December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

agree with all of BS's points... >Anonymous remailers support several things I want to do, >and that I want other people be able to do: >1) Let people have private conversations without being identified >by third parties. >2) Let people have private conversations without being identified >by each other, voluntarily and respecting each others' rights. >3) Let people broadcast things to the public that they might >be afraid to do otherwise. >4) Let people broadcast things to the public without their >reputations, good or bad, affecting readers' reactions. >5) Let people experiment with different personality and >conversation styles, though this doesn't strictly require anonymity. >6) Let people communicate with government officials without risk. I suspect all these items can be accomplished using means other than anonymous remailers. anonymous remailers are a good start, but possibly there is still technology waiting to be invented to support some of these features. one possibility that I'm very interested in: consider that Usenet was not built from the ground-up to support anonymity, nor was the sendmail system. when anonymity was introduced to Usenet, everyone went crazy, and it was only marginally supported. I think I may work on some technical proposals along these lines for future posting here, because much of this dialogue has me thinking. what cpunks might consider doing is creating an alternative message distribution system like Usenet that starts from the premise that anonymous communication is allowed and trying to grow it. btw, McCullagh's and other's claims about "ghettoization" of anonymity strike me as very specious. as long as people can use anonymity in some forum they want, I think that's acceptable. what's the equivalent of a "ghetto" in cyberspace? you can't go into a meeting of professionals wearing a ski mask, although you might be able to create such a forum yourself. does that mean you are in some kind of a "ghetto"? oh, brother.

2 1

rc2 export limits..
by Surya Koneru 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Does anyone know the export limit for RC2 Key size ? --Surya

3 2

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by Jon Lebkowsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:06 PM 9/2/96 -0700, James A. Donald wrote: >At 06:52 AM 9/3/96 -0500, Jon Lebkowsky wrote: >> "Uncompromising" is not an "element of legislative influence," at least not >> on this planet. >Therefore the correct strategy is simply to attack any politician who shows >any interest in legislating on our issues. > >We have no friends on Capitol hill, and if we did have friends, it would >still be necessary to denounce them as enemies. As I said, on *this* planet. -- Jon Lebkowsky http://www.well.com/~jonl jonl(a)hotwired.com

1 0

PKS RFC Project
by Mark Rogaski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- For anyone who is interested in contributing to our experimental RFC for public key servers, I set up a little mailing list for discussion. pks-rfc(a)charon.gti.net To subscribe, send a message to pks-rfc-request(a)charon.gti.net with "subscribe" in the subject field. mark - -- Mark Rogaski | Why read when you can just sit and | Member GTI System Admin | stare at things? | Programmers Local wendigo(a)gti.net | Any expressed opinions are my own | # 0xfffe wendigo(a)pobox.com | unless they can get me in trouble. | APL-CPIO -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMiyToBz4pZwIaHjdAQGxTQf+Pvz6tFzbncPkbj2QX6awMjVZiYcAknQx /n6JWGFpImCs+/WZJOqesUMWUXA2/Iwg1un2djZ5n8xsQKvcRzHrKwo3C8ZV9ECn KuDJe/y2ZeU5sOSvqyyDATUxSUstj4CwhTES5/OD2NcuIKkVPW/h4Gtoo5ZuPp3D wWdHjsuZ2tAZACvICpNvq3wHu2bW4Skv4p/BQeJFfRtGst/blmHrprFjjnlIXIUs yF2S60DilGjIkcAtljGbI0VgH3O8Ra2HM4pTx/bDh86YTx8SKuOiZ6KbJwZl81yt uEwkhdKrfQkp5M3FgfS1k1sIWjIm3K5u1osIqcTrTem5a1eivXqx/w== =EvkN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

No Subject
by hack5＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

their is a new mailing list for all you hackers just email your name or handle and e-mail address and youll be subscribed send information to hack5(a)juno.com

