December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:47 AM 5/21/96, Rich Graves wrote: >On Tue, 21 May 1996, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> An alternative I am considering would reduce the utility of the remailer >> while still allowing these "consensual" uses to continue. Presently the >> remailers deal with abuse via "block lists", sets of addresses that mail >> can't be sent to. Generally these are created when someone complains >> about some mail they have received. By setting up blocking, at least >> they will not get harrassing anonymous mail once they have complained. >> But in some cases, as in the case that is causing me headaches now, even >> one message is too much. >> >> My thought is to turn the block list concept on its head, and make it a >> "permit list". Simply, the remailer will only send mail to people who >> have voluntarily indicated their willingness to receive it. You reply-quote process must have been hit with an alpha particle, because all of this was written by Hal Finney, not Declan. --Tim Boycott "Big Brother Inside" 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Rumor: DSS Broken?
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 19 May 96 at 21:48, Tim Dierks wrote: [..] > PPS - Any chance the original rumor surrounded RCA/Hughes' DSS satellite TV > system, and not the Digital Signature Standard, and we've all been barking > up the wrong tree? Hm. Check the cable/satellite tv newsgroups. Rob. --- No-frills sig. Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com (root@magneto) AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.

1 0

Re: CAPITALISTS' SUCK
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 20 May 96 at 4:07, Dave Harman wrote: [..] > ! >Dave Harman writes: > ! > > ! > CAPITALISTS' SUCK > ! > ! What witty social commentary. > > Information wants to be free. Information doesn't want to be free (or anything else) anymore than the stapler on my desk wants to be free. The day that abstract qualities like "information" or "color" have desires would be an interesting day indeed. And that has little to do with who or what the capitalist down the street is sucking. --Mutant Rob

2 1

Hiding remailers behind nymservers...? (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 18:53:15 -0700 (PDT) > From: Steve Reid <root(a)edmweb.com> > Subject: Hiding remailers behind nymservers...? > > This 'middle-man' remailer... What does it really accomplish? Sure, the > operator is hidden, but that's only because of his/her nym at c2.org... > AFAICS, the 'middle-man' has just taken the liability off himself and put > it on the unhidden remailers. Why not just use the existing unhidden > remailers??? > The first thing it accomplishes in my mind is establishing pre-meditation to conspire to the commission of a felony. Jim

1 0

Re: The Crisis with Remailers
by Matts Kallioniemi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:08 1996-05-21 +0200, bryce(a)digicash.com wrote: >The "minimum ecash payment" is not known at this time, >although we think it might be greater than 2^-32 US Dollars How do you create such tiny payments? When I try (2.1.5a MT) to pay $.001 I receive the warning "Too many digits after '.'!" and even though it's just a warning I can't do the payment. Assuming that you had a client that allows tiny amounts, how would you represent a tenth of a cent in binary? To to it exactly would require an infinite number of coins... Matts

2 1

Re: The Crisis with Remailers
by Marcel van der Peijl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> How do you create such tiny payments? When I try (2.1.5a MT) > to pay $.001 I receive the warning "Too many digits after '.'!" and > even though it's just a warning I can't do the payment. > Assuming that you had a client that allows tiny amounts, how would > you represent a tenth of a cent in binary? To to it exactly would > require an infinite number of coins... The minimum denomination for each currency is (sort of) configurable. For instance, for Belgian Franks the minimum is 1 (and no '.'). If a bank requested a currency capable of handling a mimimum of 0.00005 we could make that happen real easy. Note that with the maximum coin size 2^15 times minimum amount, the maximum coin would get a lot smaller, so that it would become more impractical to pay large amounts in that currency. On the longer term we can of course even change - the 2^15 maximum - maximum number of coins per message (currently 75) if the requirements were there. // Marcel van der Peijl, DigiCash bv, http://www.digicash.com/~bigmac/ // ----------------- insert subliminal message here ------------------

1 0

Re: The Crisis with Remailers
by Matts Kallioniemi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 15:34 1996-05-21 +0200, bryce(a)digicash.com wrote: >Well how do we represent 0.01 U.S. Dollars in Mark Twain >Ecash(tm)? Easy-- we take a few bits of data, interpret it as >an unsigned binary number, and then say "this number is how >many U.S. pennies this coin is worth." Now we're back to pennies again. I was more interested in your earlier claim of tiny payments, on the order of $2^-32. >Actually it can sometimes get more complicated than that, and >there are some details about how the forthcoming ecashlib >handles this to be found at "http://www.digicash.com/api". Will the api make it possible to create coins of arbitrary value? Is the mint software (and the bank accountants) capable of doing floating point arithmetic? Matts

