December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Gilmore's Moderated Cypherpunks List
by Mike Duvos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Our Former Titular Leader Bails and Expounds Thusly Over the Smoking Remains of the Once Mighty Cypherpunks List: > First, I don't argue that John Gilmore is unfree to do as > he wishes with his machine, toad, which has been the major > machine host for the Cypherpunks list. John can tell us we > have to write in Pig Latin if he wishes. Freedom of the Press belongs to those who own one. Since there are no legal restrictions on the name "Cypherpunks", anyone with a working box can host a "Cypherpunks List", and individuals may choose to spend their reputation capital improving the S/N ratio of whatever Cypherpunks Lists they favor. In this sense, a "Cypherpunks List" is like a "Webster's Dictionary." Anyone can use the name, and the deluxe leather bound edition put out by a University is better than the tacky newsprint one offered as a premium by your local book club. Gilmore's Moderated Cypherpunks List is one of many forums where Cypherpunks may choose to congregate, some of which carry the name "Cypherpunks," and some of which do not. > I think we should all be very grateful to John for agreeing > to let it run on his hardware, but not let our gratitude > turn into some sort of subservience and blather about how > John "owns" the Cypherpunks group. I think we should have nipped Gilmore in the bud when he censored Vulis, and immediately looked for a new site to host a Cypherpunks list which was not subject to sudden and arbitrary censorship by the site owner. John, of course, would have been perfectly free to continue to host "Gilmore's Moderated Cypherpunks List", and we would have perfectly free not to post there any more. Instead, being comfortable and lazy, we tolerated Gilmore's pathetic attempts to exterminate the pesky Vulis, and given that Vulis was more than a match for Gilmore mentally, the pissing contest soon escalated as the frantic Gilmore took more and more extreme measures to find "the final solution" to the good Doctor's posts. Again, predictable behavior by everyone involved. > Again, is the "Cyherpunks community" the same as the mailing > list? And is the mailing list, hosted at toad, the "property" of > John Gilmore? Of course not. What a silly notion. All mailing lists that survive more than a few months are organized around some strong personality who nudges the list back on-topic when it begins to stray, and who posts articles interesting enough that people will make regular visits to read them. If no one performs this function on a list, the list will die. I think most people will agree with me that Timothy C. May has been the person who performed this function here on Cypherpunks, from its creation until fairly recently. If he chooses not to perform this function on "Gilmore's Moderated Cypherpunks List", that is Mr. Gilmore's tough luck. Perhaps if Mr. Gilmore asks nicely, Dr. Vulis will volunteer. Then again, perhaps not. :) > I'll have more to say about my problems with how things > were handled. Frankly, it smacked of the same kind of fait > accompli decision John made with the unsubscribing of Vulis. > While John had (and has) every legal right to do with his > property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First, > Vulis found other ways to post (duh). Second, the list was > consumed with flames about this, many from Vulis, and many > from others. Third, journalists (who love sizzle over > substance any day of the week) lept into the fray with > articles which gave Vulis the publicity he craved. Fourth, > it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the > Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their > anarchic ways." I agree completely. Do real Cypherpunks want to post to a list run by someone who has undermined their agenda and made them look like hypocritical idiots to the world? Gilmore has done more damage to the good name of Crypto Anarchy in the last few weeks than the government spooks could ever have hoped for in their wildest dreams. > But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed > things considerably. Yes, this was a sleezy and perfidious trick by Gilmore, who apparently wanted to transform "Cypherpunks" into "Gilmore's Moderated Cypherpunks List" by fiat. Even the unedited list was an afterthought to pacify critics, and you can be sure that it will evaporate as soon as he thinks no ones complaints will be heard. > Had there been a debate about the policy, I can think of > several approaches I'd like better. But inasmuch as John > made it clear that there would be no debate (and, perhaps as > part of the "problem," John has not really been a active > member of the mailing list, in terms of participating in the > debates), this is all moot. > In any case, my several years with the list have taken a > huge amount of my time. Given the way this whole thing was > handled, and the way the list is degenerating even further, > it looks like it's good that I'm moving on to other things. Hey - if John Gilmore can attract readers to "Gilmore's Moderated Cypherpunks List" by virtue of his charming personality, more power to him. Really. :) -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

1 0

COM_int
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

2-2-97: "Telecom equipment makers to develop encryption for mobile phones" Matsushita, NEC and Mitsubishi will cooperate in developing scrambler technology to prevent interception of mobile phone calls and other misuse, and will open a research laboratory in Yokohama on Feb. 12. Within five years the facility is to perfect encryption technology to protect wireless communications and data transmissions, and for possible use in electronic commerce. Researchers will work to develop a mobile communications version of "public key" scrambling technology now used to secure data transmitted online. "Electronic Cash Via Wireless Phone, Smart Card In Works" Wireless telephones are about to get a new mission as portable money machines. PacBell intends to test ways to blend its mobile phone technology with a smart card that can dramatically upgrade the intelligence of a wireless telephone. People on the go could transfer funds into the card's memory, slide the card into the phone, and then use the phone as a communications device to buy a variety of goods and services. "Sierra Wireless Combines Cellular Data, GPS; MP 200-GPS Modem Provides Both in a Single Package" The combination MP200-GPS product includes an MP200 rugged CDPD/cellular 3-watt mobile modem, a state-of-the-art Trimble GPS receiver module and a choice of magnetic mount or hard mount GPS active antennas. In addition, the MP200-GPS includes an internal microcontroller, so it can operate without a PC or mobile data terminal as a standalone tracking monitor. A remote host computer can wirelessly program the unit to report position on a preset timeout, whenever the unit moves a certain distance, or if an external alarm is triggered. ----- COM_int