1 0

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by Stanton McCandlish 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[This post may be fwd'd to the CP list if it does not show up there from my sending it.] Bill Stewart typed: > While nobody's called Esther Dyson a Communist here yet, there are > people on the board I disagree with - Mitch Kapor, in particular, has shown who is no longer on the board > signs of being a (gasp!) Democrat! My initial reaction to the EFF's first Democrat v. Republican is largely irrelevant here, though more relevant when you get into infrastructure, universal access, and intellectual property issues - stuff that EFF has touched on here and there, but which is not at the heart of our mission. There are other democrats on our board and staff, as well as Republicans. Even Kapor, however, is very strongly for competition, for entrepreneurs, for markets, and ergo differs from a lot of Democrats in that regard. And no one at EFF that I know of is an extreme liberal or conservative on social issues (both extremes are very censorious - the right of "ungodly" things, and the left of "un-p.c." things). So, again, I'd like to suggest that political party affiliation is approaching meaninglessness. The political axis that counts isn't l. vs. r., but civil libertarian v. authoritarian. No one at EFF is an authoritarian. > year or two was that they were doing some very good things > (the Steve Jackson defense), That was quite a bit more than a year or two ago. :) > and also had people making speeches about > the need to provide everybody with access to the Information SuperHighway. > Getting the S.266 anti-crypto-pro-wiretapping bill killed a few years > ago was what convinced me to join them, though their compromise positions > on some of the other anti-freedom bills since then have not helped > my mixed views of the organization. There were no compromise positions. We have 100% opposed implementation of such legislation. In the case of the Digital Telephony Bill (the later version of S.266, drafted by the FBI), we were simply unable to stop it, and instead had to try to strip as much FBI wish list out of it as possible and insert privacy protections. That's not a compromise, that's emergency action. We did everything we could. We are too, for numerous reasons. > Maybe. If it's a good position, it will recognize that anonymity > is a mixed blessing; there are people who use it creatively and > responsibly, like Black Unicorn and Lucky Green, and there are > spammers who abuse it to the detriment of society, like the slimeball > who used my remailer to post hatemail to the gay newsgroups with > somebody else's name attached to the bottom. On the other hand, > free speech is also a mixed blessing; there _are_ things I wish people Such a position is likely to be the one EFF takes if it takes one, which is probable. EFF in generally does not issue extremist position statements, but is careful to examine the risks as well as the benefits, and look for pro-liberty solutions to those risks. > had the good taste not to say, but I'm not going to get in Voltaire's > way while he defends to the death their right to say them... Just as an aside, in case anyone's interested, what Voltaire actually said was, "I never approved either the errors of his book, or the trivial truths he so vigorously laid down. I have, however, stoutly taken his side when absurd men have condemned him for these same truths." The "defend to the death his right to say it" paraphrase is an embellishment. :) -- <HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/"> Stanton McCandlish </A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org"> mech(a)eff.org </A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/"> Electronic Frontier Foundation </A><P> Online Activist </HTML>

1 0

Re: Voting Monarchist?
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri, err, Dr. Vulis, or is that Dr. Nuri?, Relax! The modern cure for hydrophobia is a great deal less painful than what it was in the past >Harry Brone is a fucking statist. If he weren't, he wouldn't be running >for president. Anyone who doesn't advocate killing all kings, presidents, >and prime ministers is a fucking statist and should be beaten to a pulp >with a rattan stick.

1 0

Re: The Esther Dyson Flap
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:42 AM 9/3/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >However, as I said, if the top spokesman at EFF gives indication of having >views pretty much 180 degrees out of phase with our views, it's likely >we'll speak up and oppose her (or him), and perhaps even suggest that other >EFF board members look into the matter. "Free speech" is not even an issue. Everyone please take a deep breath. Slow down. Reread Esther's comments. Count to 10. Notice that nowhere does she call for state action to outlaw anonymity. She explicitly predicted a place for anonymity in her CFP'95 talk (is it on the Net anywhere?). We may disagree with her predictions of the future scope of anonymity or with her concerns about the risks of the practice but she has never called for State action. She is discussing the problems she perceives with it. That's all. Poor Esther, Forbes swatted her last week for her prediction that the Net kills copyright and now some of us are swatting her for her prediction that many of the future Net transactions will be non-anonymous. She may be wrong in this prediction but so what. Remember she is from the soft left. She is not a macho-flash radical libertarian like many of us. Save the 155 MM howitzers for the armed opposition not for our allies. DCF

