December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Keepers of the keys
by Lizard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:10 PM 7/18/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: >All of this brainstorming about who might be the best choice to hold >"escrowed" keys, a la the reporter stooge Shea, or about requiring the Feds >to use the same escrow system, misses this basic point. And plays into >their hands. > >Kill the key grabbers and all those who support them. Isn't it exactly what >Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and the others would have argued? > Sure. And that is, of course, the bottom line. But even if I was a rabid national security freak, I'd *still* oppose key escrow, because it makes the nation *less* secure. It's a loser on both liberty *and* security grounds, and, since the liberty issue has already been conceded, the (political) battleground is security. The "key escrow exposes us to spies" meme has the capability to graft into the same mental reception points that the "key escrow will save us from terrorists" meme is currently attached to, much as 'blocker' viruses can prevent other viruses from infecting cells. If I were heading the NSA/CIA/FBI/etc, I'd be putting my budget into getting ringers onto every BBS, every IRC channel, every 'warez' group, every mailing list, everywhere, not wasting time on 'key escrow' when the people I'd be most interested in tracking would never ever in a million years turn their key over to the government. I'd be infiltrating, subjerting, and getting keys the old fashined way -- by tricking people into giving them to me. A key can be a gigabit in length and still be cracked just by watching what someone types in to decode a message, and the technology to do *that* is decades old, as are, sadly, the wiretap laws to permit it. The "legitimate needs of law enforcement" are already far too well served by existing holes shot in the Constitution -- there is no need to make more, and doing so will defeat the putative aims of the hawks, as well.

1 0

Re: Postal Inspection (was Common Carriers...)
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <9408082050.AA26145(a)smds.com> FutureNerd Steve Witham writes: > That reminds me. I once got a conference announcement from Europe > in the mail. Printed on the envelope was a little icon showing a > profile of the head of a guy wearing a hat (like a policeman or > mailman's hat), and an arrow pointing from about his eye level to a > picture of an open envelope. This looked like the original envelope, > untouched, and the icon seemed to have been there from the start. What was the conference about? (If the icon was printed on the envelope, I suspect that it represented the topic of the conference or the group sponsoring it.) -- Jim Dixon

1 0

Re: e$
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <9408072158.memo.40958(a)BIX.com> peace(a)bix.com writes: > I can recall that many years back the casinos in Las Vegas all > accepted the chips from the other ones and then had a great > exchange each day where the accounts were settled up. Even the > gift shops took chips in place of cash. The US Treasury put a stop > to this as it was considered to be a replacement for cash. > > Also I hear a lot about bearer bonds, but never in the US. OTOH > the NYC subways have started a cash card that they expect merchants > to accept in lieu of coins. It would be nice to know what the Feds > will or won't accept. BTW, does it matter if the e$ are US denominated? > Could e$ be presented as travelers checks? The possibilities here are > extremely interesting. There is a small point to be made here which I think is really a big point. The US government does not object to the use of financial instruments so long as they are backed by the US $ (or another accepted currency). Most of us use such financial instruments daily -- checks and credit cards, for examples. Most financial transactions involve no cash at all. If an e$ is backed by US $1.00, the government will not object. The government objects if you create an alternative currency. Barter systems based on scrip are an alternative currency, and therefore illegal. If you had $1,000,000 in the bank and wrote out and signed 1,000,000 checks for $1.00 each, I think that these could be traded without violating any laws. But if you issue $e carelessly, you will probably find that you are acting as a bank, and therefore violating several Federal laws. You also need to be concerned about Federal regulations covering the import and export of money. I think that at $5,000 or $10,000 you have to report the transaction. I believe that the forms issued on airplanes make it clear that checks and other financial instruments are included. The action taken to stop the exchange of tokens between casinos would seem to contradict this. It would be useful if someone were able to find more information on this. The legal point might be that the tokens simply had an amount written on them ("$100) with no currency specified and without the name of a bank directed to pay this amount -- having said this, I am reasonably sure that they would not allow banks to pay out against their tokens, and so therefore they would definitely represent an alternative currency, and not an IOU. -- Jim Dixon

3 2

Re: <null>
by merriman＠metronet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>In article <199408062304.AA24750(a)xs4all.hacktic.nl> you wrote: > >: The jurisdiction where this remailer could be located, preferably >: shouldn't care about pornografy. [Holland, Scandinavia ?] > >Pornografy isn't illegal in the Netherlands, but -contrary to popular >believe- child pornografy *IS* illegal in the Netherlands. > But what is the age of consent for such in the Netherlands? I believe I saw on an educational TV program here in the U.S. that the age of consent in the Netherlands was 14. If so, what affect does that have on what is considered "child pornography"? [before the flames start, I would like to point out that my question is 'scholarly' :-] Dave Merriman