1 0

List of reliable remailers
by Raph Levien 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I operate a remailer pinging service which collects detailed information about remailer features and reliability. To use it, just finger remailer-list(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu There is also a Web version of the same information, plus lots of interesting links to remailer-related resources, at: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html This information is used by premail, a remailer chaining and PGP encrypting client for outgoing mail. For more information, see: http://www.c2.org/~raph/premail.html For the PGP public keys of the remailers, finger pgpkeys(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu This is the current info: REMAILER LIST This is an automatically generated listing of remailers. The first part of the listing shows the remailers along with configuration options and special features for each of the remailers. The second part shows the 12-day history, and average latency and uptime for each remailer. You can also get this list by fingering remailer-list(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu. $remailer{"extropia"} = "<remail(a)miron.vip.best.com> cpunk pgp special"; $remailer{"mix"} = "<mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek ksub reord ?"; $remailer{"replay"} = "<remailer(a)replay.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut post ek"; $remailer{'alpha'} = '<alias(a)alpha.c2.org> alpha pgp'; $remailer{'nymrod'} = '<nymrod(a)nym.jpunix.com> alpha pgp'; $remailer{"lead"} = "<mix(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"exon"} = "<remailer(a)remailer.nl.com> cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"haystack"} = "<haystack(a)holy.cow.net> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"lucifer"} = "<lucifer(a)dhp.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"jam"} = "<remailer(a)cypherpunks.ca> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"winsock"} = "<winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net> cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub reord"; $remailer{'nym'} = '<config(a)nym.alias.net> newnym pgp'; $remailer{"balls"} = "<remailer(a)huge.cajones.com> cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"squirrel"} = "<mix(a)squirrel.owl.de> cpunk mix pgp pgponly hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"middle"} = "<middleman(a)jpunix.com> cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; $remailer{'cyber'} = '<alias(a)alias.cyberpass.net> alpha pgp'; $remailer{"dustbin"} = "<dustman(a)athensnet.com> cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek mix reord middle ?"; $remailer{'weasel'} = '<config(a)weasel.owl.de> newnym pgp'; $remailer{"death"} = "<x(a)deathsdoor.com> cpunk pgp hash latent post"; $remailer{"reno"} = "<middleman(a)cyberpass.net> cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; catalyst(a)netcom.com is _not_ a remailer. lmccarth(a)ducie.cs.umass.edu is _not_ a remailer. usura(a)replay.com is _not_ a remailer. remailer(a)crynwr.com is _not_ a remailer. There is no remailer at relay.com. Groups of remailers sharing a machine or operator: (cyber mix) (weasel squirrel) The alpha and nymrod nymservers are down due to abuse. However, you can use the nym or weasel (newnym style) nymservers. The cyber nymserver is quite reliable for outgoing mail (which is what's measured here), but is exhibiting serious reliability problems for incoming mail. The squirrel and winsock remailers accept PGP encrypted mail only. 403 Permission denied errors have been caused by a flaky disk on the Berkeley WWW server. This seems to be fixed now. The penet remailer is closed. Last update: Mon 3 Feb 97 6:48:17 PST remailer email address history latency uptime ----------------------------------------------------------------------- nym config(a)nym.alias.net #**#+*#**-#+ 4:51 100.00% dustbin dustman(a)athensnet.com ---+-------+ 1:50:51 99.99% weasel config(a)weasel.owl.de ++++--+++++ 1:09:14 99.85% lead mix(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu ++--++++++++ 50:42 99.80% balls remailer(a)huge.cajones.com ###*###+-- # 5:45 99.62% squirrel mix(a)squirrel.owl.de ++++--+++ + 1:07:30 99.46% cyber alias(a)alias.cyberpass.net +*+ *++++*++ 40:43 99.23% winsock winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net ----------- 3:42:43 99.09% lucifer lucifer(a)dhp.com + ++++++++ 47:05 99.03% exon remailer(a)remailer.nl.com ##### #* *# 2:02 98.68% middle middleman(a)jpunix.com ++.--.- ---+ 5:48:30 98.23% haystack haystack(a)holy.cow.net ***#*+# *#-+ 15:27 97.21% extropia remail(a)miron.vip.best.com ------- .- 6:28:55 96.31% replay remailer(a)replay.com * +++-*** 15:53 93.06% reno middleman(a)cyberpass.net +--+ --+ 1:20:32 91.27% mix mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com +-.-_-*+ 14:45:36 77.02% History key * # response in less than 5 minutes. * * response in less than 1 hour. * + response in less than 4 hours. * - response in less than 24 hours. * . response in more than 1 day. * _ response came back too late (more than 2 days). cpunk A major class of remailers. Supports Request-Remailing-To: field. eric A variant of the cpunk style. Uses Anon-Send-To: instead. penet The third class of remailers (at least for right now). Uses X-Anon-To: in the header. pgp Remailer supports encryption with PGP. A period after the keyword means that the short name, rather than the full email address, should be used as the encryption key ID. hash Supports ## pasting, so anything can be put into the headers of outgoing messages. ksub Remailer always kills subject header, even in non-pgp mode. nsub Remailer always preserves subject header, even in pgp mode. latent Supports Matt Ghio's Latent-Time: option. cut Supports Matt Ghio's Cutmarks: option. post Post to Usenet using Post-To: or Anon-Post-To: header. ek Encrypt responses in reply blocks using Encrypt-Key: header. special Accepts only pgp encrypted messages. mix Can accept messages in Mixmaster format. reord Attempts to foil traffic analysis by reordering messages. Note: I'm relying on the word of the remailer operator here, and haven't verified the reord info myself. mon Remailer has been known to monitor contents of private email. filter Remailer has been known to filter messages based on content. If not listed in conjunction with mon, then only messages destined for public forums are subject to filtering. Raph Levien