1 0

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by Jon Lebkowsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:04 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Stanton McCandlish wrote: >> I, unlike EFF, have never compromised my efforts to make strong crypto, >> unescrowed strong crypto, and digitial communications, free from the FUD >> spouted by government and media alike. I, unlike EFF, have never >> compromised my efforts to resist the expansion of a wiretap state. I, >> unlike EFF, have never proported to be a political represenative for these >> positions and folded under the weakest of pressures like a reed. > >EFF has done none of that either. > >Compromise: 1. a settlement in which each side gives up some demands or >makes concessions. 2. a) an adjustment of opposing principles, systems, >etc., by modifying some aspects of each b) the result of such an >adjustment. 3. something midway between two other things 4. a) exposure, >as of one's reputation, to danger, suspicion, or disrepute b) a >weakening, as of one's principles, ideals, etc.) as for reasons of >expediency. > >1 did not occur. EFF yielded nothing on any of the issues you mention. >On Digital Telephony, which you clearly allude to, EFF opposed >implementation of the wiretapping provisions of the CALEA bill from start >to finish, and was instrumental in stripping most of them out, replacing >them with new privacy protections. 2 did not occur. Our mission remains >unedited from the day it was adopted, and EFF is just as committed to those >principles now as ever. We don't have a system, in the relevant sense, >as such. There was no such adjustment, ergo no result of one. 3 does >not apply in any relevant sense (our steadfast assault against the CDA is >a "compromise" under such a definition because it was neither a total >victory, nor a total loss - yet I'm certain this is not the definition of >"compromise" that you intend). 4a is not relevant (that's the >security/secrecy-related definition, a nonsequitur in this context). 4b >is simply a restatement of 2a - simply didn't happen. Our results speak >for themselves on this. Compromise is not necessarily a bad thing; without some give and take, we sorta run right over each other. OTOH, I do agree that a strong position is necessary at this juncture. -- Jon Lebkowsky http://www.well.com/~jonl jonl(a)hotwired.com

2 1

The Vincennes shootdown
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FACT #1 The U.S.S. Vincennes was under attack by gunboats of Iraq's Republican guard at the time of the unfortunate incident. (All bets are off) FACT #2 Intelligence believed the Republicican guard had it's own version of the "Kamikazi." Fact #3 If I was still a sneaky-ass airwarrior given the mission to take out a vastly superior vehicle like an Aegis class cruiser I would do one of the following: a) set my transponder to the I.D. of a commercial jet, and do my best to fly like it's profile. b) turn my transponder off and "ride tail" (stay directly under and behind the commercial jet, hiding in it's radar sig) till I was within range. Brian

1 0

Forwarded Mail
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From nobody(a)REPLAY.COM Tue Sep 3 12:58:21 1996 Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Tue, 03 Sep 96 13:17:51 EDT for dlv Received: from [194.109.9.44] by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via SMTP; id AA23053 for dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com; Tue, 3 Sep 96 12:58:21 -0400 Received: (from replay@localhost) by basement.replay.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA01776 for dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 18:58:19 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 18:58:19 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199609031658.SAA01776(a)basement.replay.com> To: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com From: nobody(a)REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Organization: Replay and Company UnLimited Xcomm: Replay may or may not approve of the content of this posting Xcomm: Report misuse of this automated service to <abuse(a)REPLAY.COM> Subject: KILL ALL RUSSIAN IMIGRANTS Return-Path: <cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Kill all "libertarians" From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Mon, 02 Sep 96 15:48:31 EDT Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >From nobody(a)REPLAY.COM Mon Sep 2 12:26:36 1996 Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Mon, 02 Sep 96 15:42:57 EDT for dlv Received: from basement.replay.com by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via SMTP; id AA18013 for dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com; Mon, 2 Sep 96 12:26:36 -0400 Received: (from replay@localhost) by basement.replay.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA11752 for dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 18:26:28 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 18:26:28 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199609021626.SAA11752(a)basement.replay.com> To: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com From: nobody(a)REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Organization: Replay and Company UnLimited Xcomm: Replay may or may not approve of the content of this posting Xcomm: Report misuse of this automated service to <abuse(a)REPLAY.COM> Subject: All russians are scum. No exceptions. Return-Path: <cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: Sen. Leahy's "impeccable cyberspace credentials" From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Comments: Dole/Kemp '96! Date: Mon, 02 Sep 96 01:19:37 EDT Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com jonathon <grafolog(a)netcom.com> writes: > On Sun, 1 Sep 1996, James A. Donald wrote: > > > > I agree with what you are saying but not all polititions are that bad. > > > You make it sound as if their are no politisions are for freedom of the > > > net. > > So who is the exception? > > Harry Browne Libertarian Party Candidate. Harry Browne is a fucking statist. All politicians are scum. No exceptions. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