2 1

Re: What are Appropriate Topics?
by snyderra＠dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:58 AM 8/5/94, Timothy C. May wrote: >First off, my sincere apologies to Bob Snyder for quoting and >responding to his e-mail to me, without realizing he had not cc:ed it >to the list as well. I'm so used to replying to the author and then >having to manually cc: the Cyherpunks list that it was not until I got >the message quoted below that I realized his comments were private. I >will try to be more careful. > >Partly it was his civil tone that misled me--it read like a post to >the list, and not a personal note. In any case, my apologies to Bob. No problem. I'll try to remember to flame you next time. :-) >At least in my messages, I was not arguing merely statism vs. >libertarianism, or some such stale abstraction, but the specific issue >of taxation in the face of strong crypto and privacy, and the >oxymoronic nature of "volunteer governments." (I also think there are >issues related to privately-produced law which folks on this list >ought to know about, as it is the likely form of crypto anarchic law, >such as it is. The connections with crypto are quite strong, as it is >untraceable communication and commerce which makes these discretionary >communities possible.) OK. Perhaps I misread your article. I appear to have erased it from my Cypherpunks mailbox, or I'd reread it. I was reacting primarily to your initial comments on why you felt it should be on the list. I don't object to (and am happy to see) discussions of "applied" cryptography on the list, such as tax laws in the presence of cryptography. I would only object to the discussion of government in the abscence of either a (preferably) cryptological reference, or a privacy one. >As for pure crypto being discussed on the list, there's a fair amount >of that. I've posted my share of explanations of zero knowledge proof >systems, dining cryptographers protocols, complexity theory, etc. I'm >not saying this to defend myself, per se, but to note that these >topics produced almost no discussion, almost no interest. Make of this >what you will. Yes, and I appreciate you doing so. I try to work though such postings, and often check with _Applied Cryptography_ for more background. But I usually don't have any response for it. "Oh, no, that's completely wrong"? :-) Such postings are often a stretch for me, with my limited math background, and this isn't an appropriate place to ask the kind of math questions that would bring me up to speed. >And a dozen other juicy topics. If people want to debate these and >similar issues, we should *encourage* them to, not announce that the >topics are deviating from some imagined idea of the charter. I agree. I should apologize then, for misunderstanding your posting. My only concern was that the thread was going to start out without any cryptological reference, and who knows where it could veer from there. :-) The topics you listed (and I deleted in this response) appear to me to be perfectly legitimate topics. >It's generally best, I think, to lead by example. Instead of >pronouncing a topic to be off-limits or not consistent with the >charter, why not find a way to make what you *are* interested in also >interesting to others? That's how we'll move forward into new areas. I don't disagree with this. But this takes a skill set I'm still working to acquire; enough knowledge of cryptological concepts to start a discussion. And I don't mean to sound like I'm trying to set the Cypherpunks' agenda. I know what I would like to see here, and I phrase my responses as such. I hope I'm not one of the "complainers and the enforcers of dogma" Eric Hughes mentioned in his post. Bob -- Bob Snyder N2KGO MIME, PGP, RIPEM mail accepted snyderra(a)post.drexel.edu PGP & RIPEM keys on key servers When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.

1 0

(fwd) Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution
by nzook＠math.utexas.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Path: math.utexas.edu!news.dell.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!mcdaniel From: mcdaniel(a)u.washington.edu (McDaniel) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,news.admin.policy Subject: Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution Date: 7 Aug 1994 08:13:45 GMT Organization: University of Washington Lines: 39 Message-ID: <32253p$220(a)news.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: stein4.u.washington.edu Keywords: misinformation disinformation propaganda net anon anonymous Xref: math.utexas.edu talk.politics.misc:239273 news.admin.policy:19179 The problem: Anonymous posters supplying pseudo-news reports or otherwise wasting bandwidth in groups more concerened with fact or atleast genuine concerns (such as political talk groups and sci groups.) The soultion: Limited anonymous posters to forums where accountability for what one says is of little concern (such as rec groups where applicable.) OR provide the owners of moderated groups with detailed accounts of the true identity of any anonymous poster who post to a serious newsgroup and make that procedure known to the would-be anonymous user. I attempted recently to secure the actual address of an anon poster who deliberetly spread misinformation concerning a non-existant U.S. Presidential Executive Order and a news-look-alike story dealing with proven falsehoods. Needless to say the administrator of the popular anon.penet.fi server has not been cooperative. I suggest that groups wishing to deal with issues based a little stronger in reality ban anonymous posters and encourage their posters NEVER to repeat information supplied by anonymous posters elsewhere. Some groups have already come to that same conclusion. I believe that anonymous posting is a valuable service in many forums. However, it seems that service is being abused in political and technical newsgroups. I suppose yet another solution would be to make widely known the general untrustability of anonymous posters in groups where truth and fact are paramount. But this letter should go a tiny ways towards that goal. Opinions? -McDaniel