2 1

NIST Draft Key Escrow Paper
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Forward] From: Elaine Frye <elaine.frye(a)nist.gov> Subject: draft key escrow paper May 20, 1996 Note To: Key Escrow Distribution List From: Ed Roback, NIST Subject: Release of DRAFT Key Escrow Paper FYI, today the Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Cryptography Policy released a DRAFT paper entitled "Enabling Privacy, Commerce, Security and Public Safety in the Global Information Infrastructure." The DRAFT paper discusses a voluntary draft key management infrastructure, supported by private sector key management organizations, that would permit users and manufacturers free choice of encryption algorithms, facilitate international interoperability, preserve law enforcement access, and, most importantly, provide strong system security and integrity. FYI, the paper was released by the IWG co-chairs Ed Appel (NSC) and Bruce McConnell (OMB). Comments on the draft paper are being solicited. No deadline is specified. At present, I do not have an electronic copy of the draft (25 pp). Copies are available through the OMB publications office at 202-395-7332. I anticipate that the document will soon be available widely on the net and will forward you a web address when available. ***************************************************** Elaine Frye Computer Security Division National Institute of Standards and Technology Bldg. 820, M.S. Room 426 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001 Voice: 301/975-2819 Fax: 301/948-1233 *****************************************************

1 0

MixMaster fair use
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, Perhaps I am confused about what MixMaster's license allows. I have joined the confusing part (for me anyway)... README.no-export : All the files in this archive contain crpytographic code which is restricted by the ITAR regulations on munitions. These files may only be retrieved by US citizens, and only on condition of agreement not to export any of this software or dats, and to extract a similar agreement from any person they may transfer it to. To access the export-controled materials on this site, you must agree to "THE AGREEMENT" below. If your email address ends in one of the following: .edu .com .edu. .gov .mil .org .net .us .ca Do this by sending "THE AGREEMENT", exactly as it appears, to mix-request(a)jpunix.com If it does not, but you qualify to retrieve Mixmaster under "THE AGREEMENT", then send mail to perry(a)alpha.jpunix.com, explaining your situation. In either case you will be sent a message containing the name of a hidden directory in which you will find the controlled software. The name of the directory changes frequently, so you must get the name each time you want to access the hidden directory. -John A. Perry 5/6/95 -------------------------------------------------- THE AGREEMENT: I am a citizen or national of the United States, or of Canada, or have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States under the Immigration and Naturalization Act. I agree not to export Mixmaster, or RSAREF or any other software in this archive, in violation of the export control laws of the United States of America as implemented by the United States Department of State Office of Defense Trade Controls. Before I download Mixmaster, I will read and agree to the terms and conditions of the RSAREF license (in ftp://ftp.jpunix.com/pub/rsalicen.txt) I will use Mixmaster solely for non-commercial purposes. ---------------------------------------------------------- Directory name last changed at: Wed May 1 09:00:01 CDT 1996 End README.no-export What confuses me is the part above that states that I agree to use Mixmaster for solely non-commercial use. This is NOT GNU or copyleft. Jim Choate

1 0

Remailer extensions
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, In pondering the last few days of discussion it occurs to me that a test might be possible. In short: Is it legal for a business to anonymously remail physical mail? The process I propose is as follows: 1. Some party mails an envelope to 'Remailers-R-Us'. 2. Inside that envelope is the real mail addressed and stamped along with say a $1 money order for processing. 3. The people at Remailers-R-Us simply take the dollar and deposit it in the bank while depositing the letter they received in the local mail drop. Now the Remailers-R-Us obviously can't open the mail since that would be tampering. To this end I make reference to some comments I made about a year ago regarding the results of encrypting every stage of the remailer sequence. To wit, the only way to guarantee protection is if the remialer is not able to read the actual contents of the mail, even if they were so disposed. I would also like to point out (the obvious I admit) that the founding fathers apparently embarced anonymous distribution via their 'publius' handle. It seems to me that a federal prosecutor would have a hard time claiming there was no precedence for such actions. Such a claim to my way of thinking would be fundamental in any attempted prosecution for anonymous remailing. Also, as far as I can find out, there was no persecution of the newspapers for printing this material anonymously, they apparently were not held to task for the content. This seems to indicate that English commen law of that day (and its descendants here today) embraced anonymous speech as well. Jim Choate

1 0

Re: MixMaster fair use
by Rev. Mark Grant, ULC 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 21 May 1996, Jim Choate wrote: > What confuses me is the part above that states that I agree to use Mixmaster > for solely non-commercial use. This is NOT GNU or copyleft. Isn't that because it uses RSAREF? AFAIR the RSAREF license says you can't use any RSAREF applications commercially without paying license fees. Mark

1 0

Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
by Rev. Mark Grant, ULC 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 20 May 1996, Rich Graves wrote: > On Tue, 21 May 1996, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: > I like the "knock-knock" approach, though it would of necessity impose > load. If someone has an anonymous message waiting, send them a simple note > with instructions on how to retrieve it. I have a partial implementation of this for Mixmaster if anyone wants to try integrating it into the main code. It works (or worked) for single packet messages but I never finished the multi-packet code. Of course, if Mixmaster is being rewritten anyway then it won't be much use. AFAIR it also relies on the 'In-Reply-To:' field in the header working correctly. Mark

