in order to point out that the actual "Jiri" makes this stuff up and Mitch just relays it with perhaps some editing. But then what if Mitch took a more active role, putting words in your mouth and so forth? Maybe I should say "An entity who calls itself 'Jiri Baum' and is more or less unaware of any nym collision regarding that nym...". Yeah, that one seems bulletproof... > True - I guess that's another use - a time-stamping service could > sign any page that asks for it. Time to whip up yet another CGI > script! (When/if I have the time - this one ain't so simple because > it has to get the page off the web.) Wei Dai <weidai(a)eskimo.com> and Matthew Richardson <matthew(a)itconsult.co.uk> have both done this. I suspect that Wei's time-stamping service is not still functional. (A pity. We need redundancy for added assurance.) I myself use Usenet and mailing lists as a sort of poor man's time-stamping service. If I invent an idea or some prose, and I sign it and then broadcast it thusly, I think enough people will keep a record of it having been in existence with my signature on it at this time, that I can later call on them to testify to that effect. Hopefully. Yet another reason to clearsign my output. Okay I will try to find responses to this even if they are buried in the EFLUFR. (All hail GREP!) Regards, Bryce "Toys, Tools and Technologies" the Niche New Signal Consulting -- C++, Java, HTML, Ecash Bryce PGP sig follows -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.01 iQCVAwUBMSDPpPWZSllhfG25AQFrUgP+IzidvICvkApSl87b03f4Ebatwcmg05cJ QF3jE7SbmRpcJshE6Cty5Lu3revBeGknRI3VDMoS4n0fCIxjq3D592d5mqOjwN0e QV620Aq2cnJZ3LRknZtaIGNluedkC4iG2xM3VzxIbVVGmmGEbhwEhKNmFEqWr2um SdDPSWvtnhs= =sc0s -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

TEN_ysp
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

2-13-96. NYT: "New Spynet Links C.I.A. and Envoys." The C.I.A. is planning to buy commercial comm gear, put an encrypting scrambler on it, and give diplomats in Bosnia and elsewhere the ability to receive adulterated facts that it previously had been unwilling or unable to share except with enemies. Soon, diplomats will be up to speed with spying foreign correspondents, many of whom have portable comm gear combining sat phones and computer ports. "We have our own classified Internet in the intelligence community, with home pages just like you do on the Internet," gurgled a spy-leaker to this reporter-siphon -- who already knew by spying browsers and snooping search engines what the dagger-gagger duhhed. TEN_ysp

1 0

Re: Spin Control Alert (LI Newsday, 2/12/96)
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"declan+(a)CMU.EDU" "Declan B. McCullagh" 13-FEB-1996 00:19:48.79 >Exactly. Catharine MacKinnon, for instance, has called the EFF and other >Rimm-debunkers part of the "pro-pornography power block" which >represents the "howling fury of the pornographers protecting their >penises and their wallets." So Catharine MacKinnon wants to castrate and steal from men? No surprise... Excellent quote to repeat, BTW... it might even get the male followers of the Christian Coalition et al to question with whom they're working. >ObCrypto: Yes, Know Your Enemies and work with the natural enemies of >the religious right, such as groups like the ACLU and the FEN. The >theocratic push to outlaw nonescrowed crypto is next. As I said before about the CPSR and libertarians (and Rush Limbaugh and libertarians), politics makes strange bedfellows. -Allen