1 0

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Unfortunately, Sandy responded to my post with his own flames ("piffle," "disingenous," "straw man," etc.). Now he may well think his points are not flames becuase they are "true," but to me they take the form of flames. But then I have long disliked Sandy's method of argument. Nothing personal. But I find Sandy's series of dismissals--in other posts from other people, not just this one--to be "flamish." As Sandy says, your mileage may vary. As Sandy did a too-common section-by-section disssection, I'll do the same for his comments. At 9:55 PM -0800 2/2/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >> I chose not to write a "departing flame" (or message, but some might call >> it a flame) when I unsubscribed several weeks ago--within an hour of >> reading that John and Sandy had decided to make "their" list a moderated >> list,... > >This is Tim's first error of fact. I point it out not to insult >him, but because it seriously affects much of the rest of his How can this be an "error of fact" when I am clearly setting out a point of view? Is it an error of fact that moderation was happening? Or is the disagreement with my quotes around "their"? This was clearly an expression of sarcasm. Hardly an "error of fact." >> ...and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New >> Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait >> accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list >> _founders_, at least not me) were being sought. > >Factual error #2. There was a call for comment; Tim chose not to >do so. In retrospect, I wish we had run it by Tim, Eric and John's message did not say he was thinking about instituting censorship, it said he was in the process of setting up such a system. As for the comments solicited, I noticed no changes whatsoever. (I guess the several dozen comments were "errors of fact," "piffle," and "straw men." Can anyone think of a single one of the various points made after John's announcement that changed the plan in any significant way?) >> I see vast amounts of bandwidth consumed by arguments about >> moderation, about the putative biases of the Moderator and Director of the >> New Cypherpunks World Order, about alternative moderation strategies (which >> is stupid, as John and Sandy announced what they were going to do, not just >> some of their preliminary thoughts), and so on. I've also noticed fewer >> substantive essays. > >And I see something different. Since previously, Tim actively >filter the list, I'm not sure on what basis he can make his >comparison. As just one example (though a signicant one) Dimitri That's an easy one, one I explained at least two or three times in the last half year: I used Eudora Pro to sort mail into various folders. I'm quite aware of what is going into various folders, and sometimes I even look in them. Clear enough? >has posted more non-flaming, on-topic posts during the two weeks >of this experiment then in the previous several months. In my >opinion, other than for the hysterical posts of a very few >self-righteous loudmouths, the overall quality of the posts has >been far superior to what it had become in the weeks before the >experiment began. YMMV. Piffle. Nonsense. If you think the overall quality of posts is superior now to what it had been, your bias in favor of your own brain child is so powerful that it's warped your judgment. Who else thinks the quality is now higher? (By the way, I don't think the proper statistical method is to "average" all of the posts, including the Vulisgrams and the scatolological insults, as these were easily filtered by anyone with a clue. Rather, look at the substantive and stimulating essays, the important ones, and ask if they have gotten better. It's disingenuous to claim that filtering out the childish insults has improved the quality of the essays. As I said, I've seen the opposite. You apparently think differently.) >> (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list >> to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" >> ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name >> Nurdane Oksas,... > >Two points: Since Tim largely agrees with those in opposition to >moderation, and because of the extraordinary nature of Tim's post, >I did not send it to the "flames" list. It was a judgment call. Here Sandy is really going over the line. He is saying he _almost_ filtered my message into the reject pile, where later he claims I would have no problem writing an essay and not knowing whether it would be filtered into the Good or the Bad pile. He later writes, in response to my point: "(Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I >> would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by >> Sandy for whatever reasons.... > >Tim, I think this is disingenuous. I have been quite clear on >my moderation criteria. You are too intelligent to feign such >a lack of understanding." So, given that I wrote my essay today, should I have known if it would be filtered into Sandy's "Not Fit for True Cypherpunks" list, or the Approved list? Sandy implies that he himself had to make a "judment call" on this one. Hey, people, this shows how fucked up things have gotten. Lord Almighty Sandy says my long-considered, well-written essay was _almost_ shitcanned ("It was a judgment call"). And for what reason? Apparently because of a single paragraph that mentioned "Toto" and Dale Thorn (oh, and Nurdane and Vulis and their love relationship) in unflattering terms. Is this the crap the Cypherpunks were founded to put up with? A petty satrap deciding to filter out a long and substantive essay because he feels some paragraph is insulting? What a state of affairs. This more than anything demonstrates the truth of Lord Acton's maxim about absolute power corrupting absolutely. Sandy feels free to flame away (piffle, straw man, logical fallacy), but expresses umbrage at my very accurate comments about ravings and rantings of certain list memmbers. (Perhaps Sandy will censor this message, feeling you readers are not able to handle my dismissal of his asinine views. This will leave the Censor having the final word, which is "not unexpected." When a censor gets into a debate with one of his charges, this is what often happens.) >> * But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the >> Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list >> was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider >> these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group?... > >I think this is a Straw Man. John and I have never argued that >John "owns" cypherpunks. When a Cypherpunk meeting is held in >someone's living room, however, I don't think it's asking to much >to ask everyone to follow the local rules (e.g., "no shoes in the >house" or "no smoking" or even "no ad hominem attacks"). As Tim >is fond of saying, "my house; my rules." I don't think this >means Tim "owns" a physical meeting in his house. This is precisely the point I made! As for John instituting a censorhip policy, as I said, he is of course free to do it. It may be foolish to do so, but he is free to do so. And those of us who don't like what this all means are free to leave. Sounds fair to me. >> While John had (and has) every legal right >> to do with his property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First, >> Vulis found other ways to post (duh). > >Tim, do you really believe that John did not anticipate this? I have no idea what John anticipated and didn't. But if he knew it wouldn't work, why bother? Not only did Vulis actually start posting _more_, it also consumed the list in a frenzy of posts about it. (By the way, remember that we are here talking about the unsubscription of Vulis by John. My reason for this reminder will be clear in a moment.) >> Second, the list was consumed with >> flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others. > >It was consumed with flames before. Now, at least, the vast >majority of folks on the list don't have to read them, nor jump >through any hoops to implement some sort of dynamic filtering >half-measure. We're talking about Vulis being unsubscribed, not the list censorship episode. >> Third, journalists (who love sizzle over substance any day of >> the week) lept into the fray with articles which gave Vulis the >> publicity he craved. > >That's what journalist do, though I wasn't aware of ANY articles >on this issue. I would appreciate it if Tim could give us some >citations. Again, we're talking about the Vulis unsubscription episode. Go back to the archives covering this period. Declan McCullough wrote an article about this, giving Vulis much publicity. And some of us were contacted by other journalists asking for our views, for what this meant about for the list's espoused philosophy about anarchy, etc. (I refused to comment, of course.) >> Fourth, it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the >> Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their anarchic >> ways." > >That's one message that one could take from all this, I suppose. >I don't see it that way, nor do several list members who thanked >me in private e-mail for improving the list. Again, YMMV. Once again, the subject of the section you're citing was about the Vulis unsubscription matter. I think, Sandy, you need to read more carefully before you denounce arguments. >> (I'm well aware of the issues with pests like Vulis, who seek to destroy >> virtual communities like ours. But the solution John used did not work, and >> generated more crap.... > >What didn't work was "local filtering" which has no feed-back >loop to engender comity. This might not work either, but I see >no evidence that it has made things worse. Remember, there are a If you see no evidence that is has made things worse, then apparently you haven't seen that I have not been posting for the past month. Whatever my reasons, if you can seriously claim that you can see "no evidence" that a change of some sort has occurred... >hand-full of subscribers to the Flames list, 20-30 on the >Unedited list and *2000* or so on the Moderated list. Sure some >of that may be due to laziness, but it would be cavalier in the >extreme to claim that such an overwhelming acceptance of >moderation is merely an artifact of inertia. I still maintain, as others have as well, that a better approach would have been to announce the "Sandy-approved" list as a new option. Changing the main list to the censored version was a way to exploit the name of the list, etc. (Consider if Eric Blossom's filtered list was suddenly declared to be the "Cypherpunks" list. This is essentially what has happened. A major screw up. And I don't really think it germane to cite how many are on each list. Sheep are sheep, and, frankly, about 1850 of those putative "*2000*" on the main list are never, ever heard from.) .... >Tim and I disagree on which definition of "censorship" applies in >this situation. Dale Thorne, and others, have argued, in essence, >that there is censorship if ANY definition would apply. I'm not >sure time is going that far, but if so, I respectfully disagree. > >But let's apply Tim's above definition for the sake of argument. >Am I, thereby, a censor? Well I am examining "other material" >and I am making judgments with regard to whether or not it is >"objectionable," unfortunately for Tim's argument, I am neither >"removing" nor "supressing" anything. Anybody can read anything >that gets posted to Cypherpunks--in two places. I am sorting, >but even my sorting can be completely avoided. Sophistry. >> * OK, even given that John had decided to censor "his" list, what about his >> choice of Sandy Sandfort as the censor? > >John didn't choose me, I approached him. I offered my opinion as >to what I thought HE ought to do about the list disruptions. The >short version of his answer was, "if you think you can do a >better job, go for it." I accepted the challenge, so here I am. >I don't want this job. If the list members decide to keep the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ By the way, how is this to be "decided"? A democratic vote of the herd? Do all "*2000*" get a vote? Are we moving from benevolent dictatorship to direct democracy? >> * Nor do the announced criteria make any sense. While the inane one-line >> scatological insults have been filtered out, many "flames" make it through, >> based on what I've seen in perusing the hks archive site. And some >> reasonable comments get dumped in the flame bucket. > >Very possibly true. Moderation is like crypto, perfection isn't >and option. However, a 90% solution is a heck of a lot better >than no solution at all. Yes, I've made what I consider to be >errors, but I think on some, I've done a very good job overall. You seriously think that establishing the idea that "even the Cypherpunks group accepts the need for censorship of unpopular views" is worth the minimal bandwidth savings of not having some of the scatological one-liners and insults? The huge amount of list animosity (so much for "comity") and bandwidth on this censorship issue dwarfs the bandwidth taken up by the Vulisgrams. >> * (Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I >> would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by >> Sandy for whatever reasons.... > >Tim, I think this is disingenuous. I have been quite clear on >my moderation criteria. You are too intelligent to feign such >a lack of understanding. As I noted earlier, you yourself said it was a "judgment call" for you to not put my message in the flames pile. So, did I truly not understand your criteria for approval (which means I wasn't feigning ignorance), or did I understand that which you yourself acknowledged having to make a judgment call (kissing cousin to a "guess" where I come from) on? If you are unsure whether to dump a major, substantive essay into the flames pile or allow it to be read by the main list, then this makes my point precisely. I don't want Sandy Sandfort sitting in judgment on my posts, deciding what the Cypherpunks--a group I co-founded for God's sake!!!!--are to be allowed to read and what they may not. (Saying what Sandy is doing is not "censorship" but is only "sorting" is pure sophistry.) >> maybe he might think my essay was off-topic, > >Clearly not a criterion I ever enunciated. Another part of the problem is that the standards have not been clearly stated. "Flames" have not been defined in any meaningful way. Apparently it's OK for you to refer to my arguments as "disingenuous" and "piffle," but referring to someone's repeated ravings about how O.J. was framed is "flaming." Piffle. >> * The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful >> ammunition to give to our opponents, > >Piffle. Letting spoiled children destroy the list puts a far >more powerful weapon in the hands of our enemies. See what I mean? "Piffle." ("piffle, n. Foolish or futile talk or ideas") Hardly a substantive argument. I'd call it an insult. And I'll bet that if Phill Hallam-Baker dismisses an argument with a "foolish" one-line characterization, it will be viewed as a flame. (Well, not now, now that Sandy is apprised of this.) >> and Vulis is certainly gleeful that >> his fondest wishes have been realized. > >I do not have a crystal ball. My Vulcan mind meld is in the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ah, a non-flamish way of making an argument. Dismissive jokes substituting for responding to my _opinion_. >> (I would venture a guess that a Duncan Frissell would almost certainly get a >> libertarian rant past Sandy while a Phill Hallam-Baker might easily fail to >> get a leftist rant past him.) > >I sorry Tim gives me so little credit. Rather than merely post a >self-serving denial, I would ask that Phill confirm or deny Tim's >supposition. To the best of my recollection, I have sent only >one post of Phill's to the Flames list. It flamed Jim Bell. As >far as moderating political rants go, I'm agnostic. Again, look at what the Cypherpunks list has become! Because some of the barnyard insults were getting to some people, we now have a situation where a thoughtful commentator like Phill H-B (who I rarely agree with, by the way, but his essays show he's thinking about issues deeply) has his stuff sent to the scrap heap because he "flamed" Jim Bell? Or was it a critique of Bell's "assassination politics" ideas and the way he presents them, perhaps with a single flamish comment (a la the comment I made that caused Sandy to almost mark my entire essay as unfit for Cypherpunks)? I urge Phill, or others, to retrieve this offending article and repost it. Or use "*%&$" symbols where the banned flame language was contained, so it will pass muster with Sandy. Then we can better judge just what we're giving up in order to have the kind of "comity" which Sandy thinks he is creating. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" 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, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 3