1 0

(fwd) Re: Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution
by nzook＠math.utexas.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Path: math.utexas.edu!news.dell.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rand.org!usenet From: Jim Gillogly <jim(a)acm.org> Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,news.admin.policy Subject: Re: Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution Date: 7 Aug 1994 15:17:31 GMT Organization: Banzai Institute Lines: 51 Message-ID: <2o7sni$4!nb(a)bogus-site.org> References: <32253p$220(a)news.u.washington.edu> Reply-To: jim(a)acm.org NNTP-Posting-Host: mycroft.rand.org Keywords: misinformation disinformation propaganda net anon anonymous Xref: math.utexas.edu talk.politics.misc:239321 news.admin.policy:19182 In article <32253p$220(a)news.u.washington.edu>, McDaniel <mcdaniel(a)u.washington.edu> wrote: >The problem: Anonymous posters supplying pseudo-news reports or >otherwise wasting bandwidth in groups more concerened with fact >or atleast genuine concerns (such as political talk groups and >sci groups.) .. >Opinions? Since you asked: my opinion is that there are more non-anonymous posters supplying pseudo-news reports or otherwise wasting bandwidth in serious groups. For example, in sci.crypt one poster consistently posts off-topic flamebait, and others consistently take the bait; while there's widespread consternation and killfiling, so far as I know nobody's suggested retroactively moderating him. On the other side, a consistent anonymous poster has produced and released useful crypto and digicash code... I assume his/her identity is masked to avoid ITAR prosecution for sending crypto out of the US without a license. In short, anonymity isn't the problem: cluelessness is the problem. In sci.crypt we may to eventually get rid of off-topic posts by moderating. I would hope the moderators will let anything clueful through, whether it's anonymous or not. I'll point out in passing that an anonymous poster can build up a reputation the same way as anybody else simply by signing articles with the same PGP key each time -- I'd be more confident that a signed message is from Pr0duct Cypher (i.e. the same person who posted as Pr0duct Cypher <last> month) than that an unsigned one is from McDaniel... I could forge one of the latter in a trice. McDaniel also said: >applicable.) OR provide the owners of moderated groups with detailed >accounts of the true identity of any anonymous poster who post to >a serious newsgroup and make that procedure known to the would-be >anonymous user. This sounds challenging. Many of the for-profit services allow the users to pick their own net identity... it's a feature. Do you know the True Name of the person behind the account evidence(a)netcom.com? Do you think Netcom would cough it up without a court order? Either AOL or Delphi -- I forget which, now -- allows users to have several different identities for their Net traffic. How would prove <my> identity to this moderator? Maybe by signing my application to post with my PGP key, which is in turn signed by somebody they trust? Seems quite difficult. certainly wouldn't want that burden as a moderator. I suggest you devote your time to finding a way to suppress idiocy and cluelessness on the Net in general... and if you can have it in place before the fall quarter starts, that would be lovely. Jim Gillogly Trewesday, 15 Wedmath S.R. 1994, 15:17

1 0

(fwd) Re: Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution
by nzook＠math.utexas.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Path: math.utexas.edu!news.dell.com!tadpole.com!uunet!news.sprintlink.net!sun.cais.com!cais2.cais.com!jdfalk From: jdfalk(a)cais2.cais.com (J.D. Falk) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,news.admin.policy Subject: Re: Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,news.admin.policy Date: 8 Aug 1994 20:27:54 GMT Organization: Capital Area Internet Service Lines: 2 Message-ID: <3264ga$adk(a)sun.cais.com> References: <32253p$220(a)news.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.0.216.200 X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Xref: math.utexas.edu talk.politics.misc:239596 news.admin.policy:19191 What you propose would involve rewriting news and mail software at every site. This will not happen.

1 0

(fwd) Re: Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution
by nzook＠math.utexas.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Path: math.utexas.edu!news.dell.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!decwrl!decwrl!amd!amdahl!svpal.org!svpal.org!not-for-mail From: billy(a)svpal.org (Bill Yeakel) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,news.admin.policy Subject: Re: Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,news.admin.policy Date: 7 Aug 1994 09:42:21 -0700 Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link Lines: 30 Message-ID: <3232td$qe7(a)svpal.svpal.org> References: <32253p$220(a)news.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.svpal.org X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Xref: math.utexas.edu talk.politics.misc:239317 news.admin.policy:19181 McDaniel (mcdaniel(a)u.washington.edu) wrote: : The problem: Anonymous posters supplying pseudo-news reports or : otherwise wasting bandwidth in groups more concerened with fact : or atleast genuine concerns (such as political talk groups and : sci groups.) : I believe that anonymous posting is a valuable service in many forums. : However, it seems that service is being abused in political and technical : newsgroups. : I suppose yet another solution would be to make widely known the : general untrustability of anonymous posters in groups where truth and : fact are paramount. But this letter should go a tiny ways towards that : goal. : Opinions? Nice in theory, but.... How do know if someone is anonymous? Doesn't the act of checking itself show that you have doubts? What if someone using their real name posts that they have seen a flying saucer? Or posts an astrological prediction? If someone believes everything they are told, the consequence is their responsibility. Just my $2.00 worth. (I value my opinion 100 times greater than other's) Bill