1 0

Australian net limitations
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This may have some relevance to the Australian crypto regulation thread a while back. -Allen From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 12-FEB-1996 23:51:48.10 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 18:28:44 -0800 From: madanmohan rao <rao(a)IGC.APC.ORG> To: "Multiple recipients of list india-gii(a)cpsr.org" <errors(a)snyside.sunnyside.com> Subject: Internet news about Asia, India Hello folks - Here are excerpts from this week's edition of my column, "International Internet NewsClips." The full version plus archives are at MecklerMedia's Internet World site (http://www.iworld.com/netday/NATW.html) You can also find my reviews of books on Internet-related subjects at this site. Comments, feedback, etc. most welcome as always. - madan ______________________________________________________________ Madanmohan Rao (rao(a)igc.org) Communications Consultant, United Nations Inter Press Service bureau. -------------------------------------------------------------- [...] Internet Legislation To Be Formulated In Australia -------------------------------------------------- 1996 is probably going to be a watershed year in Australian Internet history. Decisions are going to be made about what is and is not allowable on-line. Concerned users will have a chance to express their opinions to the Australian Broadcasting Association's On-line Services Investigation, by February 16. The ABA's is the second similar investigation in the last six months. A Senate report last November argued that it should be an offence to "transmit, obtain possession of, demonstrate, advertise or request the transmission of material equivalent to RC (refused classification), R or X categories." But this would mean that the on-line world would be restricted by tighter standards than the off-line world. The ABA has issued a comprehensive Issues Paper for its inquiry (http://www.dca.gov. au/aba/olsissue.htm). Available since December, the paper deals with the concepts of codes of practice, the development of a representative industry body, the establishment of an independent complaints-handling body and other mechanisms for controlling access in the on-line environment. It also looks at consumer and Australian content issues on the Net, provides a handy guideline to censorship classification, and a summary of the findings of the Office of Film and Literature Classification's own informal search of the Net - 27 hours of porn hunting yielded the discovery that "restricted and refused classification material was difficult to find, at times difficult to download, and was more prevalent on Usenet newsgroup files than on the World Wide Web." The ABA accepts submissions by e-mail (online(a)aba.gov.au) (Sydney Morning Herald; February 6, 1996) Nations See Internet As Cultural, Political, Economic Threat ------------------------------------------------------------ Nations are discovering that data sent via the Internet can be every bit as threatening to a country's laws or its culture as the armies of yesteryear. "Nation states are trying to assert themselves with increasing aggression into cyberspace," said Electronic Frontier Foundation's John Perry Barlow, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. It's not just cultural or social sovereignty that governments worry about. The power to tax is also being eroded by the increase in economic transactions that take place over the Internet, some of it encrypted so that prying eyes of the tax department could not read them. "You can't control it, it's uncontrollable," said MIT's Nicholas Negroponte. "If someone tells you that you can, they are probably smoking pot." (Toronto Globe and Mail; February 3, 1996)

1 0

NETSCAPE IS "IN MERGER TALKS WITH AMERICA ONLINE"
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

PowerPC News (free by mailing add(a)aptdata.co.uk) quotes Reuter as as saying that Thomas Middelhoff, a board member of Bertelsmann AG, which has a significant stake in America Online, said that a decision on the merger could be made within a month. He noted that new data showed that 40% of US Internet traffic was flowing through America OnLine's network and that together with Netscape the two companies would effectively control the technology now shaping the global network - "And then Microsoft would be left without an Internet standard,".

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks vs. Coderpunks
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Leslie Todd Masco <cactus(a)hks.net> >My concern is that the two lists will become more disjoint than they >already are. I believe that the content of Cypherpunks is enhanced by having >the programmers present, just as the coders benefit from the guidance of >seeing the possibilities opened by their endeavors. >The remailers network is the most obvious example of the benefits of this >synergy. I'd hate to see us lose later rewards that could otherwise be reaped. I would agree about this. However, hopefully some of the pure-coding stuff (such as the timing of sun speeds or whatever thread) can be moved to coderpunks for the sake of those on here who aren't interested... and who are also the least likely to have an easy filter to use. -Allen

1 0

DSN Tech.
by privsoft＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is anyone famillar with the balck-box by Dr. Aaron Freidman of DSN Technologies? I am trying to get info on it and other products from DSN Tech. thnx privsoft(a)ix.netcom.com Steve "The CDA Sucks!"