[Noise] Hardware encryption devices?
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone used any LAN encryption devices (ethernet or fast ethernet speed?) Something that could do IP AH off the back of an Ultrasparc would be ideal. Proprietary packet formats are ok, if they tunnel in IP. Needs to use DES, IDEA, or some other well known cipher. Manual key exchange is ok for this app. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

Re: The Esther Dyson Flap
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:40 PM 9/3/96, Duncan Frissell wrote: >Everyone please take a deep breath. Slow down. Reread Esther's comments. >Count to 10. Notice that nowhere does she call for state action to outlaw >anonymity. She explicitly predicted a place for anonymity in her CFP'95 >talk (is it on the Net anywhere?). We may disagree with her predictions of >the future scope of anonymity or with her concerns about the risks of the >practice but she has never called for State action. She is discussing the >problems she perceives with it. That's all. I certainly read her words, and don't need to be told to reread them just because I take them to mean she supports anonymity less than many of us would like. As I said in my message to Chuck Thompson, I held off in criticizing her "L.A. Times" words until I could get a better clarification of what she said, precisely, what was taken out of context, and what she really meant to say. When she spoke up and the result was just as ambivalent about anonymity rights, this is when I wrote my first criticism of her views. And I saw her CFP '95 talk. I've also read various of her other comments on the Net, freedom, responsibility, and anonymity. Some of her comments: * "Esther Dyson, President EDventure Holdings, Inc. said her work with the Electronic Frontier Foundation was based on the assumptions that the Internet will have a beneficial effect on society. "The longer I have been at this, the more questions I have about these assumptions," she said." (Perhaps Esther is finding the goals of the EFF--or at least the views of the other board members--are not her goals.) * "The second way to create friction is to create accountability, identity and personality. "I would like to see a world where anonymity is not illegal, but is discouraged," Dyson said. "It has its place in life, but people should have persistent identities."" (Couple with other comments about possibly requiring traceability (albeit with some legal protections), it sure does sound like her form of "discouraged" would imply a role for government.) * "This raises the issue of privacy. "I am looking at a notion of privacy for the consumer, but less privacy for companies and public office holders and others in positions of responsibility," she said." (Is this the direction the EFF is being taken in? Granted, these are her comments, but surely the views of the Chairman of the EFF affect the personality and direction of the organization.) These quotes from: http://seicenter.wharton.upenn.edu/SEIcenter/panel3.html. By the way, the Scientologists have also noted her views: "Esther Dyson, member of the board of directors of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and member of the National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council, spoke on the anonymity issue at the fifth Computers, Freedom & Privacy (CFP) conference in San Francisco. "I have a concern about the spread of bad behavior on the Net," said Dyson. "Anonymity figures into this, and I feel that it has proven to not be a positive factor. It breaks down the community which we are seeking to build, and could turn the 'big cities' of the information infrastructure into a big cesspool." "Remailers who facilitate anonymous postings are part of the problem. They can act as conduits for those who seek anonymity as a way to act illegally without getting caught; yet remailers are able to shield themselves from responsibility or liability. "Computer experts stress that anonymous users should at least be trackable by the remailers -- and that ones who act unlawfully can easily put the remailers at risk. Dyson noted that in self-regulatory schemes for almost any part of the Internet, "visibility, not anonymity, would have a strong place."" (end quote, from "Freedom," at http://www.theta.com/goodman/hijack.htm) >Remember she is from the soft left. She is not a macho-flash radical >libertarian like many of us. Save the 155 MM howitzers for the armed >opposition not for our allies. I don't know what "macho-flash" means, but I reject the label. And please spare us the "save the howitzers" comment. We talk about what concerns us. As it happens, our political opponents don't read our words, whereas a bunch of EFF board members apparently do, and so our criticisms here may cause EFF to actually confront the issue of anonymity and decide where they actually stand. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:53 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Stanton McCandlish wrote: > EFF in generally does not issue extremist position > statements, but is careful to examine the risks as well as the benefits, > and look for pro-liberty solutions to those risks. If the right to speak anonymously is an "extremist" position in the eyes of the EFF, then they are no friends of liberty. It is hardly an "extremist" position outside of such countries as Cuba, Iran, or China. It is the overwhelmingly mainstream position, not just among netizens, but when last heard, amongst supreme court judges and ordinary people in the street. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1