1 0

(fwd) Re: Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution
by nzook＠math.utexas.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Path: math.utexas.edu!news.dell.com!tadpole.com!uunet!spool.mu.edu!news.clark.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!mcdaniel From: mcdaniel(a)u.washington.edu (McDaniel) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,news.admin.policy Subject: Re: Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution Date: 9 Aug 1994 14:27:30 GMT Organization: University of Washington Lines: 16 Message-ID: <3283oi$nt7(a)news.u.washington.edu> References: <32253p$220(a)news.u.washington.edu> <3264ga$adk(a)sun.cais.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: stein3.u.washington.edu Xref: math.utexas.edu talk.politics.misc:239698 news.admin.policy:19195 jdfalk(a)cais2.cais.com (J.D. Falk) writes: > What you propose would involve rewriting news and mail software >at every site. This will not happen. Oh? All it would require is for anonymous posting services to keep a list of the onwers of moderated newsgroups and notify the individual moderator on a periodical basis, as to what the real e-mail address of the anonymous poster is (and what message the posted.) Right now many moderated groups have banned anonymous posting. I only hope that trend continues in groups where misinformation is very destructive (political and sci groups for instance.) -McDaniel

1 0

(fwd) Re: Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution
by nzook＠math.utexas.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,news.admin.policy Path: math.utexas.edu!news.dell.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!news.alpha.net!mvb.saic.com!eskimo!wix From: wix(a)eskimo.com (Dennis Wicks) Subject: Re: Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution Message-ID: <Cu6FzE.4B3(a)eskimo.com> Keywords: misinformation disinformation propaganda net anon anonymous Organization: Eskimo North BBS - The BEST! (206) 367-3837 References: <32253p$220(a)news.u.washington.edu> Date: Sun, 7 Aug 1994 18:13:59 GMT Lines: 55 Xref: math.utexas.edu talk.politics.misc:239350 news.admin.policy:19183 In article <32253p$220(a)news.u.washington.edu>, McDaniel <mcdaniel(a)u.washington.edu> wrote: >The problem: Anonymous posters supplying pseudo-news reports or >otherwise wasting bandwidth in groups more concerened with fact >or atleast genuine concerns (such as political talk groups and >sci groups.) > >The soultion: Limited anonymous posters to forums where accountability >for what one says is of little concern (such as rec groups where >applicable.) OR provide the owners of moderated groups with detailed >accounts of the true identity of any anonymous poster who post to >a serious newsgroup and make that procedure known to the would-be >anonymous user. > >I attempted recently to secure the actual address of an anon poster >who deliberetly spread misinformation concerning a non-existant >U.S. Presidential Executive Order and a news-look-alike story dealing >with proven falsehoods. > >Needless to say the administrator of the popular anon.penet.fi server >has not been cooperative. I suggest that groups wishing to deal with >issues based a little stronger in reality ban anonymous posters and >encourage their posters NEVER to repeat information supplied by anonymous >posters elsewhere. Some groups have already come to that same conclusion. > >I believe that anonymous posting is a valuable service in many forums. >However, it seems that service is being abused in political and technical >newsgroups. > >I suppose yet another solution would be to make widely known the >general untrustability of anonymous posters in groups where truth and >fact are paramount. But this letter should go a tiny ways towards that >goal. > >Opinions? Non-problem. Anonymous posters don't propogate any more disinformation, lies, or junk than "real" posters. I could post my kill file for t.p.g in support of this, but I won't. Anyone who belives anything posted to the net without verification has only themselves to blame. A well-known person posting from a prestigious .edu site has no more authority than any anon poster. The credence you place on the content has to be determined by the posters previous statements. Indeed, I find that several people post very accurate and insightful articles in some groups, but in others their personal biases are very obvious and their posts are worth no more than the typical TV news "man on the street" interview. -- My own opinions E-mail responses to On my own time Articles may be On my own dime Posted at my option

1 0

EDDB/RN
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't know if anyone else has had this particular idea before, but it might be worth some consideration. I referred to it very briefly in my posting on RemailerNet v0.2 (RN02). Eric points out that users of remailer networks want to be able to trust in silence as well as trust in delivery, and RN02 accordingly specifies that messages should be erased immediately after acknowledgement of delivery. However, there should be a use for persistent store, for a remote encrypted database accessible anonymously. Everyone must have had this sort of experience: someone walks into your office. There is something on your desk that you would rather this other person not see. So you toss it into a drawer, to get it out of sight. Imagine that you are working on a document and someone walks into your office. Rather than tossing it into a drawer, you toss it to Finland. The document is sent encrypted. (The storage facility also encrypts it.) When its receipt is acknowledged, your local copy is destroyed, if you wish. You can retrieve it in seconds from anywhere, providing that the system supports the notion of an identify distinct from your log-in address. Ideally, the data is stored on a distributed data base, with some redundancy in case one or more gateways go down, and with the data striped across gateways, so that no one gateway has all of the data. Because the data is encrypted by you and encrypted by the EDDB, it cannot be recovered by anyone without your cooperation. If the data is striped over a number of gateways (with, say, every first byte here, the next byte there, the next byte at a third gateway, and every fourth byte at a fourth gateway), it would take widespread collusion even to recover a copy of the encrypted document. Once you have such a system in place, you could then do interesting things like storing a document in the EDDB, and selling it to someone by selling him your passwords. I also think that a very reliable version of this system could be used to handle electronic cash (e$). -- Jim Dixon