PGPmail 4.5 exported
by Huge Cajones Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There is a pgpmail45.exe at ftp.hacktic.nl/pub/replay/pub/incoming. The file has an md5 sum of 'ffd56d7647c30152a5c9fe7616a3d9ef'. Could somebody who bought the software check that this is the same file. It is presumably free for use outside of North America, since PGP Inc. can't be expected to accept payment from foreigners... :-)

1 0

Re: PGP 2.1
by Larry Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mark Henderson wrote: > > Larry Johnson writes: > > Hello, > > Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? > > Thanks > > > But, why do you want version 2.1? Because the guy who wrote it was let off after that on his jail charges, so I'm not going to use anything he made after that if I don't know why. I'm not saying that he rolled over or nothin buyt I'm gonna be paranoyd like he said in the book. I dont suposse he'd mind, since he said it. I'm not real smart sometimes but I'nm not a real lamer, either. (I don't think)

4 3

COM_int
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

2-2-97: "Telecom equipment makers to develop encryption for mobile phones" Matsushita, NEC and Mitsubishi will cooperate in developing scrambler technology to prevent interception of mobile phone calls and other misuse, and will open a research laboratory in Yokohama on Feb. 12. Within five years the facility is to perfect encryption technology to protect wireless communications and data transmissions, and for possible use in electronic commerce. Researchers will work to develop a mobile communications version of "public key" scrambling technology now used to secure data transmitted online. "Electronic Cash Via Wireless Phone, Smart Card In Works" Wireless telephones are about to get a new mission as portable money machines. PacBell intends to test ways to blend its mobile phone technology with a smart card that can dramatically upgrade the intelligence of a wireless telephone. People on the go could transfer funds into the card's memory, slide the card into the phone, and then use the phone as a communications device to buy a variety of goods and services. "Sierra Wireless Combines Cellular Data, GPS; MP 200-GPS Modem Provides Both in a Single Package" The combination MP200-GPS product includes an MP200 rugged CDPD/cellular 3-watt mobile modem, a state-of-the-art Trimble GPS receiver module and a choice of magnetic mount or hard mount GPS active antennas. In addition, the MP200-GPS includes an internal microcontroller, so it can operate without a PC or mobile data terminal as a standalone tracking monitor. A remote host computer can wirelessly program the unit to report position on a preset timeout, whenever the unit moves a certain distance, or if an external alarm is triggered. ----- COM_int