Re: [NOISE] The Doors
by Medea 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vipul wrote: > >The Doors was not only about freedom and love, but about crypto too! >Notice these lines from the song "Five to One" > >Old [cipher] gets old and young get stronger >May take a week baby, may take longer [to crack] >they've [clinton] got the guns and we've got the numbers >gonna win we will take 'em over, com'on. What?! I think you need to stop ingesting those controlled substances.... Medea ======================================== I wonder whatever happened to Jason....

1 0

Re: [NOISE] The Doors
by Jay Quinby 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:36 PM 9/3/96 +0000, you wrote: > >The Doors was not only about freedom and love, but about crypto too! >Notice these lines from the song "Five to One" > >Old [cipher] gets old and young get stronger >May take a week baby, may take longer [to crack] Actually, I think the line reads "They take our week, and make it longer." (There's a line a little later that goes "Trading your hours for a handful of dimes.") >they've [clinton] got the guns and we've got the numbers >gonna win we will take 'em over, com'on. Slightly left of topic, but it is a great song! :) Someone ought to compile a "Best of Crypto-references in pop culture" file. |--------------------------------------------------------------------------| |James R. Quinby, Atlanta, GA | PADI/153KHz-999MHz/HTML/EADBGE/Phl4:8-13 | |jquinby(a)fivepaces.com (work) | Own a 45 MPH couch potato: Adopt a | |jquinby(a)bellsouth.net (home) | greyhound today. Write for details. | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Standard disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine alone, not my employers. | |PGP Public Key fingerprint: 9ACC4C28478018E1372DC06A9452A477/MIT Keyserver| |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|

1 0

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by Jon Lebkowsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:22 AM 9/3/96 -0700, James A. Donald wrote: >At 12:53 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Stanton McCandlish wrote: >> EFF in generally does not issue extremist position >> statements, but is careful to examine the risks as well as the benefits, >> and look for pro-liberty solutions to those risks. > >If the right to speak anonymously is an "extremist" position in the eyes >of the EFF, then they are no friends of liberty. > >It is hardly an "extremist" position outside of such countries as Cuba, >Iran, or China. > >It is the overwhelmingly mainstream position, not just among netizens, >but when last heard, amongst supreme court judges and ordinary people >in the street. Not necessarily. The character of the anonymous speech is decisive. If you use anonymity to cloak harassment, for instance, the anonymity (which removes accountability) is a problem. The accountability issue is real and should be addressed, not evaded. -- Jon Lebkowsky http://www.well.com/~jonl jonl(a)hotwired.com