2 1

Re: Problem in draft FIPS `CRYPTOGRAPHIC SERVICE CALLS'
by p.v.mcmahon.rea0803＠oasis.icl.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

DATE FROM SUBJECT Two related points: 1. Sorry to waste list bandwidth with such a question, but could someone please post to me the original "Problem in draft FIPS `CRYPTOGRAPHIC SERVICE CALLS'" item? (my server was down at the weekend). 2. NIST have proposed the draft FIPS to a number of standards development organisations - including X/Open and POSIX - and I know that Microsoft have reviewed it, so it will likely influence interfaces to commercially available cryptographic software and devices. If there is anybody with interest in crypto APIs on this list, then your informed comments on this NIST proposal, or other candidates (which I could make available if the level of interest warranted it), or alternatives, would be useful and timely. Thanks Piers -------------------------------------------------------------------- P V McMahon 09AUG94 ICL Enterprises post: Kings House, 33 Kings Road, Reading, RG1 3PX, UK email: p.v.mcmahon(a)rea0803.wins.icl.co.uk OR p.mcmahon(a)xopen.co.uk phone: +44 734 634882 fax: +44 734 855106 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

GAK & RSA
by paul＠poboy.b17c.ingr.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- RSADSI has been adamantly opposed to Clipper. You'd expect them to be opposed on business grounds; after all, Clipper wouldn't bring them any revenue and could quite possibly put them out of business if other forms of encryption were outlawed. I don't remember seeing many specific comments indicating that RSA was opposed to GAK on philosophical grounds (well, OK; some quotes on their "Sink Clipper" poster, if those count). Other groups were opposed to Clipper because Skipjack is of unknown strength. Putting the cypherpunkesque arguments about how GAK is a big step down the path towards a surveillance state, is it possible that the software GAK (SGAK) scheme could easily incorporate RSA's technology? Imagine: Schlafly et al win their court case, and RSADSI's patents on RSA and other public-key technology are declared invalid. SGAK can thus use RSA without any problem. The "Skipjack, DSS, and SHA may be weak" crowd can't object to RSA's strength, and of course RSADSI will be in no position to object. Another scenario: RSADSI wins and their patent remains valid. They can't refuse licensing to any entity which meets their terms, so SGAK can still be deployed, but RSADSI then gets a royalty. _This_ is what's scaring me. If Microsoft, Apple, et al offer weak encryption as part of SGAK, objections can be made to the weakness. If they use RSA, that avenue is gone. - -Paul - -- Paul Robichaux, KD4JZG | "Information is the currency of democracy." perobich(a)ingr.com | - some old guy named Thomas Jefferson Of course I don't speak for Intergraph. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLkemSKfb4pLe9tolAQGYiAP9EEwh/ImtxO6VoeGW6Ur15lwM+eJy9MRR liYk+LMisjfJUwdO7Ngz2EDg/gKWky3u/t2LOm5347tekShXJXEqFqmRlGIt2xu7 8eSMRxRpewYTtYstPWPBaxBe6nzBSfD7BciQseqEU1b6ug21pB53hzHgYP7OwtrY NEZSuas7C9g= =+J/I -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3

Re: Something of Interest (fwd)
by Jeremy Mineweaser 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Alan <alano(a)teleport.com> writes: > >> I recieved this today via e-mail. I find it strange since I have >> never asked to be put on any sort of "interest list" by anyone >> at the IRS. Did anyone else get this? I received a copy of this earlier today via a low-traffic mailing list devoted to discussion of prisoner's dilemma games. Upon receiving the message, the connection between PDG and Jim Bell wasn't immediately obvious, but then I remembered that Jim Bell was also a subscriber to that mailing list. It's quite probable that the IRS sent a copy of their press release to all of the forums where they had records of Bell's involvement. Did others receive this message directly, or via mailing lists? .jlm --- Jeremy Mineweaser <jlm(a)null.net> Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators. -- Richard Dawkins

1 0

Anonymous virtual networks
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What if people were to create virtual machines (eg Java or whatever) which were accessible to anyone on the internet, and linked them together in a virtual network. CPU-time and bandwidth on the virtual machines could then be sold (or more likely bartered). The network would be self-contained, so nobody outside the virtual network would see it. So, when one wants to send some anonymous messages, just buy or trade for some processor time and disk space somewhere, then mail in a remailer program and it'll run. When it runs out of cpu-time credits, it just gets deleted. (The machine owner would have little reason to keep it around, since it is more economically profitable to lease the disk space to someone else rather than try to decrypt old remailer traffic, which would likely be a futile effort, given enough layers of encryption) So let's say we agree I'll give you 10 mips-years of cpu and 10 MB disk space and 100 MB of network traffic on my machine, and you give me the same on your computer. I then trade some of the CPU time & disk space on your machine to Joe, who uses it to set up some remailers. Joe then sells remailer services to some newbies. After their pre-paid remailer cards run out then Joe's remailer has used up all his CPU-credits on your machine and the remailer (and the evidence) disappears. Your computer just deletes the files and you never know about Joe or his anonymous message service. Pretty good anonymity. :-) Of course, in order to prevent certain obvious harassment attacks, the virtual network would need to remain self-contained, so people would need their own virtual-network/virtual-computer clients to access their anonymous mail. They'd probably even need to sell their cpu-cycles to key crackers in order to pay for their email service. ;-)