1 0

Re: Long-Lived Remailers
by Rev. Mark Grant, ULC 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 21 May 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > Traffic analysis will be quite easy to do, of course, as all mail sent to > the persistent address comes out of the "disposable(a)foo.com" address. > Q.E.D. Yeah, but the attack model I was assuming was lawyers rather than intelligence agencies. The NSA could probably easily link the two together, but the Church of Foobar(tm) probably couldn't. They'd only have access to the logs on the ISP and the information you gave when you signed up, not the raw packets on the Net. Mark

1 0

Re: MixMaster fair use (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 16:06:07 +0100 (BST) > From: "Rev. Mark Grant, ULC" <mark(a)unicorn.com> > Subject: Re: MixMaster fair use > > On Tue, 21 May 1996, Jim Choate wrote: > > > What confuses me is the part above that states that I agree to use Mixmaster > > for solely non-commercial use. This is NOT GNU or copyleft. > > Isn't that because it uses RSAREF? AFAIR the RSAREF license says you can't > use any RSAREF applications commercially without paying license fees. > But, it doesn't say word one about RSAREF not being used, it specificaly mentions Mixmaster. Jim Choate

1 0

Re: NIST Draft Key Escrow Paper
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Contrary to what the attached note says, there is no draft copy available yet. OMB publications at the number below says: "We're just finding out about the report. We're not sure if they're going to give us copies or not." -Declan > [Forward] > > From: Elaine Frye <elaine.frye(a)nist.gov> > Subject: draft key escrow paper > > May 20, 1996 > > Note > > To: Key Escrow Distribution List > > From: Ed Roback, NIST > > Subject: Release of DRAFT Key Escrow Paper > > FYI, today the Interagency Working Group (IWG) on > Cryptography Policy released a DRAFT paper entitled > "Enabling Privacy, Commerce, Security and Public Safety in > the Global Information Infrastructure." > > The DRAFT paper discusses a voluntary draft key management > infrastructure, supported by private sector key management > organizations, that would permit users and manufacturers > free choice of encryption algorithms, facilitate > international interoperability, preserve law enforcement > access, and, most importantly, provide strong system > security and integrity. FYI, the paper was released by the > IWG co-chairs Ed Appel (NSC) and Bruce McConnell (OMB). > > Comments on the draft paper are being solicited. No > deadline is specified. > > At present, I do not have an electronic copy of the draft > (25 pp). Copies are available through the OMB publications > office at 202-395-7332. I anticipate that the document > will soon be available widely on the net and will forward > you a web address when available. > > > ***************************************************** > Elaine Frye > Computer Security Division > National Institute of Standards and Technology > Bldg. 820, M.S. Room 426 > Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001 > Voice: 301/975-2819 Fax: 301/948-1233 > ***************************************************** >

2 1

Re: NIST Draft Key Escrow Paper
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We've just heard back from Ed Roback of NIST that he'll fax us a copy of the Draft Key Escrow Paper, which we'll scan and send to Pat Farrell for his Web site. I'll ask Pat to announce it's availability when ready.

1 0

Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
by Bruce Baugh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:02 PM 5/20/96 -0700, Hal <hfinney(a)shell.portal.com> wrote: >My thought is to turn the block list concept on its head, and make it a >"permit list". Simply, the remailer will only send mail to people who >have voluntarily indicated their willingness to receive it. On the whole, I like it. The problem comes when someone is trying communicate anonymously with some other person who doesn't have a clue about the whole thing. It would be neat to have soem way of generating a message to the effect "Someone is trying to communicate anonymously with you. [short explanation of good and bad uses of anonymity] If you would like to receive this message, [instructions about permitting]" Unfortunately, I don't know how one could separate those messages from all the rest of the traffic. -- Bruce Baugh bruce(a)aracnet.com http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce

1 0

Re: The Crisis with Remailers
by droelke＠rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

tcmay(a)mail.got.net wrote: > > At 5:25 AM 5/21/96, Lance Cottrell wrote: > > >An interesting problem with anonymous postage is that it is likely to kill > >cover traffic generators. > > > > I doubt it. It's easy enough for remailers to, for example, pass out free > tokens to other remailer operators. > > (Jukebox and other coin-op concessions often pass out tokens (slugs, or > marked coins) to storeowners and bartenders to use to stimulate the > market.) > Wouldn't the "income" from other cover generators help cover the cost of a remailer running its own cover generator? Also - remailers could possibly give postage free service to traffic for other remailers.... i.e. only the last node (who has the most exposure anyways) would require payment. Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Oelke Alcatel Network Systems droelke(a)aud.alcatel.com Richardson, TX