1 0

List of reliable remailers
by Raph Levien 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I operate a remailer pinging service which collects detailed information about remailer features and reliability. To use it, just finger remailer-list(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu There is also a Web version of the same information, plus lots of interesting links to remailer-related resources, at: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html This information is used by premail, a remailer chaining and PGP encrypting client for outgoing mail. For more information, see: http://www.c2.org/~raph/premail.html For the PGP public keys of the remailers, finger pgpkeys(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu This is the current info: REMAILER LIST This is an automatically generated listing of remailers. The first part of the listing shows the remailers along with configuration options and special features for each of the remailers. The second part shows the 12-day history, and average latency and uptime for each remailer. You can also get this list by fingering remailer-list(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu. $remailer{"extropia"} = "<remail(a)miron.vip.best.com> cpunk pgp special"; $remailer{"mix"} = "<mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek ksub reord ?"; $remailer{"replay"} = "<remailer(a)replay.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut post ek"; $remailer{'alpha'} = '<alias(a)alpha.c2.org> alpha pgp'; $remailer{'nymrod'} = '<nymrod(a)nym.jpunix.com> alpha pgp'; $remailer{"lead"} = "<mix(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"exon"} = "<remailer(a)remailer.nl.com> cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"haystack"} = "<haystack(a)holy.cow.net> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"lucifer"} = "<lucifer(a)dhp.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"jam"} = "<remailer(a)cypherpunks.ca> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"winsock"} = "<winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net> cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub reord"; $remailer{'nym'} = '<config(a)nym.alias.net> newnym pgp'; $remailer{"balls"} = "<remailer(a)huge.cajones.com> cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"squirrel"} = "<mix(a)squirrel.owl.de> cpunk mix pgp pgponly hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"middle"} = "<middleman(a)jpunix.com> cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; $remailer{'cyber'} = '<alias(a)alias.cyberpass.net> alpha pgp'; $remailer{"dustbin"} = "<dustman(a)athensnet.com> cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek mix reord middle ?"; $remailer{'weasel'} = '<config(a)weasel.owl.de> newnym pgp'; $remailer{"death"} = "<x(a)deathsdoor.com> cpunk pgp hash latent post"; $remailer{"reno"} = "<middleman(a)cyberpass.net> cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; catalyst(a)netcom.com is _not_ a remailer. lmccarth(a)ducie.cs.umass.edu is _not_ a remailer. usura(a)replay.com is _not_ a remailer. remailer(a)crynwr.com is _not_ a remailer. There is no remailer at relay.com. Groups of remailers sharing a machine or operator: (cyber mix) (weasel squirrel) The alpha and nymrod nymservers are down due to abuse. However, you can use the nym or weasel (newnym style) nymservers. The cyber nymserver is quite reliable for outgoing mail (which is what's measured here), but is exhibiting serious reliability problems for incoming mail. The squirrel and winsock remailers accept PGP encrypted mail only. 403 Permission denied errors have been caused by a flaky disk on the Berkeley WWW server. This seems to be fixed now. The penet remailer is closed. Last update: Mon 3 Feb 97 6:48:17 PST remailer email address history latency uptime ----------------------------------------------------------------------- nym config(a)nym.alias.net #**#+*#**-#+ 4:51 100.00% dustbin dustman(a)athensnet.com ---+-------+ 1:50:51 99.99% weasel config(a)weasel.owl.de ++++--+++++ 1:09:14 99.85% lead mix(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu ++--++++++++ 50:42 99.80% balls remailer(a)huge.cajones.com ###*###+-- # 5:45 99.62% squirrel mix(a)squirrel.owl.de ++++--+++ + 1:07:30 99.46% cyber alias(a)alias.cyberpass.net +*+ *++++*++ 40:43 99.23% winsock winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net ----------- 3:42:43 99.09% lucifer lucifer(a)dhp.com + ++++++++ 47:05 99.03% exon remailer(a)remailer.nl.com ##### #* *# 2:02 98.68% middle middleman(a)jpunix.com ++.--.- ---+ 5:48:30 98.23% haystack haystack(a)holy.cow.net ***#*+# *#-+ 15:27 97.21% extropia remail(a)miron.vip.best.com ------- .- 6:28:55 96.31% replay remailer(a)replay.com * +++-*** 15:53 93.06% reno middleman(a)cyberpass.net +--+ --+ 1:20:32 91.27% mix mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com +-.-_-*+ 14:45:36 77.02% History key * # response in less than 5 minutes. * * response in less than 1 hour. * + response in less than 4 hours. * - response in less than 24 hours. * . response in more than 1 day. * _ response came back too late (more than 2 days). cpunk A major class of remailers. Supports Request-Remailing-To: field. eric A variant of the cpunk style. Uses Anon-Send-To: instead. penet The third class of remailers (at least for right now). Uses X-Anon-To: in the header. pgp Remailer supports encryption with PGP. A period after the keyword means that the short name, rather than the full email address, should be used as the encryption key ID. hash Supports ## pasting, so anything can be put into the headers of outgoing messages. ksub Remailer always kills subject header, even in non-pgp mode. nsub Remailer always preserves subject header, even in pgp mode. latent Supports Matt Ghio's Latent-Time: option. cut Supports Matt Ghio's Cutmarks: option. post Post to Usenet using Post-To: or Anon-Post-To: header. ek Encrypt responses in reply blocks using Encrypt-Key: header. special Accepts only pgp encrypted messages. mix Can accept messages in Mixmaster format. reord Attempts to foil traffic analysis by reordering messages. Note: I'm relying on the word of the remailer operator here, and haven't verified the reord info myself. mon Remailer has been known to monitor contents of private email. filter Remailer has been known to filter messages based on content. If not listed in conjunction with mon, then only messages destined for public forums are subject to filtering. Raph Levien

1 0

Re: My Departure, Moderat
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi there, > ...and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New > Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait > accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list > _founders_, at least not me) were being sought. -=> Quoting In:sandfort@crl11.crl.com to Harka <=- In> Factual error #2. There was a call for comment; Tim chose not to In> do so. In retrospect, I wish we had run it by Tim, Eric and In> Hugh in more detail before making the annoucement, but we didn't. In> Certainly a tactical error and a breach of protocol, but not the In> end of the world. Sorry Tim. I should have spoken to you first. Tactical error and breach of protocol, but not the end of the world?? Very weak and dangerous argument. I already hear the Administration saying: "Oh sorry, we didn't tell you about the new wiretaps affecting 50 percent of all phone lines. Certainly a tactical error and a breach of protocol, but HEY, it's _not_ the end of the world! Plus, it's good for you!" > * But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the > Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list > was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider > these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group?... In> I think this is a Straw Man. John and I have never argued that In> John "owns" cypherpunks. When a Cypherpunk meeting is held in In> someone's living room, however, I don't think it's asking to much In> to ask everyone to follow the local rules (e.g., "no shoes in the In> house" or "no smoking" or even "no ad hominem attacks"). As Tim In> is fond of saying, "my house; my rules." I don't think this In> means Tim "owns" a physical meeting in his house. It really doesn't matter. I do agree, that having a meeting in, let's say, your house, everybody has to submit to the "local rules", i.e. no shoes, no smoking etc.. To avoid those rules means not to go to that location. However, any rules in a certain location do NOT affect speech. While I may enforce the rule for people not to smoke in my house, I can't enforce anything in regards to their speech. The mere try would be counterproductice to having a meeting in the first place. On a mailing list like this one, trying to enforce certain _subjective_ standards is even more counterproductive, especially on the self-proclaimed fore-front of liberty (Cypherpunks). I do agree with TCM, that this is an argument for the very enemies of free speech and neglecting the individual filtering-capabilities of each subscriber. In> no evidence that it has made things worse. Remember, there are a In> hand-full of subscribers to the Flames list, 20-30 on the In> Unedited list and *2000* or so on the Moderated list. Sure some In> of that may be due to laziness, but it would be cavalier in the In> extreme to claim that such an overwhelming acceptance of In> moderation is merely an artifact of inertia. Not necessarely. By subscribing the regular way: <subscribe cypherpunks user(a)adress.com> one gets on the moderated list by default. It might take (esp. new) people a while to realize, it's moderated. And since it's Cypherpunks, they subscribed to, they don't even _expect_ such things in the first place... I'd do it vice versa, having them subscribe to unedited by default and only if they make the effort (deliberate choice) to get on any kind of moderated version, they can do so by sending a message to majordomo. Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* This user supports FREE SPEECH ONLINE ...more info at */ /* and PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS! --> http://www.eff.org */ /* E-mail: harka(a)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail preferred) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBMvCiUzltEBIEF0MBAQHYGAf+In7n3Us+4g7GtHTlXynV5f1r1n0kF2/1 KCmMvng05kHUL9c2ucG/oVZAy821quvbbgQNGmEbpkbPQezCFLesWLSQ+SaA0XGm KNC8PqjiqGVHyi0UonhE6z48j0tyt1pbgYFk15nm8pb2ejSR77suXGqDNYKabqu3 MsGnn/JFWlBEArvkSjnQ6Psgs9kqi+6DLsGlKhICkaRGj5/lTfvoLvdW183WqbAt 9SkpJBjBSTFSDc6IuC0oYWZnEvbVMO8KCkOJGjgOxYDCjh5kRzQn6lB2cKXmQmyH KxAfMsTLcHV6AcFAONUKzp+TwaUcw2LA4Eu21NtD3bWo03JeHoCQLA== =f+Ki -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