1 0

winpgp 1.0 bugs
by ecarp＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is there a newer version of winpgp than 1.0? I've found what appears to be several bugs in 1.0: 1) if I attempt to encrypt more than one file, winpgp says "Illegal function call" and terminates. 2) if I encrypt a file with "Binary" checked, the resulting file is named "<whatever>.PGP". If I attempt to decrypt this .PGP file, winpgp will only allow me to encrypt .PGP files, but not decrypt them. 3) if I encrypt a file with "ASCII" checked, the resultng file is named "<whatever>.ASC". If I decrypt this file, pgp gives me an error message (apparently pgp is being called with the "-d" option). If I decrypt it by hand without the "-d" option, PGP loses the file extension; i.e., XXX.DOC encrypts to XXX.ASC, but decrypts to just XXX without the .DOC extension. I'm using pgp 2.6 and winpgp 1.0 running under windows 3.11 (workgroups). Please email directly, as I don't have access to the list from work. Thanks in advance for any assistance... :) -- Ed Carp, N7EKG/VE3 Ed.Carp(a)linux.org, ecarp(a)netcom.com Finger ecarp(a)netcom.com for PGP 2.5 public key an88744(a)anon.penet.fi If you want magic, let go of your armor. Magic is so much stronger than steel! -- Richard Bach, "The Bridge Across Forever"

1 0

Re: Problem in draft FIPS `CRYPTOGRAPHIC SERVICE CALLS'
by p.v.mcmahon.rea0803＠oasis.icl.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> someone please post to me the original "Problem in draft FIPS > `CRYPTOGRAPHIC SERVICE CALLS'" item? (my server was down at the Thanks very much. I now have the mail. > 2. NIST have proposed the draft FIPS to a number of standards > development organisations - including X/Open and POSIX - and I > know that Microsoft have reviewed it, so it will likely influence > interfaces to commercially available cryptographic software and > devices. > If there is anybody with interest in crypto APIs on this list, > then your informed comments on this NIST proposal, or other > candidates (which I could make available if the level of interest > warranted it), or alternatives, would be useful and timely. My interest in this is that I am chair of the X/Open security working group defining a industry consensus specification for which the draft FIPS is one of the inputs, along with other inputs from RSADSI (via Sun), IBM, HP, Olivetti, SESAME etc. Piers

2 1

Re: Remailer ideas
by John Douceur 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >From: Rick Busdiecker <rfb(a)lehman.com> >Date: Tuesday, August 09, 1994 12:54AM > It may thus be quite reasonable to build in a hard cutoff in > service time . . . since the extreme delay which triggers the > expedited transmission is an unpredictable and infrequent event >This is not a safe assumption. Check out the stats for ghio(a)kaiwan.com. The context of my above assertion was a hypothetical message-mixing system proposed by Hal Finney. Although I must confess that I haven't examined the statistics that you cited, I do not see their relevance to this hypothetical system. Of his own proposal, Hal says, "...it does have one disadvantage, which is that there is no upper bound on the latency of a message.... there is a small chance of having very large latencies.... it might be possible to modify [this system] so that messages never waited more than some maximum number of hours without seriously hurting the entropy." I believe that this is correct. The message delays introduced by Hal's proposed system were of exponentially diminishing probability; thus, linear increases in delay cutoff become multiplicative decreases in cutoff probability, and it is therefore easy to set a cutoff value for delay which will occur with sufficient infrequency as to be useless to the cryptanalyst. > it will not make cryptanalysis of the remailer any easier. >I'm pretty sure that cryptanalysis, per se, is not the question, but >rather traffic analysis. By "cryptanalysis," I mean traffic analysis. Considering the remailers to be a cryptosystem was suggested recently on this list by someone (I forget whom). JD -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLkerrEGHwsdH+oN9AQHAjgP+NqSxhzz/N/Wa8y9D5zulPEStYUkZVvpR +krk8VbMRgcbw8OuMYQLG5VUO5viTrSw1zSEu1Hg7hVfZ1HKq8wgE2F/tOJA6r70 sKXfgXkQWi7Nxkz4pqPQSlpniVxW2G9rc4PK9U5aYIIktDKEzFigcZdcsGu20UJl sJUlTlmrpn8= =YvXF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Two Birds With One Stone / Re: Keepers of the keys
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Joe Shea wrote: > And if Tim May does kill me, I hope someone has his key, or better > yet, can go make a showing to a judge and get it from him. It is much more likely that a federal agent, using Tim's escrowed key to read his opinion of you, would whack you out and set Tim up for the crime, thereby eliminating two troublesome birds with one stone. > There are > plenty of them, though, and they are moving vast sums of stolen money and > nuclear weapon parts and stolen information all over the globe. I see no > reason why we should be defenseless against them. We are defenseless against them because they are working for the same fucking governments that you want to give your crypto keys to. Key escrow is meant for fucking the little guy in the ass, not the major players. > On the other hand, > if someone's going to blow up San Francisco this week, it sure would help > to have a key to any encrypted communications he was generating. Yeah, sure. I use an escrowed key to communicate about all of my criminal activities, and I send the FBI a cc: on all of them. It sure would help if LEA's all had access to the American Reporter's files so that they could censor any writing that might encite someone to blow up San Franciso. Why don't you send them all of your writing for approval, Joe? If all the people in favor of key escrow would allow the government total access to all of their communications, then the drop in crime would more than make up for that commited by those who use encryption. If you can't afford to buy a clue, Joe, then try renting. TruthMonger