1 0

Re: SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FAST
by hendersn＠zeta.org.au 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>At 02:08 AM 5/20/96 EDT, you wrote: >> What countries are noticeable for being anti-Scientology? >> They would appear to be good locations for special-purpose >> remailer ultimate-output ends. > >Scientology was illegal in Australia last time I heard. Not at the moment. It was only banned in one state(can't remember which one) and that ban was lifted some time ago. > They declared >that you could not be a religion and charge a fee for religious service >the way that Scientology charges. It was tried, but didn't work. The final court ruling was that Australian Government wasn't allowed to decide what did or didn't constitute a genuine religious practice. $cientology can charge what it likes. > They then defined them as practicing >medicine, and hit them with snake oil laws. And the religion cover let them skip away unharmed. The Church's "benefits" are spiritual in nature(allegedly) and therefore not subject to medical regulations. Now to try to get this back on-topic, there was one NOTS document which was posted anonymously before the whole pack made it to alt.religion.scientology. It described a process(or "ritual" if you prefer) designed to help _physical_ affliction. It _may_ violate an FDA ruling prohibiting the Church from practising medicine. It is _definitely_ a violation of copyright to post it and one person, Keith Henson, is getting sued for quoting it. Now, was sending this NOTS document through an anonymous remailer a good or a bad thing to do? Zed(hendersn(a)zeta.org.au) "Don't hate the media, become the media" - Jello Biafra PGP key on request