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

At 03:21 AM 2/13/96 -0800, John Gilmore wrote: >Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 17:02:39 -0500 (EST) >From: Paul Resnick <presnick(a)research.att.com> >To: gnu(a)eff.org [Snip] >Markets for IP Addresses > >The 32-bit numbers used for Internet addressing and routing are a >limited resource. As this resource becomes scarcer, political >considerations are likely to creep into allocation decisions made >through existing administrative processes, leading to suboptimal >allocations. By granting transferable property rights to addresses, >allocation decisions can be removed from the political realm into the >economic realm, so that addresses are allocated to those who value them >most. This project seeks to develop consensus in the Internet community >for a move to market-based allocation, and investigates alternative >designs for an electronic market to coordinate the exchange of IP >addresses. This proposal bothers me. I do not see any positive results from this proposal. (Or at least the negatives will far outweigh the positive.) Here is what I see as the results of such a plan... Getting an IP address will become prohibitivly expensive except for the largest megacorps. Instead of solving the limitations of the current system, this plan will cause people to "invest" in IP addresses in the hope that the price will go up. IP addresses will become part of a corporation's invenstment portfolio. This will result in less usage of IP addresses, not more. The Internet is a fully complient buzzword. People will buy IP addresses becuase it is "the cool thing to do" and they can make a quick buck. I wonder if "used" addresses will get less money on the "open market" than "unused" addresses. If that is the case, then the you will see huge blocks of addresses go unused so as to not spoil their "market value". All in all, I see it as a bad idea... "Ever have a problem getting an IP address from your local ISP? YOU WILL! And the poeple to bring it to you? AT&T!" --- 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.

3 2

Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> One thing the V-Chip gives us is the argument: Now that parents have the >> ability to control what their children watch, the government should turn >> responsibility over to them and butt out. Unfortunately course it doesn't; we still "need" the government to control sex and indecency on TV, plus to enforce the "voluntary" rating standards and make sure TV companies attach them to their programs. Sigh. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs Pager +1-408-787-1281

1 0

Internet Without Frontiers?
by James M. Cobb 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Friend, A 02 11 96 Reuter newsstory from Brussels, headlined ---------------------------------------------------- STRASBOURG MEDIA DEBATE HEADS FOR SHOWDOWN reports: ...the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Wednesday... hammers out new rules for the European Union's audio- visual sector. The EP may try to revise the 1989 law puffed as "television without frontiers." That law might be extended to govern "new" services such as ...teleshopping, the internet and pay television.... Ach! and Sacre bleu! Therefore-- A coalition of 40 companies and trade associations from the recording, advertising and technology industries has written to parliamentarians...to urge them against extend- ing rules to new services. But there's another factor. If the socialist demands for regulation of information high- way services...prevail, the Parliament will then be set for an almighty row with EU governments. Why? EU culture ministers agreed last November to keep current rules unchanged. It's cheaper to enlighten a few ministers, you see, than it is to enlist a whole gaggle of parliamentarians. Cordially, Jim NOTE. The newsstory's www.nando.net online filename: info13_8187.html This critical essay was composed 02 12 96.

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks vs. Coderpunks
by Leslie Todd Masco 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May, an unelected spokesman of the Cypherpunk Ghetto (tm) wrote: > Apparently the Cyphepunks list is thus being left to those of us who either > don't want to code, or have no skills at coding, or who think the > sociopolitical issues are more interesting. I think you're misinterpreting what's going on. Participants in the Coderpunks list are not generally abandoning Cypherpunks. Some people who have long been absent from the Cypherpunks list have joined it, but I've seen posts from most of the Cypherpunk participants of Coderpunks on Cypherpunks since it was formed. My concern is that the two lists will become more disjoint than they already are. I believe that the content of Cypherpunks is enhanced by having the programmers present, just as the coders benefit from the guidance of seeing the possibilities opened by their endeavors. The remailers network is the most obvious example of the benefits of this synergy. I'd hate to see us lose later rewards that could otherwise be reaped. I don't believe that it'll be sociopolitical content that'll chase the coders away: if the constant fighting over indisputable metaphysics doesn't do it, the fighting over who was killfiled by whom first and who's a total loon will. -- 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 iQBFAwUBMSAgvSoZzwIn1bdtAQE0CQF/Zk1TkLEnHKcBsi1IETtwqMP7y6oO6dmF R3bAM7bpP2Rg4HphYkxEAIyo6zztkDrr =jTwL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

CyberAngels
by ethridge＠Onramp.NET 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Don't know if this has been mentioned on this list, since i'm, as usual, a little behind on my reading. I found this while out about this while reading alt.religion.scientology. 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." Since i'm can't do emphasis in ascii well, i'll quote the interesting sentence again - "When people are anonymous they are also free to be criminals." I've never been a fan of anonymity, but it does have it's legitimate uses. allen