1 0

Re: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:10 PM 2/2/97 -0600, ichudov(a)algebra.com wrote: >jim bell wrote: >> >> Better yet, set up a system to encourage the public to USE those guns (and >> other weapons) to get rid of the people who pass such laws, and the problem >> is solved. >> > >How about this scenario: I borrow 1 million dollars from, let's say, >Phill Hallam-Baker. Not wanting to pay it back, I pay to the >assassination bot and arrange him to be murdered. Simple. Even if a lendor dies (whether by murder or some other cause, perhaps undetermined) you (the debtor) presumably will still be obligated to pay back the debt, to his estate if nowhere else. If you WEREN'T responsible for the killing, you should still make the payments. If you do, then you had no reason to kill him in the first place. Even in the hypothetical scenario that the lendor is single, has no family or other likely heirs, it would be in his interest to declare that his estate goes to charity, including debts to it such as yours. After all, we can assume that he doesn't want to get murdered, and the best way of avoiding that fate is to remove whatever incentive might otherwise exist for anyone else to kill him. Making sure that all of his debtors are revealed would make it difficult for any of them to get away with murder. Or, at least, prevent the fact of such a murder from eliminating the need to repay the debt. If the fact of the loan were revealed, perhaps only after the lendor's death, and ALSO the fact that you (alone among his other debtors) refused to pay it back, everyone else in that society might reasonably come to the conclusion (absent proof or a good explanation to the contrary) that you were probably responsible for the death. At the very least, they wouldn't want to deal with you for fear of a similar outcome (non-payment or death), and some of the public would be likely to punish you by donating money to see you dead. They would do this, even if they had no particular link to the dead lendor, precisely because the publicity from such an outcome would deter other people who might be contemplating a similar thing. The logic is essentially the same as the situation where a person would donate small amounts money to see car thieves dead, even if his car hadn't (yet) been stolen: If it is essentially certain that such a penalty will always exist, it will tend to deter future incidents. All car owners have a motivation to maintain that system. >Another story: suppose that I negligently caused fire that destroys >house of, say, Toto. Toto knows that if he sues me, I can arrange him >murdered for the amount less than the amount of damages. As he could, you. Remember, if your bad actions were publicized, your reputation would suffer. If he's satisfied that you are guilty, and can prove it to others, you'll be in trouble to have the information published. (On the other hand, if nobody knows it was you who were responsible, you won't suffer, but that's no worse than the status quo.) > As a result, >he refrains from suing me, or (if he is a mean person) pays additional >money to have me murdered. A suit would probably be a much better outcome. A "suit" implies that he needs assistance to get the fact of the obligation enforced. Assuming he has enough proof to win a lawsuit, he has more than enough proof to sour everyone else on dealing with you in the future, and possibly get them to donate to see you dead. Do you risk it? >Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then >our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very >unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she. > >The bottom line is, it becomes very hard to do ANYTHING that disappoints >at least somebody. That can lead to a lot of inefficiencies. I predict that agreements will simply change to avoid (or anticipate) such disappointments, in order to ensure that neither party feels "taken" if things don't work out as planned. Or, if there is an innocent-and-unavoidable breach of the agreement that harms one person, the other will be motivated to make it up to the first. In effect, they'll have to find a mutually-agreeable middle ground. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Ireland: Bid To Ban "Tamper Proof" Phones
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:32 PM 2/2/97 +0000, Mani wrote: >>From today's Sunday Independent: > >Bid to ban "tamper proof" telephones. >Liz Allen, Crime Correspondent [...] >Justice Minister Nora Owen is presiding over the conference which will agree >on a memorandum of understanding whereby all of the 22 governments will >agree to allow the sale of only telephones which can be intercepted. [...] >Among the countries which will be in attendance at the conference >are America, Australia, Hong Kong, and Britain. I would like to point out two items: 1. A US ban on domestic sales of secure telephony products will require an act of Congress. 2. Insiders have known for months that the US Department of Justice is planning to introduce crypto legislation during the current session of Congress. You draw your own conclusions. IMHO, we will see the USG approaching Congress, pointing to the multilateral agreement, and ask that Congress pass a law to implement the agreement (which, let us not forget about it, has of course been instigated by the USG). It just might work. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi

1 0

Voice Encrytion/Scrambling
by Huge Cajones Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Can anyone comment on and give pointers to devices designed to encrypt voice transmission over POTS lines? I am interested in the respective sound qualities (if you've tried it) and relative strengths of encryption algorithms. Thus far, I've found: http://www-jb.cs.uni-sb.de/~khuwig/lc-1eng.html http://www.cescomm.co.nz/cesindex.html http://www.worldaccess.com/~djm/crytek.htm The first on the list claims to use RSA but gives no ordering or pricing information. Conversely, the last two seem more "available", however they are each vague on the specifics of their respective encryption/scrambling algorithm. Anyone?

1 0

Re: PCS Encryption?
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Young wrote: | http://www.nsa.gov:8080/programs/missi/condor.html # How secure is CONDOR? # # Current proof-of-concept hardware is FORTEZZA(TM) based # (sensitive but unclassified) Product versions will use STU # for cellular voice and FORTEZZA(TM) Plus for net broadcast # mode and data I was under the impression that Fortezza was ok for classified traffic. Did I miss the changeover, was it unannounced, or was I simply misremembering? Adam -- Pet peeve of the day: Security companies whose protocols dare not speak their name, because they don't have one. Guilty company of the day is now V-One.