1 0

Re: Hiding remailers behind nymservers...? (fwd)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:57 AM 5/21/96, Jim Choate wrote: >Forwarded message: > >> Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 18:53:15 -0700 (PDT) >> From: Steve Reid <root(a)edmweb.com> >> Subject: Hiding remailers behind nymservers...? >> >> This 'middle-man' remailer... What does it really accomplish? Sure, the >> operator is hidden, but that's only because of his/her nym at c2.org... >> AFAICS, the 'middle-man' has just taken the liability off himself and put >> it on the unhidden remailers. Why not just use the existing unhidden >> remailers??? >> > >The first thing it accomplishes in my mind is establishing pre-meditation to >conspire to the commission of a felony. No, think of scienter again. And creating something or some service that _may_ be used in connection with a crime does not make the creator a conspirator, unless it can be shown that he was involved in the planning of the crime used with his thing or service. For example, if I open up a car rental place and one of my cars is used in a bank robbery, was I involved in a "pre-meditation to conspire to the commission of a felony."? Clearly not. (And before anyone brings up "required ID" at car rental agencies, such ID is not required by any local, state, or national laws, so far as I have ever heard. It is perfectly legal for me to rent things to people without demanding credentials. A sufficiently large deposit may be enough. ID is often used to satisfy insurance requirements, and to help in collecting any unreturned items.) Now it may be that operating a remailer may be interpreted by some courts as being a "public nuisance," a theory I credit to Brad Templeton, but this has not yet come even close to happening. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:28 PM 5/20/96 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > >Forwarded message: > >> Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 15:02:08 -0700 >> From: Hal <hfinney(a)shell.portal.com> >> Subject: An alternative to remailer shutdowns > >> was apparently sent through my remailer. According to 18 USC 875(c), >> "Whoever transmits in interstate commerce any communication containing >> any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of >> another, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more >> than five years, or both." I may not be able to continue operating >> either of my remailers (alumni.caltech.edu and shell.portal.com) for >> much longer due to this kind of abuse. > >There should be a section in there dealing with 'knowingly'. If not then we >should immediately bring charges against any and all newspapers who have >ever printer a ransom letter, or perhaps even the Unibomber Manifesto since >there is clear evidence of 'threat to injure the person of another'. But even "knowingly" needs to be carefully defined. A remailer operator today KNOWS that his system COULD be used for illegal activities; he merely doesn't know that they are, currently. I think that the definition should be so narrow that it is impossible for a third party (or the government itself) to incriminate the remailer operator by having his system forward arguably illegal or copyright-violating material. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Private e-mail...[was Re: AP]
by liberty＠gate.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Must ALL my e-mail be re-posted to this damn list? I will AGAIN remind careful readers: _Anything_ that does not begin with the words: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED.... and end with my little play on the sound of J. Edgar Freeh's name may *or may not* be from me, and is more likely to simply be from someone:a) clue-impaired and b) noisy. Actual Jim Ray posts also tend to have fewer typos, and be both more detailed and shorter than this did, because I proof them and I tend not to proofread private e-mail. I will now clutter the list to respond to this nitwit's moronic claims in public, please direct all Perrygrams to <jf_avon(a)citenet.net> [GROAN!--Why me???] Oh yeah. Ray's Corrolary to Murphy:"You will be spared _NOTHING_." <sigh> I'll attempt to cut as much as possible to put wasted space to a minimum. My apologies to those not interested, who are advised to hit delete now (I'd imagine that includes many or most of you). JMR jf_avon(a)citenet.net for some strange reason posted: ... >Is there a Detweiller FAQ somewhere? There's even a page, near the top of my page. He's also mentioned under "don't feed the animals" in the welcome message. He is intelligent, and he's quieter than he used to be, perhaps taking his meds. >Interesting. Has AP ever popped-up in the conventional medias? AFAIK not yet, but I could be wrong. If I were Slick Willie, it would have been all over the place by now. [BTW, for the record, I don't make a habit of calling those who would advocate violence "loon" in a public forum. There are thus self-preservation advantages to actually convincing the clueless to lurk, look at message headers, and read "Netiquet" before posting. <sigh>] >Then, again, I know an awfull lot of people who would applaude Bell. >But most of them are not computer litterate. They are from another >generation, not brainwashed by "Don't ask what your country can >do for you; ask what you can do for your country"... How do these people vote, though? [Prediction: majority statist.] You can't complain when the govt. gives what you ask for... [Absent the unConstitutional ballot-laws we are blessed with here in Florida.] >> I'm 35, and I may actually die before I do. I hope not. [Sniped to convey no context whatsoever] I was talking about the very low odds of me someday actually *respecting* a living US President, for those of you without telepathy skills. I *would* feel old by haing this revealed, but I just learned of a cypherpunk _grandmother_! [No, I won't say who.] >[Black humor] any AP proponents with an eye (or a buck) on you? :) Possibly. Bell insists Libertarians like me shouldn't worry. I worry, because statists' money spends just as well as mine. Tim joked a while back about putting a "fire-and-forget" K out on me when I was *last* misquoted as the "Cyberangel." I seem to attract this crap, but I assure you it's NOT AT ALL deliberate. All is forgiven, no apology needed, just please try to be careful and remember the other 1000+ subscribers. ... >> This kind of thinking might authorize a massive Cherokee >> massacre if it spread, IMO. > >Please, do point out the similarities and the differences... I think >that the context is very different. Not really, only the time in history. Their property was 100% taken, and they were marched to OK from GA. The IRS may be bad...but they aren't THAT bad...[disclaimer: I am (a tiny) part Cherokee, and I hate the IRS (a lot).] ... > >Are you talking of an open war a la Bosnia? Hopefully not. It is what I fear. >> We must either leave some wrongs in the >> past or be cursed with them forever. > >This is what I was talking about taking things out of context. Since >you agree on that, the Cherokee thing is ruled out. But govt action >are a matter of the present and future. Some peoples see it as >legitimate self-defense. I disagree on ruling Cherokees out, _I_ decide what I rule out, not you. The legitimate *peaceful* self defense options have not yet been adequately explored, IMO. >... >> Bottom line for me: "Two wrongs don't make a right." > >Please state the basic premise that make you declare what is "wrong" >in the context of AP. "Thou shalt not kill..." [pretty basic stuff here...] > I am not bugging you simply to do so. For >example, do you think that, for ethical reasons, you are not only >justified but actually *obligated* to use physical violence in >certain contexts? I guess not. No, just not as a first-resort in non-life-threatening contexts. > But many peoples think they have >to... If they break my door down and want my gun or PGPkey, I may shoot. No matter who does this, they could die if they go far enough. I will not seek to kill anyone from afar, though, and I'd have to feel in immediate fear for my life before I can morally justify killing another person. Luckily, it hasn't happened so far. >I think that you simply try to evade the necessity of defining for >yourself what exactly is what the govt is doing. Taxation is theft, I fail to see your point. Murder isn't the sole, or even first, option to prevent theft when you can do things like lock your doors. [encrypt] Did the OKCity bombing reduce the size of government, or increase it? (As I predicted, increase. I hate it when I'm right.) Violence