1 0

Re:
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:41 PM 2/12/96 -0500, A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security wrote: > >>Yet if I read you correctly earlier, you don't think the USG has the right >>to regulate those communications. Why the distinction ? > >Okay, obviously I need to drop down a gear & explain *my* feelings: > >Part of the definition of a "sovereign nation" is to define and carry >out both high and low justice over it's domain - the absolute right >of a sovereign. Is not mentioned in the US constitution because it >was a given. Hardy har har! This sounds like a joke, right? Anything you WANT the Constitution to have said, "is not mentioned in the Constitution because it was a given." Thanks for making me laugh...at you! >"Free speech" means that a citizen is free to speak (communicate) anthing, >anytime, anywhere. This is the right guarenteed by the first amendment. This >does not relieve the individual from being liable for the consequences of >the exercise of "free speech". This statement is internally inconsistent. If the speech is truly "free," it is (and should be!) unconstrained. To whatever extent it is constrained, it is not entirely "free." Now, even if we all agree that SOME speech should be limited, don't try to use this argument to allow the government to restrict ALL speech! >However, the government is under no obligation (though in the silly seventies >it seemed that we were going that way) to aid or abet in the exercise of >free speech. If it were properly and legally decided that communications >with anon.penet.fi is against "national interest" then the sovereign has >not only the "right" but the *duty* to block/monitor such communications. Here you get wacky again. You first make a true statement, and then come to a false conclusion. 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.) Your first sentence in the paragraph immediately above simply says that item 3 is not required. That is a true statement. However, you falsely (apparently deliberately?) suggest that item 2 cannot exist; the only alternative is item 1. Get real, Padgett. Wake up. Jim Bell Klaatu Burada Nikto

1 0

uh oh, mutation time?
by Judith Milhon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Electronic Guerrillas: Resisting Net Censorship THE MUTATE PROJECT http://www.onworld.com/MUT "Don't black out YOUR website. Black out THEIRS" Hassan I Sirius 2/8/96 This is an invitation to join a public forum on the World Wide Web on resisting internet censorship. By now, you have all heard about the Communications Decency Act and you know, or should know, the scope of this law. This discussion will revolve around active resistance to this law; routing around it, on-line uncivil disobedience, pranking, hacking, and otherwise fucking with the Net Cops. And ordinary political organizing need not be excluded. Electronic Guerrillas: Resisting Net Censorship is a topic within a Forum called Kulchur Wars. Kulchur Wars is a Forum that is part of The Mutate Forum. The Mutate Forum is a part of the website "THE MUTATE PROJECT." THE MUTATE PROJECT is an outgrowth of the book "How to Mutate & Take Over the World" by R. U. Sirius, St. Jude & The Internet 21. While we'd planned to officially open THE MUTATE PROJECT in mid-February, we've decided to open up the forum TODAY, in response to the passage of this legislation. Don't worry. It's easy to open up this Chinese box. Just go to http://www.onworld.com/MUT click on Mutate Forum Read your induction papers Click on Join a Cool Conspiracy open Kulchur Wars add your posting to the string entitled Electronic Guerrillas: Resisting Net Censorship Feel free to post in the other topics start your own or to poke around in the scaffolding of THE MUTATE PROJECT but remember that it's STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION see you there R. U. Sirius Sirius Communications