1 0

Re: PCS Encryption?
by Greg Rose 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Douglas C. Merrill" writes: >At 03:30 PM 2/1/97 -0500, Steven Bellovin wrote: >>And an illegal wiretap besides, most likely -- with a warrant, they could >>simply put the tap at the base station. The story may be true, but it >>doesn't sound quite right to me. It doesn't sound quite right to me either. >Phil Karn is, of course, the expert on this -- I hope he'll chime in soon >-- Phil, you out there?? I'm not Phil, but maybe I'll do. The three different digital standards in North America are TDMA, CDMA, and GSM (in NY and DC only AFAIK). Newer analog phones use at least some of this, but I don't know much about them. I'll ignore GSM. There is a fair bit of commonality in the security of TDMA and CDMA because of their use of the "Common Cryptographic Algorithms". I like to think I'm only telling you things which are in the "Interface Specification for Common Cryptographic Algorithms Rev B.1". CAVE is used as a hashing algorithm for a number of purposes. Starting at the beginning (that's a very good place to start... shut up Julie) it is used to verify that the A-key programmed into the phone is correct; the dealer or whoever puts in 26 digits, 20 of which are the A-key, and the other 6 are a checksum calculated with CAVE, and the Equipment Serial Number. (The ESN is always used by CAVE -- I won't mention it again.) If they agree, the phone buries the A-key very deep, never to be seen again. (A_Key_Checksum, A_Key_Verify) >From time to time, but not very often, the network and the phone create "Shared Secret Data"; they start with a 56-bit random number and run CAVE on it and the A-key. The resulting 128 bits is split into two 64-bit chunks called SSD_A and SSD_B. SSD_A is used for authentication purposes only, while SSD_B is used for the generation of keys for other cryptographic stuff. (SSD_Generation, SSD_Update) At various times, the base station authenticates the phone by sending down a random challenge (32 bits); this is hashed by CAVE with some other use-dependent data (not secret, but intended to defeat replays) and SSD_A (either current or new, depending on context) to form an 18-bit signature. Since you only get one go to get it right, 18 bits was deemed enough. Again depending on context, the state of CAVE at the end of this process may be saved for use later. (Auth_Signature) The original intent seems to be that Auth_Signature would happen at the beginning of every call, but I don't think that is actually the case. I'm not certain about the telephony end of this stuff. Now comes the encryption stuff. At the beginning of each call, Key_VPM_Generation is called. (VPM is Voice Privacy Mask.) This uses CAVE, initialised to the saved state it had at the last Auth_Signature, and SSD_B, to achieve two things; it generates the CMEA key (64 bits), and it generates the Voice Privacy Mask. CMEA (Cellular Message Encryption Algorithm) is used to encrypt bits of the signalling stuff over the air, but never any end-user data. It is used in different ways by the three standards, as they have different message formats, but they all (AMPS, TDMA, CDMA) use it. The VPM is ignored by analog (I think). It is constant for the entire call, and is XORed with every frame for TDMA (cryptographically weak, as you can XOR any two frames to cancel it out, but since the frames are heavily compressed actually getting anything from this is not trivial). CDMA ignores all but the last 40 bits, which becomes the initial "long code" for the PN (Psuedo-random Noise) generator. This is a straightforward LFSR, which again, is not cryptographically strong in the face of known plaintext, but again, the input is heavily compressed. More importantly, though, for CDMA you need to have the long code before you can easily sort out the signal from the noise around it (it was originally developed from anti-jamming technology), and since it has a period of days before it repeats, the call will probably be over... The conclusion is that neither way of doing it is truly cryptographically strong, but both are a lot better than listening to Princess Di call Newt "Squidgy" on a Radio Shack scanner. Note, at this point, that neither the phone industry or the NSA particularly cares about end-user stuff being strong. The signalling messages have a 64-bit key used much more appropriately, and so cell-phone fraud is harder to achieve. >Many folks think that "digital = secure" because you can't use radio >shack(TM) listening devices. This much is true. However, you *Can* build >other devices to listen in, and computer hardware is so cheap it's almost >feasible -- though I haven't built one... Or you can take the bits out of existing phones. Greg. Greg Rose INTERNET: ggr(a)Qualcomm.com Qualcomm Australia VOICE: +61-2-9743 4646 FAX: +61-2-9736 3262 6 Kingston Avenue homepage. Mortlake NSW 2137 35 0A 79 7D 5E 21 8D 47 E3 53 75 66 AC FB D9 45

1 0

GAK cracking?
by tmcghan＠gill-simpson.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just days after a U.S. graduate student cracked the most powerful computer encryption system allowed out of the country, the Commerce Department announced it would allow three companies to export an even stronger system. Until this year, computer encryption programs, which scramble information and render it unreadable without a password or software "key," were classified as munitions and stronger programs could not be exported. But under a controversial new Clinton administration policy that took effect Jan. 1, companies may receive permission to export stronger programs. "I'm happy that we've been able to do this within the first month without rancor or difficulty," Under Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration William Reinsch told Reuters in a telephone interview. To export stronger programs immediately, companies must agree to incorporate features within two years allowing the government to decode encrypted messages by recovering the software keys, however. The administration's policy has been widely criticized as not relaxing the export limits enough and some companies feared the requirement for a two-year plan would substantially delay export approvals. The quick approvals should quell some of the criticism and encourage more applicants, Reinsch said. "As a result of this, you will have more companies taking it seriously and we will expect more plans over the next couple of months," he said. Encryption was once the realm of spies and generals. But with the explosion of online commerce on the Internet, encryption has become a vital tool for protecting everything from a business' email message to a consumer's credit card number sent over the net. The amount of protection afforded by encryption is largely a function of the length of the software key measured in bits, the smallest unit of computer data. Companies said products with just 40-bit long keys, the old limit, were too easy to crack. The approvals came just days after Ian Goldberg, a graduate student at the University of California, cracked a message encoded with a software key 40-bits long. The government did not name the companies given permission to export stronger, 56-bit programs, but Glenwood, Md.,-based Trusted Information Systems acknowledged that it was one of the three.

1 0

Fortune, 3 Feb
by Mike McNally 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Big article in Fortune about e-mail privace. One little paragraph about encryption ("scrambling"). Fairly clue-free overall, but entertaining. -- ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Mike McNally -- Egregiously Pointy -- Tivoli Systems, "IBM" -- Austin mailto:m5@tivoli.com mailto:m101@io.com http://www.io.com/~m101 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

2 1

Re: PCS Encryption?
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I was under the impression that Fortezza was ok for classified >traffic. Did I miss the changeover, was it unannounced, or was I >simply misremembering? Fortezza now comes in several implementations for various, variable and multiple levels of classification and message handling. There is info on latest mani-dexterous products at NSA's armadillo and missi sites. If you don't want to be logged by NSA, see the Mykronyx bouquet at: http://jya.com/fortezza.htm To be sure, you might get logged anyway: jya.com may have been approved by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts for a snoop.

1 0

Fortune, 3 Feb
by Mike McNally 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Big article in Fortune about e-mail privace. One little paragraph about encryption ("scrambling"). Fairly clue-free overall, but entertaining. -- ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Mike McNally -- Egregiously Pointy -- Tivoli Systems, "IBM" -- Austin mailto:m5@tivoli.com mailto:m101@io.com http://www.io.com/~m101 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

1 0

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: > Unfortunately, Sandy responded to my post with his own flames ("piffle," > "disingenous," "straw man," etc.). Now he may well think his points are not > flames becuase they are "true," but to me they take the form of flames. But they are not ad hominem attacks on Tim May. The are my opinions of some of his arguments. Even very smart people such as Tim say poorly thought out or even silly things. > But then I have long disliked Sandy's method of argument. Nothing personal. But Nor I, Tim's. Nothing personal, but that's the point. It is still possible to conduct ourselves with mutual respect even if our views and styles differ. > As Sandy did a too-common section-by-section disssection, I'll do the same > for his comments. After reading through Tim's post, I don't think much would be served by doing another point by point response. From Tim's tone, it appears he is still seething about how this all came about, so I'll just leave our two expressions of opinions where they were. I have no wish to exacerbate any hard feelings Tim may be having. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