begats violence. Always. ... >General opinion is not what define truth nor reality. If I refuse >to pay my taxes, they'll use physical violence to get what they >want. You might object that I enjoyed the benefits of the spending >of taxes, but I am yet to see any contract that I entered with >"society". > At this point, as an individual protest, a (suicidal) "freeman" like stand is justified if you like the idea of being a dead hero. I don't. Yet. There are other options. But general opinion _does_ define political reality, so best that there be more responsible uses of anonymity at this very delicate point in the remailernet's political life. There seem to be less. ...me -- [AssPol would have to entail an oligarchy...] >This scheme is *not* an oligarchy. Pay a visit to any good dictionary >near you. Words have precise meaning and it is *much* better to >stick to it... I said entail, *you* read a dictionary. The scheme relies on $, and more $ gives you more "votes" on who to kill. Oligarchy, a rule by the rich. I stuck exactly to it. Read more carefully in the *non-header* part of messages, too. >Actually, since it is ruled by money, it might be a "buckarchy", but >again, everybody can spare a few bucks, so it might be a democracy >too if you insist on twisting the meaning of words. HUH???? "buckarchy" isn't in my dictionary...I neither twisted *nor invented* any words. Democracy is also a legitimate fear, and the operative word in your statement is "might." Well, might NOT also... I happen to prefer a constitutional republic to democracy anyway. Tim May has written well on this, and on why. [Hi Tim.] >> and I think I'd be an easy target for >> wealthy statists, who could also use the system. > >At first look, of course. But operationnally, you have to consider the >mind of the statist to figure out the likeliness of their using the >system? I do not deny that it is very likely that a few statists will >use the system. But most won't because they don't like to slain >their milk cows. That's not how I view statists. Your faith is admirable, but I won't share it soon. Hitler, Stalin, Clinton, Bush, Biden, Dole, etc. - they all would just as soon see me as hamburger as milk cow. As hamburger I'm no longer such a smart-ass under their skins. I have seen how history describes the minds of statists who don't get their way & it's not pretty. _Many_ statists have the $ to kill me, without AP, this would make me cheap and compromise the privacy of the remailernet [probably] or just cause remailers to be outlawed. If I operated a remailer, and you bought or sold 500 lbs of cannabis through it, I would try to cooperate to the minimum possible extent of the law, ad perhaps go to jail for contempt, it depends. If you tried AP, I would let the BATF (yes, I hate them, too) log all your use (while trying to somehow protect my innocent users' privacy). I again boil it down to my Jim Ray test:"Where's the victim?"<imagine Clara Peller here> >> If Bell could post >> fewer times, he'd be more convincing. He is in many killfiles. >> JMR And now, it's likely that I am, too. Allow me to reduce noise even furter by preemptively saying "Plonk" right now, so it doesn't need to be announced twice on the poor, groaning list. >Many peoples cannot stand to see any opinions that differs from >theirs. But why care at all be read by such peoples? It's not that, I was speaking of post-frequency-noise. I had seen the idea before Jimbell ever had it, in Tim May's Cyphernomicon. Tim has interesting, different things to say. Jimbell doesn't. Whether I agree has nothing at all to do with repetitiousness. I will try VERY hard not to post again on this. Please help by letting me have the last word (for once). How's this: Unsollicited[sic] public posting of private e-mail will be refuted at US165 $/h Any sender of such material will be considered as to have accepted the above mentionned[sic] terms. JMR PS, while I am making non-crypto-noise anyway... ================================================ Tim also wrote [in another message/thread]: <...> >(ObCaveat: I personally think a free society cannot/should not outlaw >discrimination in any form, save that by government.) Which is exactly the opposite of what we are faced with right now. Gee, I wonder why race relations are doing so poorly nowadays? We need more government intervention in this vital area... </sarcasm> Jim Ray -- DNRC Minister of Encryption Advocacy. "Your federal government needs your money so that it can perform vital services for you that you would not think up in a million years." -- Dave Barry ___________________________________________________________________ PGP id.E9BD6D35 51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE 53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 <liberty(a)gate.net> http://www.shopmiami.com/prs/jimray ___________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh. iQCVAwUBMaHkdG1lp8bpvW01AQFJzAP6A0Vc25O61daOa6hnnZ8b0iSA5KYCS++q zYXWrpYWujH6L8qF0USTkJ7Su1rVW3ge4GSsBMflwp8fp4Wh2By3PafX1CPF7TTl a2Ns6eCO8SeUu4oGWnTQ2xeNR7ic07b2k+yuAVooR0f7qZQbE7SI7YHx/jhpz4Cp AtBuBs9hYLo= =FMxv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: AP
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 20 May 96 at 22:59, Jim Ray wrote: > >Is there a Detweiller FAQ somewhere? > > There's even a page I found one out. Interesting. Vlad might very well fit the profile. > >Interesting. Has AP ever popped-up in the conventional medias? > > AFAIK not yet, but I could be wrong. If I were Slick W., > it would. I don't think Slick W. will make it pop-up. They know damn well that no matter what the media might pretend the population thinks, there will be enough peoples more than willing to spend a few bucks to cause major joepardy. > >Then, again, I know an awfull lot of people who would applaude > >Bell. But most of them are not computer litterate. They are from > >another generation, not brainwashed by "Don't ask what your country > >can do for you; ask what you can do for your country"... > > How do these people vote, though? [Prediction: majority statist.] > you can't complain when the govt. gives what you ask for... Theses peoples refuse to register their guns, although it is mandatory in canada (to be registered within 7(?) years...) > Possibly. Bell insists Libertarians like me shouldn't worry. > I worry, because statists' money spends just as well as mine. > Tim joked a while back about putting a "fire-and-forget" K > out on me when I was misquoted as the "Cyberangel." So, are you saying that you chose to not endorse Bell's system because you fear you'd be a target? Just asking... > >> >You'll note that the psycho-epistemology necessary to > >> >commit murder is quite close to the one necessary to coerce > >> >poeples to pay taxes. > >> > >> This kind of thinking might authorize a massive Cherokee > >> massacre if it spread, IMO. > > > >Please, do point out the similarities and the differences... I > >think that the context is very different. > > Not really, only the time in history. Their property was > 100% taken, and they were marched to OK from GA. The IRS > may be bad...but they aren't THAT bad...[disclaimer: I > am (a tiny) part Cherokee. You did not answer my question: When our local Mohawks accuse the white peoples to have stolen their land, I ask "when did I do that? I can't remember..." I refuse to be held responsible for things that were done several hundred years ago. Period. As I said, I *never*, not even in my early years, believed in original sin. > >Are you talking of an open war a la Bosnia? > > Hopefully not. What I meant is "do you believe that the AP scheme can lead to such events?" I personnally believe that in the event AP is used against govt, no statist will be able to retaliate. They might possibly make a few examples, but nobody will get fooled. Anyways, since the system is completely delocalized, there is no target to aim at. And furthermore, I think JB is right in saying that the middle-management level is much more likely to be hit first. But thoses affluent statists are not middle-management. You have to figure out who will be targeted, and what are their means of reprisal. > and the legitimate self defense > options which are peaceful have not been adequately explored. IMO Well, pardon my lack of imagination but I never found out too many effective ones. I'll be delighted to consider any alternative you propose. Encryption and anonymity tools *are* widely discussed and could make AP obsolete (hopefully). > >> Bottom line for me: "Two wrongs don't make a right." > > > >Please state the basic premise that make you declare what is > >"wrong" in the