1 0

Re: Firewall USA to Firewall China
by daw＠dawn7.CS.Berkeley.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In article <199602130139.RAA11162(a)mage.qualcomm.com>, Peter Monta <pmonta(a)qualcomm.com> wrote: > > [ Jim Clark, "Firewall China" ] > > > > A: A lot of people think that's not possible. It's difficult to enforce, > > but it's certainly possible. A corporation has a so-called fire wall -- a > > single point of entry into the corporate net. You can have a country > > that has a single point of entry into its "country net." It's doable. All > > you need, though, is one breach of security, and there's a leak. > > > > A fire wall is a filter -- it filters and doesn't let certain people come in. > > You can only come in if you have the right permission. So you could > > easily set that up so that it would filter out your objectionable > > material. > > He seems to be confusing network security with the propagation of content. > A firewall is going to have a lot more trouble filtering dangerous > thoughts than UDP port 1234, unless there are humans in the loop. Hmm, I'd argue that firewall technology would indeed let China filter out many "subversive" thoughts on the Internet. The firewall is not going to be able to stop the two-rogue problem: two technically knowledgeable rogue agents, one on each side of the firewall, *will* succeed in communicating dangerous thoughts if they try hard enough. But that's not so important to solve perfectly, in practice. No, in reality, China could set up a few simple application proxies and only allow world -> China traffic on a few closely controlled ports, such as http, smtp, nntp, ftp, etc. The proxies could * filter out "naughty" and "seditious" sites (e.g. www.playboy.com) * filter out email, news, etc. which has traversed a "known dangerous site" (e.g. a remailer or ftp.hacktic.nl), * daily update their lists of subversive sites (e.g. by reading Raph's remailer list), * filter out indecent newsgroups, * do simple keyword searches (e.g. fuck, revolution, protest, crypto), and/or * do simple content analysis (e.g. maybe filter out .gifs, to stop nude pics). This would hose 93% of the subversive stuff on the 'net. "Social solutions" (read: men with guns) can eliminate the last 7%. And so it goes. Sure, someone in the "free world" (e.g. not China or the USA) could run a remailer / http-proxy at a new site each day, enabling someone knowledgeable in China to find dangerous material. But the fact remains that this requires technical knowledge and the willingness to go to the trouble of actively accessing the remailer site. Again, someone in the China could run a remailer / reposter / http-proxy themselves inside the firewall; that's where the "social solutions" come in. Kick down the door (see, jackboots are good for something after all!), beat up the children, and you can kiss that remailer goodbye. Technically, you're right in saying that you can't filter all the content perfectly; it's the classic covert channel problem. But practically, the Chinese gov't can probably wreak havoc with 'net freedom in China. - -- Dave Wagner Fuck the CDA. - --- [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 iQBFAwUBMSEPwyoZzwIn1bdtAQEFDAF9GXWLz9beaciHbY3mo3Reaom7K5IK0k2I pVz5NrHqa80eDtC8Rr0w/kSzkKtq4GCL =k93A -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3

Crypto++ 2.0 beta
by Wei Dai 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm about to release version 2.0 of Crypto++, and I am looking for people to do some beta testing on it. I'm especially interested in testing for compatibility with different compilers/OSs. If you are interested, please e-mail me stating that you are a US or Canadian citizen or permanent resident living in US or Canada and that you will not export the software. Wei Dai Here's the readme for Crypto++ if you don't know what it is. Crypto++: a C++ Class Library of Cryptographic Primitives Version 2.0 beta 2/13/1996 This library includes: MD5, SHS, HAVAL, DES, IDEA, WAKE, 3-WAY, TEA, SAFER, Blowfish, Diamond2, Diamond2 Lite, Sapphire, Luby-Rackoff, MDC, various modes (CFB, CBC, OFB, counter), DH, DSA, ElGamal, LUC, Rabin, BlumGoldwasser, elliptic curve cryptosystems, BBS, gzip compression, Shamir's secret sharing scheme, Rabin's information dispersal scheme, and zero-knowledge prover and verifier for graph isomorphism. There are also various miscellanous modules such as base 64 coding and 32-bit CRC. RSA and RC5 are noticeably absent. I am still talking to RSA DSI about adding them back into Crypto++. I hope version 2.1 will include them. Crypto++ has been compiled and tested with Borland C++ 4.5, MSVC 4.0, and G++ 2.7.2 on MS-DOS, Windows NT, and a variety of Unix machines. You are welcome to use it for any purpose without paying me, but see license.txt for the fine print. Some short instructions to compile this library: (you probably need to modify this to suit your environment) -- if want to use this library with RSAREF, then 1. get a copy of RSAREF 2. untar or unzip it into a directory below this one 3. type "gcc -c -I. *.c" (in the rsaref/source directory) to compile RSAREF 4. edit config.h 5. type "g++ -c -Irsaref/source -I. *.cpp" to compile this library 6. type "g++ *.o rsaref/source/*.o -lstdc++ -lm" to link the test driver 7. type "a.out" to run the test driver -- if you DON'T want to use this library with RSAREF, then 1. edit config.h (make sure to comment out #define USE_RSAREF) 2. type "g++ -c *.cpp" to compile this library 3. type "g++ *.o -lstdc++ -lm" to link the test driver 4. type "a.out" to run the test driver Finally, a note on object ownership: If a constructor for A takes a pointer to an object B (except primitive types such as int and char), then A owns B and will delete B at A's destruction. If a constructor for A takes a reference to an object B, then the caller retains ownership of B and should not destroy it until A no longer needs it. Good luck, and feel free to e-mail me at weidai(a)eskimo.com if you have any problems. Also, check http://www.eskimo.com/~weidai/cryptlib.html for updates and new versions. Wei Dai History 1.0 - First public release. Withdrawn at the request of RSA DSI. - Has a big bug in the RSA key generation code. 1.1 - Removed RSA, RC4, RC5 - Disabled calls to RSAREF's non-public functions - Minor bugs fixed 2.0 - a completely new, faster multiprecision integer class - added HAVAL, 3-WAY, TEA, SAFER, LUC, Rabin, BlumGoldwasser, Elliptic Curve algorithms - added the Lucas strong probable primality test - ElGamal encryption and signature schemes modified to avoid weaknesses - Diamond changed to Diamond2 because of key schedule weakness - fixed bug in WAKE key setup - lots of miscellaneous optimizations