1 0

EPIC Seeks Release of FBI Wiretap Data
by Dave Banisar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Electronic Privacy Information Center PRESS RELEASE _____________________________________________________________ For Release: August 9, 1994 2:00 pm Group Seeks Release of FBI Wiretap Data, Calls Proposed Surveillance Legislation Unnecessary Washington, DC: A leading privacy rights group today sued the Federal Bureau of Investigation to force the release of documents the FBI claims support its campaign for new wiretap legislation. The documents were cited by FBI Director Louis Freeh during testimony before Congress and in a speech to an influential legal organization but have never been released to the public. The lawsuit was filed as proposed legislation which would mandate technological changes long sought by the FBI was scheduled to be introduced in Congress. The case was brought in federal district court by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a public interest research organization that has closely monitored the Bureau's efforts to mandate the design of the nation's telecommunications infrastructure to facilitate wiretapping. An earlier EPIC lawsuit revealed that FBI field offices had reported no difficulties conducting wiretaps as a result of new digital communications technology, in apparent contradiction of frequent Bureau claims. At issue are two internal FBI surveys that the FBI Director has cited as evidence that new telephone systems interfere with law enforcement investigations. During Congressional testimony on March 18, Director Freeh described "a 1993 informal survey which the FBI did with respect to state and local law enforcement authorities." According to Freeh, the survey describes the problems such agencies had encountered in executing court orders for electronic surveillance. On May 19 the FBI Director delivered a speech before the American Law Institute in Washington, DC. In his prepared remarks, Freeh stated that "[w]ithin the last month, the FBI conducted an informal survey of federal and local law enforcement regarding recent technological problems which revealed over 180 instances where law enforcement was precluded from implementing or fully implementing court [wiretap] orders." According to David L. Sobel, EPIC's Legal Counsel, the FBI has not yet demonstrated a need for the sweeping new legislation that it seeks. "The Bureau has never presented a convincing case that its wiretapping capabilities are threatened. Yet it seeks to redesign the information infrastructure at an astronomical cost to the taxpayers." The nation's telephone companies have consistently stated that there have been no cases in which the needs of law enforcement have not been met. EPIC is a project of the Fund for Constitutional Government and Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. ================================================================ FBI Director Freeh's Recent Conflicting Statements on the Need for Digital Telephony Legislation _______________________________________________________________ Speech before the Executives' Club of Chicago, February 17: Development of technology is moving so rapidly that several hundred court-authorized surveillances already have been prevented by new technological impediments with advanced communications equipment. * * * Testimony before Congress on March 18: SEN. LEAHY: Have you had any -- for example, digital telephony, have you had any instances where you've had a court order for a wiretap that couldn't be executed because of digital telephony? MR. FREEH: We've had problems just short of that. And I was going to continue with my statement, but I won't now because I'd actually rather answer questions than read. We have instances of 91 cases -- this was based on a 1993 informal survey which the FBI did with respect to state and local law enforcement authorities. I can break that down for you. * * * Newsday interview on May 16: We've determined about 81 different instances around the country where we were not able to execute a court-authorized electronic surveillance order because of lack of access to that particular system - a digital switch, a digital loop or some blocking technology which we didn't have to deal with four or five years ago. * * * Speech before the American Law Institute on May 19: Within the last month, the FBI conducted an informal survey of federal and local law enforcement regarding recent techno- logical problems which revealed over 180 instances where law enforcement was precluded from implementing or fully implementing court orders [for electronic surveillance]. ============================================================