GAK cracking?
by tmcghan＠gill-simpson.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just days after a U.S. graduate student cracked the most powerful computer encryption system allowed out of the country, the Commerce Department announced it would allow three companies to export an even stronger system. Until this year, computer encryption programs, which scramble information and render it unreadable without a password or software "key," were classified as munitions and stronger programs could not be exported. But under a controversial new Clinton administration policy that took effect Jan. 1, companies may receive permission to export stronger programs. "I'm happy that we've been able to do this within the first month without rancor or difficulty," Under Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration William Reinsch told Reuters in a telephone interview. To export stronger programs immediately, companies must agree to incorporate features within two years allowing the government to decode encrypted messages by recovering the software keys, however. The administration's policy has been widely criticized as not relaxing the export limits enough and some companies feared the requirement for a two-year plan would substantially delay export approvals. The quick approvals should quell some of the criticism and encourage more applicants, Reinsch said. "As a result of this, you will have more companies taking it seriously and we will expect more plans over the next couple of months," he said. Encryption was once the realm of spies and generals. But with the explosion of online commerce on the Internet, encryption has become a vital tool for protecting everything from a business' email message to a consumer's credit card number sent over the net. The amount of protection afforded by encryption is largely a function of the length of the software key measured in bits, the smallest unit of computer data. Companies said products with just 40-bit long keys, the old limit, were too easy to crack. The approvals came just days after Ian Goldberg, a graduate student at the University of California, cracked a message encoded with a software key 40-bits long. The government did not name the companies given permission to export stronger, 56-bit programs, but Glenwood, Md.,-based Trusted Information Systems acknowledged that it was one of the three.

2 1

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by tmcghan＠gill-simpson.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

on or about: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:51:47 -0800 in a message allegedly from: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> {snip} > the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the > Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? { much thoughtful and well-phrased commentary elided } > I would have had no problem had John announced that he was creating > a new list, the "Good Stuff" list, with Sandy has his Chooser of > Good Stuff. > But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed things > considerably. > * Why, many reasonable people may ask, did I not simply unsubscribe > from the "Cypherpunks" list and subscribe to the"Cypherpunks-Unedited) >(or whatever it is called) list? Because of my overall anger > But the clear message by having Sandy censor the > main list (the default list, the list name with the main name, the > list we all know about, etc.) {snip} Now that the horse is out of the barn, ( or maybe not? ), I can't help but ask whether one specific 'change to the change' would have satisfied most of your objections: retaining 'cypherpunks' as the name of the unedited, all-the-crud-you-can-read-and-then-some, version, and adding an 'cp-worthwhile' list for those of us who prefer not to wade thru mountains of garbage to glean a few precious tidbits. What's in a name? Is perception more important ( to you ) than reality? If just swapping names between cp and cp-unedited would make such a large difference, I humbly suggest to you that you consider how much labels need to matter. Is the title of the group more important the the content? From where I sit, this looks a lot like a style-over-substance complaint. Of course, I don't have my trifocals on just at the moment. It may also be worth noting that the current 'status quo' is a transient experiment, with a fairly short time limit. When JG, Sandy, et al. evaluate the results with an eye to future direction(s), they may well consider an 'inverted default' for the two list names (i.e.: cp / cp-unedited) In any event, please accept my .02 in the spirit in which it is intended ( constructive criticism ). /* */

2 1

Re: PCS Encryption?
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I was under the impression that Fortezza was ok for classified >traffic. Did I miss the changeover, was it unannounced, or was I >simply misremembering? Fortezza now comes in several implementations for various, variable and multiple levels of classification and message handling. There is info on latest mani-dexterous products at NSA's armadillo and missi sites. If you don't want to be logged by NSA, see the Mykronyx bouquet at: http://jya.com/fortezza.htm To be sure, you might get logged anyway: jya.com may have been approved by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts for a snoop.

1 0

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Patrick May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy Sandfort writes: [ . . . ] > On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: [ . . . ] > > Fourth, it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the > > Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their anarchic > > ways." > > That's one message that one could take from all this, I suppose. > I don't see it that way, nor do several list members who thanked > me in private e-mail for improving the list. Again, YMMV. This is the strongest point in Mr. May's essay, and it is not easily dismissed as a difference in perspective. I admit to looking forward to the moderation experiment when it was announce; the noise on the list was phenomenal even by cypherpunk standards. My procmail filters were approaching the level of complexity required for self-awareness and the ASCII art still slipped through. Plus, I generally agree with Mr. Sandfort's positions. The point above demonstrates that support of the current solution is not rationally justified. Banning people from the list, however ineffectually, and imposing moderation on the main list, rather than offering another filtering service, does indeed support the thesis that even a virtual anarchic society must resort to a central authority to solve some problems. The moderation mechanism is the message. > What didn't work was "local filtering" which has no feed-back > loop to engender comity. This is a strong rebuttal. The primary affect of local filtering is that posts which are filtered do not garner as many responses as those which are not. This feedback is swamped by the tendency of filtered messages to generate flames from those who do not filter them. Filtered sublists are a more effective technique, available to non-technical subscribers as well. Some of the more advanced tools discussed here, such as collaborative filtering, rating schemes, etc. have potential if the ease-of-use barriers can be overcome. A cryptoanarchic solution, however, should be technical and individual. Centralized human moderation does not have the cypherpunk nature. Regards, Patrick May

1 0

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by tmcghan＠gill-simpson.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

on or about: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:51:47 -0800 in a message allegedly from: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> {snip} > the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the > Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? { much thoughtful and well-phrased commentary elided } > I would have had no problem had John announced that he was creating > a new list, the "Good Stuff" list, with Sandy has his Chooser of > Good Stuff. > But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed things > considerably. > * Why, many reasonable people may ask, did I not simply unsubscribe > from the "Cypherpunks" list and subscribe to the"Cypherpunks-Unedited) >(or whatever it is called) list? Because of my overall anger > But the clear message by having Sandy censor the > main list (the default list, the list name with the main name, the > list we all know about, etc.) {snip} Now that the horse is out of the barn, ( or maybe not? ), I can't help but ask whether one specific 'change to the change' would have satisfied most of your objections: retaining 'cypherpunks' as the name of the unedited, all-the-crud-you-can-read-and-then-some, version, and adding an 'cp-worthwhile' list for those of us who prefer not to wade thru mountains of garbage to glean a few precious tidbits. What's in a name? Is perception more important ( to you ) than reality? If just swapping names between cp and cp-unedited would make such a large difference, I humbly suggest to you that you consider how much labels need to matter. Is the title of the group more important the the content? From where I sit, this looks a lot like a style-over-substance complaint. Of course, I don't have my trifocals on just at the moment. It may also be worth noting that the current 'status quo' is a transient experiment, with a fairly short time limit. When JG, Sandy, et al. evaluate the results with an eye to future direction(s), they may well consider an 'inverted default' for the two list names (i.e.: cp / cp-unedited) In any event, please accept my .02 in the spirit in which it is intended ( constructive criticism ). /* */

6 5

swiss buy centralized euro-smartcard system
by Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.hotwired.com/staff/pointcast/Features/1814.html A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.

1 0