context of AP. > "Thou shalt not kill..." [pretty basic stuff here...] I am sorry, but I do not accept that as a valid argument. What if somebody came to take away your means of feeding your kids? What if somebody was menacing you or your kids? There are instances, as you seem to agree, when killing is justified. What is meant by the sentence is: Thou shalt not initiate lethal violence. > >but actually *obligated* to use physical violence in > >certain contexts? I guess not. > > No, just not as first resort. > > > But many peoples think they have > >to... > > If they break my door down and want my gun or PGPkey, I shoot. > No matter who, Jim Bell or Bill Clinton, they may die if they > go far enough. I will not seek to kill anyone from afar, though, and > I'd have to feel in fear of my life. This is the dilemna that peoples in pre-war germany faced. I met a wonderfull old german gentleman who worked on the german radar during the war. I asked him about how Hitler was perceived by the general thinking population. He said that 60% of the population tought very little of him, and did not agree with war. Theses were the educated germans. But at the same time, since Hitler rallied the other 40% of the population, the thugs at heart, they lived in constant fear. Nobody dared to say anything because nobody came back from some interrogations... And I was told the exact same thing by a previous girlfriend of mine, doing her PhD in chemistry. She was iranian. She had an irakian boyfriend for a while. They were madly in love. but what a fuss it made... Anyhow, she told me that while in high school, seven of her schoolmate, sixteen years old girls, were taken from the classes by Khomeiny's political police. Nobody, friends nor family, heard of them ever again. AP simply turn the ethics of assasins toward other like minded. Unfortunately, it can turn said mind toward valuable peoples too. And this is good reason to object. > >I think that you simply try to evade the necessity of defining for > >yourself what exactly is what the govt is doing. > Taxation is theft, I fail to see your point. Well, depends. If you agreed to be taxed, then, maybe not. But suppose it is: what are the essentials of theft and what are the justified actions againts it? Now, does a kid stealing apples the same as the state stealing individual's earned wealth ? Does the same measure apply? Is the offense comparable? (You must first define the exact context of each) > Murder isn't the sole, or even first, option to prevent theft when > you can do things like lock doors. [encrypt] In the case of govt, it have the legal monopoly on the use of violence. And it does not seem to hate using it. But if you shoot some govt official who decided that he wanted you PGP key or your gun, you'll pay for it dearly even if you win in court. The most precious thing in life is time. And the way we found, as rationnal animals, to exchange time is to condense time into money. Money is an abstraction for productive time of our life. The govt is working very hard, at the victims expense, to make anything that can act as a lock illegal. And they enforce that with guns. So, do not surprize yourself if many people find AP fully justified or is the only way left to them. I do not advocate AP, notwithstanding what some others pretend (LD?). I think that inducing the death of govt as we know it by financial starvation through encrypted transactions is the way. But I also think that AP is impossible to prevent from happening because so much peoples agree with the preceding paragraph. > >> Even then, I prefer the judicial process to the oligarchy > >> this scheme would entail > > > >This scheme is *not* an oligarchy. Pay a visit to any good > >dictionary near you. Words have precise meaning and it is *much* > >better to stick to it... > > I said entail, *you* read a dictionary. The scheme relies on $, and > more $ gives you more votes on who to kill. Oligarchy, a rule by the > rich. I stuck exactly to it. Read more carefully. Sorry, I don't have an english-french dictionnary. But I think it means "might lead to" or "might imply". Grand Larousse en 5 Volumes, Vol 4, p. 2229 : (I translate from french) Oligarchy: noun, feminine. (gr: oligarkhia) 1) political system in which power is held by a small number of individuals who constitutes either the intellectual elite (aristocracy) or the owning minority (plutocracy ?), theses two aspect often coinciding. 2) when a minority accaparates a power or an authority. I have to do some more thinking on that. I concede that I used the wrong words. To me, even if AP would fit the operationnal definition of oligarchy, it is not. Maybe because the definition had as a basic premise that it is impossible to structure power without communication. I think that anonymity technologies might force a re-definition of the word in more precise terms. In AP, it is completely different in the sense that nobody agrees to the ideas of other peoples. They simply pass *their own* judgment using *their own* reason and make *their own* decision to put a few bucks on this or that head. In oligarchy, the "intellectual elite" share some common premises, ideas. In AP, although you can derive a probability distribution of the values held by the anonymous donators, they do not actively share ideas. And neither do the assassins. There is no collusion, no exchange of information, no peer pressure, no conspiracy, no nothing. The only factor is the wealth a given donator is willing to donate. And this makes it a "buckarchy", i.e. the ideas and values of peoples who made it to wealth are statistically more likely to be implemented. But again, it is only a statistical, macroscopical truth. Only, theses peoples achieved wealth by sticking to a certain type of values (considering that it takes years to build a reputation and seconds to destroy it); they must have a stong tendency toward a set of values that are pro-freedom, pro-economy, and pro-productivity. Laissez-faire, the french expression, means "let do". > >> and I think I'd be an easy target for wealthy statists, > >>who could also use the system. But OTOH, if you remain silent, you'll attract no one. > >At first look, of course. But operationnally, you have to consider > >the mind of the statist to figure out the likeliness of their using > >the system? I do not deny that it is very likely that a few > >statists will use the system. But most won't because they don't > >like to slain their milk cows. > > That's not how I view statists. your faith is admirable, but > I won't share it soon. Faith: zero, zip, none... > hitler, Stalin, Clinton, they all > would see me as hamburger just as soon as milkcow IMO. I > have seen how history describes the minds of statists who > don't get their way, it's not pretty. (Did you read the complete AP essay?) Yes. But you also have to recognize that *never* in the history of mankind a media like the net ever existed. The net is, IMO, a turning point in the history of humanity, just as the discovery of toolmaking was. I think it will change the human history even more than the invention of the printing press. > Many statists have > the $ to kill me without AP, this would make me cheap and > compromise the privacy of the remailernet probably, or just > cause them to be outlawed. A few questions here: Why any statists would want to target *you*? There are plenty of guys like you who hates the guts of govt, have big mouths, and they don't get offed. By being a C'punk, it is even more dangerous for them: if they try to make an example by killing you, the others CPunks will go underground, set up AP remailers and get rid of them. At least, they recognize that the last thing to do in such circumstances, is to make martyrs. Compare the number of active posters to the number of readers, and you'll see that a lot of C'punks stay in the shadow, without making any waves. Now, to deal with that volume of e-mail, one must have *some* sort of interest. Unless the silent majority *all* work for NSA... Ciao JFA PLEASE NOTE: THIS POST DOES NOT MEAN THAT I ENDORSE MR. BELL'S SYSTEM. MY RATIONNAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT IT'S INTERNAL MECHANICS AND IT'S INTRINSIC LOGICS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I LIKE NOR ENDORSE THE SYSTEM. I SIMPLY CONCLUDED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PREVENT THE SYSTEM FROM BEING IMPLEMENTED. IMO, IT IS UNAVOIDABLE. DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee Limoges porcelain, Silverware and mouth blown crystal glasses JFA Technologies, R&D consultants. Physists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891