1 0

Re: Re:
by lunaslide＠loop.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

}>sovereign n. 1. A person, governing body, etc., in whom the >supreme power }>or authority is vested.< adj. 1. Exercising or possessing supreme }>authority or jurisdiction. 2. Independent, and free from external }>authority or influence: a sovereign state. } }Yup. } }>This is not what our government is. } }The United States is a sovereign nation. Do you dispute that ? The }constitution is a binding agreement between the government and its citizens }that determines how that sovereignty will be exercised, the elements in which }the nation will not interfere with citizens, and the duties which it will }carry out. No, but I do dispute that the _U.S. Government_ is sovereign. I'm not going to write why all over again, since you seem to have convieniently snipped the rest of my post, rather than answer it. You are commiting a straw man fallacy. I didn't say that the nation isn't soveriegn, I said that the government is not sovereign. Yes, there is a difference. }The three branches of the government were set up to ensure that "supreme }power" would never rest with a single entity, yet taken together they do have }that power. The three branches are a system of checks and balances to counter the the immergence of one sovereign pwoer. See, it is actually built into the constution that the govt cannot be sovereign! }Congress and the Senate are the legally empowered representatives of the }people. In that they do have the "power of the people" to make decisions }on what is right and what is wrong within limits. That too is defined in }the constitution. The Congress is the Senate and the House, and they are given specific powers by the people to govern themselves in relation to the job in Article 1, Sections 1-7 and to govern the people in Article 1, Sections 8-10. The powers given are very specific in nature and involve mostly limited legislative powers and taxing abilities. The President is given his rights and duties to govern the people in Article 2, Sections 2 and 3 and they include the power to command the army and navy, give pardons, make treaties and appoint people to positions as Judges, Ambassadors and the like. He has the duty to give a State of the Union address from "time to time" to inform and ask for recomendation and consideration on matters ofhis choosing. He also has the right to conviene both houses of congress to discuss matters. In Article one, he is also given the power of the veto. The Judicial branch, and particularly the Supreme Court, is given the power to rule on matters concerning the court involving laws and disputes. They have the power to refute laws and the duty to adhere to the principles of the constitution. The people have the right to dissent and may petition the govt for a redress of grievances as dictated by Amendment one. If they are not given satisfaction, they still have the right to free speech and press so that they may share their dissent with one another and affect the outcome of the next election. The Fourth Amendment, of course, protects the "...right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures..." Clearly the govt cannot be sovereign if this is true. }Take the CDA. I do believe that it is unconstitutional but that Congress/ }Saxplayer had the *right* to pass the law just as the Supreme Court has the }right to declare it to have been outside the power of the Congress to do so }(which I expect). Somehow it works. But ultimately it is the people who decide, and the people are not one with the government. The people have influence over the government, therefore the government cannot be sovereign. The first part of the Declaration of Independence indicates that it was never the intent of the founding fathers to create a sovereign government, refuting your nonsensical statement about it being "a given." I ended up restating almost my whole case anyway. But that's ok, cause I'll just keep explaining until you understand it. 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-----

1 0