1 0

Reputations
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Something closely related to anonymity issues is _reputation_. As I keep saying, there have been dozens of articles on this and similar topics. Mostly in the early days, when we were exploring such things (well, some of us has started exploring them some years earlier...). Regrettably, the archive system is not very functional, especially not for older articles (there are rumors that L. Todd Masco took down the archive site due to pressure from the "Wall Street Journal" over their copyrighted articles in the archives...those Web spiders find all such copyright violations!). Here's another fragment of my Cyphernomicon, making some points about positive reputations. Briefly, think of "restaurants" when thinking about reputations. If one arrives in a new city, most restaurants may have the same baseline reputation, e.g. "none." A few may be known by name, for their "reputation," either good ("You have to eat at Louie's--the laser chicken is incredible") or bad ("Blecch!). Positive reputations and negative reputations are self-explanatory. And the reputations of others may affect the reputations of restaurants ("John Gilmore says he likes the Burma Burger on Castro Street."). Bad recommendations may affect the "reputation capital" of John, for example. (We speak of "reputation capital" because it can in some sense be "spent.") And so on. Many of the debates about anonymity seem to ignore reputations, filters, kill files. It is almost as if the critics of anonymous speech are saying "If there is not accountability for restaurant recommendations, we'll all be buried in garbage food." This ignores the _emergent order_ or _evolutionary_ nature of actors in the restaurant and restaurant evaluator market. Free speech is often messy. 98% of everything I read or hear is crap, to do Sturgeon one better. But I use judgement to decide what to read, who to listen to, and what to mostly ignore. I use _reputation_ to choose restaurants, books, movies, speakers to listen to, etc. Sometimes I listen to anonymous speech, but mostly I don't. Pseudonyms take a while to gather a "positive reputation," and some never do. This is the way speech works. "Accountability" is a red herring. Anyway, here's the promised excerpt: 15.5.5. reputations are what keep CA systems from degenerating into flamefests - digital pseudonyms mean a trail is left, kill files can be used, and people will take care about what they say - and the systems will not be truly anonymous: some people will see the same other people, allowing the development of histories and continued interactions (recall that in cases where no future interaction is exected, rudeness and flaming creeps in) + "Rumormonger" at Apple (and elsewhere) always degenerates into flames and crudities, says Johann Strandberg - but this is what reputations will partly offset 15.5.6. "brilliant pennies" scam 15.5.7. "reputation float" is how money can be pulled out of the future value of a reputation 15.5.8. Reputation-based systems and repeat business + reputations matter...this is the main basis of our economic system - repeat business....people stop doing business with those they don't trust, or who mistreat them, or those who just don't seem to be reputable - and even in centrally-controlled systems, reputations matter (can't force people to undertake some relations) - credit ratings (even for pseudonyms) matter - escrow agents, bonding, etc. - criminal systems still rely on reputations and even on honor - ironically, it is often in cases where there are restrictions on choice that the advantages of reputations are lost, as when the government bans discrimination, limits choice, or insists on determining who can do business with who + Repeat business is the most important aspect - granularity of transactions, cash flow, game-theoretic analysis of advantages of "defecting" - anytime a transaction has a value that is very large (compared to expected future profits from transactions, or on absolute basis), watch out - ideally, a series of smaller transactions are more conducive to fair trading...for example, if one gets a bad meal at a restaurant, one avoids that restaurant in the future, rather than suing (even though one can claim to have been "damaged") - issues of contract as well We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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: Secure anonymouse server protocol: comments please
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:24 PM 9/2/96 +0000, paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: >The following is a very sketchy plan for a secure protocol for an >anonymous server which allows replies without storing a recipient >database in the clear. Several people have talked about this sort of thing recently, inluding William Geiger, Doug Floyd, and myself. Lutz Donnerhacke's Jenaer Anonymous Service <anon(a)as-node.jena.thur.de> actually implements it (send it mail saying "help".) Rather than using a human-selected userid, it uses the PGP keyid to make IDs like anon-1a2b3c4d(a)as-node.jena.thur.de. >This system has 1 huge fault, we can encrypt a uses ID with the >servers public key to see what his ID in the encrypted database is >and therefore identify him, maybe we need two seperate server public >keys, and when IDs come in encrypted with key1 (the one it releases) >it decrypts with secretkey1 then encrypts with publickey2 (the one it >keeps secret) If you encrypt the id using raw RSA and constant padding, this is a risk. If you encrypt it using PGP, which uses a random session key, it's not. If you encrypt it using raw RSA and pad the id with a random nonce, it's also no risk. In the latter two cases, the encrypted material is different every time, so you can't compare with previous messages. The Jenaer nymserver avoids this by using a remailer approach - you send an encrypted message with a Reply-To: header telling where to send the accumulated mail (which may, of course, be another nymserver), and it delivers it using mixmaster. This frees you to send your pickup requests by anonymous remailer as well. It's still not risk-free, since if Bad Guys crack the remailer or force the operator to operate it while they monitor it, they can see pickup requests, but it's far more difficult to do that than to just steal the box, and there's no database on the box that's useful to steal. Lutz does recommend chaining your Reply-To: to another nymserver, but it's already very secure. I don't remember if he gets fancy and requires the pickup requests to be signed by the key of the owner or not; the only difficulty with this is the syntax of PGP, which is "fixed in 3.0". Hal Finney has also suggested a system that, instead of delivering anonymous email to the recipient, sends a message saying "You have anonymous mail, receipt #123456. Send back this ticket to pick it up." and you can extend the syntax to handle automatic blocking requests and automatic deliver-everything requests. This is fairly easy to extend for anonymous mailboxes and datahaven code. I've wavered between the delete-on-retrieval model, which is fine for email and not very useful for samizdat, or the delete-after-some-time-period-or-request model, which is useful for both but makes it easy for users to turn you into the local pirate-warez-and-child-pornography server. If you extend the model and charge digicash for storage, it becomes a much cleaner solution. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # You can get PGP software outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto

1 0

Re: their is a new mailing list
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > From: hack5(a)juno.com (patrick b cummings) > Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 16:14:40 EDT > their is a new mailing list for all you hackers just email your name or > handle and e-mail address and youll be subscribed > send information to hack5(a)juno.com > > Am I missing something here? Is this guy fucking crazy? =========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

2 1

No Subject
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

patrick b cummings <hack5(a)juno.com> wrote: > their is a new mailing list for all you > hackers > just email your name or handle and e-mail address and youll be subscribed > send information to hack5(a)juno.com k00l d00de.... c'mon Varney, we know its you.

1 0

No Subject
by Ben＠explorateur.quaternet.fr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

suscribe me

1 0

Re: Pseudocrypto detector is going wild
by winsock＠c2.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is it just me, or is the snake-oil frequency factor scaling up? We used to get this stuff quarterly, and now it's monthly, if not weekly! slither-squeek I think enquirer must be overloaded with ammo, and I am sure in the mood for it now. me

1 0

SecurID White Paper
by Peiter Z 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

SecurID Vulnerabilities White-Paper Due to increased recent interest that has been witnessed on the net about the SecurID token cards and potential vulnerabilities with their use, we offer a white paper on some of the vulnerabilities that we believe have been witnessed and/or speculated upon. This paper is being put forth into the public domain by Secure Networks Incorporated and is available at the following URL : ftp://ftp.secnet.com/pub/papers/securid.ps Topics dealt with in the paper include: . Race attacks based upon fixed length responses (still valid even with the current patch) . Denial of Service attacks based upon server patches . Server - Slave separation and replay attacks . Vulnerabilities in the communications with the ACE Server . A quick analysis of the communications with the ACE Server . Problems with out-of-band authentication We hope this paper provides insight, enlightenment, and is helpful to the security community in general. thanks and enjoy, Secure Networks Inc.

1 0

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:17 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Jon Lebkowsky wrote: >At 01:22 AM 9/3/96 -0700, James A. Donald wrote: >>At 12:53 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Stanton McCandlish wrote: >>> EFF in generally does not issue extremist position >>> statements, but is careful to examine the risks as well as the benefits, >>> and look for pro-liberty solutions to those risks. >> >>If the right to speak anonymously is an "extremist" position in the eyes >>of the EFF, then they are no friends of liberty. >> >>It is hardly an "extremist" position outside of such countries as Cuba, >>Iran, or China. >> >>It is the overwhelmingly mainstream position, not just among netizens, >>but when last heard, amongst supreme court judges and ordinary people >>in the street. > >Not necessarily. The character of the anonymous speech is decisive. If you >use anonymity to cloak harassment, for instance, the anonymity (which >removes accountability) is a problem. The accountability issue is real and >should be addressed, not evaded. "Addressed", maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean, "solved." For many decades, people have been able to walk up to a pay telephone at 3:00 AM and make a harassing phone call to somebody, a "problem" which still exists and no solution is being implemented for. I think it's reasonable to come to the conclusion that there is no solution to the anonymity "problem" that isn't worse than the underlying anonymity. And, BTW, I don't consider a pro-anonymity position to be an extremist one. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

5 4