1 0

Re: The Crisis with Remailers
by camcc＠abraxis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:40 AM 5/20/96 -0700, you wrote: > one cent could well be too low. I have been a client of the c2.org pre/re mailer on several occasions. What with all the discussion of remailers falling away (or being pushed), I am concerned that the 10 cent fee I, and hopefully others, have been paying in e-cash is not sufficient to keep c2.og's remailer in operation. I would be willing to pay, say for discussions sake, the postal rate for the convenience and security it offers. Alec Every suceeding scientific discovery makes greater nonsense camcc(a)abraxis.com of old-time conceptions of sovereignty. A. Eden PGP Fingerprint: Key ring: 'c:\pgp\pubring.pgp', looking for user ID "0x41207EE5". Type bits/keyID Date User ID pub 1024/41207EE5 1996/04/08 Alec McCrackin <camcc(a)abraxis.com> Key fingerprint = 09 13 E1 CB B3 0C 88 D9 D7 D4 10 F0 06 7D DF 31 Alec McCrackin

1 0

Re: Rumor: DSS Broken?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:32 PM 5/19/96 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 08:05 PM 5/19/96 -0800, Jim Bell wrote: >>It should occur to all of us that if the NSA was actually doing the job we >>are vastly over-paying them to do, it is THEY who should be finding, >>exposing, and correcting these kinds of cryptography faults. > >They may have; they're just kind of selective in who they expose them to :-) Yes...but... How can the NSA serve two masters? If the NSA has the American public's best interests at heart, then it should have revealed the flaw if it knew of it. (Otherwise, it can't be trusted...) If it did not, then it likewise should admit to this to show that their trustworthiness and reliability isn't particularly high and we shouldn't trust their opinions on Clipper etc. It is at least arguable that the NSA might have a vested interest in allowing an enemy to continue to use a flawed encryption system, as in Enigma. However, MD5 produces what ought to be secure hashes, right? A flaw in MD5 allows the person knowing the secret flaw to fake a file that produces a similar hash. What interest could the NSA possibly have in allowing such faked files to be produced? Is this part of the NSA's job description? >Also, there are expert cryptographers outside the NSA, and outside the US; >you might check where Dobbertin lives. And this is a Good Thing. Yes, it is. But I'd like to think that the NSA isn't acting as if WE are the "enemy." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2