1 0

RE: Keepers of the keys
by jay holovacs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Aside from the privacy principle arguments, there is the very same logistics problem, securely keeping hundreds of millions of keys, fully up to date (many people and operations change keys every day or week) sufficiently secure as to be tamper-ptoof yet sufficently accessible to retrieve in 2-3 hrs as required by LEAs. They can't even keep much smaller amounts of INS info without major screw-ups. Interestingly, there is a special federal court which authorizes wire taps on foreign 'national security' targets. No request has ever been turned down. The only way to keep keys secure in the long run is to let the owners be responsible for their own security. ****************************************************** Jay Holovacs holovacs(a)idt.net PGP Annoy Big Brother -- use PGP ". . . one of the most difficult problems confronting law enforcement as the next century approaches" FBI Director Freeh ****************** ========================== >From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> >From: Joe Shea <joeshea(a)netcom.com> >To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> >Cc: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu >Subject: Re: FC: Brookings Inst. on crypto: "There are reasonable compromises" > > Declan, what would you think if the actual keepers of the keys, >so to speak, were the courts, such as the Administratoive Office of the >US Courts? That would at least seem to reduce a lot of the possible >privacy concerns. One has the sense that once they get into the hands of >the varius agencies, they'll get back out. >

1 0

remailers
by Loren Fleckenstein 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Can anyone supply me with a list of remailers? I'm writing an article for a general circulation newspaper on encryption, anonymous contact services and privacy in the Information Age. I want to provide readers with a list of remailing services. Also, what is the BBS tel. number at MIT to download PGP 2.6?

1 0

Re: e$
by Perry E. Metzger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Dixon says: > In message <9408091402.AA23089(a)snark.imsi.com> perry(a)imsi.com writes: > > > point. The US government does not object to the use of financial > > > instruments so long as they are backed by the US $ (or another > > > accepted currency). > > > > Yes it does. Bearer bonds are illegal in the US. > > Perhaps my use of terms was insufficiently precise. Bearer bonds do not > actually represent money in the same sense that a check does. Perhaps you don't actually know what it is that you are trying to say? > If A writes a check to 'cash', pays B with it, and B passes it on to > C, and so forth, are you saying that this is or will one day be illegal? If the check is written to "cash" and is used to avoid federal transfer reporting requirements, it is CURRENTLY illegal. I suspect that checks made out to "cash" would be illegal in all cases if they were widely used to avoid reporting requirements. Perry

1 0

No Subject
by loveinlife919＠usa.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<HTML><PRE><BODY BGCOLOR="#000000"> ATTRACT AND DATE THE BEAUTIFUL WOMEN OF YOUR DREAMS WITH AN INCREDIBLE NEW STEP BY STEP BOOK! If you have all the beautiful, sexy women you want in your life, read no further. If you are ready to make some major changes in your love life and you want to start dating more beautiful women than you ever believed possible... READ ON! Would you like to stop making the same mistakes 90% of the other guys are making? Would you like to be the man an attractive woman chooses over all the rest? Is it really possible to date ALL the sensational women you want? YES! You too can easily date beautiful women! Learn the secrets of success and you can easily attract the exciting women of the 90's! Now, you can be that man who stands out when it comes to women. You can be the man who walks confidently up to a gorgeous woman and soon has her totally charmed! Believe it or not, with the strategies in this book, any man can quickly and easily learn what it takes to attract beautiful women and keep their affections! What you'll learn in the few hours it takes to read our book will change your life! It doesn't matter what kind of success you've had with women in the past. This information will enable you to attract more beautiful, sexy women than you can handle! Don't spend another night alone - you can change your life and be meeting attractive women NOW! Don't pass up this opportunity to learn the simple secrets about women that will turn your love life around! You can use these methods on women you've just met or women you've known for years - they will work for you time after time! What really attracts gorgeous women and turns them on is very different than what you've been told. We offer you a training program with proven step by step guidelines for getting all the women you want! Here are just some of the things you will learn: * The fatal mistake 90% of men consistently make with women, ruining their chances every time. Changing this one thing will guarantee more success than you've ever had before! * How to approach an attractive woman so she'll want to meet you (...and what drives women away.) * What you can do to attract beautiful women like a magnet! * How to "break the ice" and how to talk to attractive women.... including what to say and what not to say. * How to turn a "no" into a "YES" when you ask her out. * Where to go and what to do (and not do) on a first date. * How to get her to WANT to date you again. * How to overcome the fear of rejection and gain confidence in any social situation. * How to avoid wasting your time and money on the wrong woman. * How to develop lasting relationships. This powerful, practical guide will reveal the facts... facts like... "Men ar basically visually stimulated while women are basically emotionally stimulated" Knowing what this really means and how it applies makes a huge difference in YOUR love life! This step by step book covers everything from when and where to meet a desirable woman, to enjoying a successful, lasting relationship. You will see through the illusions you've been taught to believe. We do not offer gimmicks or vague advice. In simple, easily understood language you will learn what really works and how you can easily duplicate these proven techniques. You will find chapter after chapter of specific information; we eliminate the guess work, confusion, and frustration. We teach you, step by step, how to utilize the way you present yourself to your own best advantage, making you irresistible to today's beautiful, sexy women! You'll be amazed how easy it really is to charm attractive women! For less than it costs for dinner and a movie, you can be on your way toward attracting and dating beautiful women. This book will literally save you money and pay for itself many times over! This book is available for only $49.95, but if you order within 10 days you only pay $24.95! We are so sure you will find this book immediately useful, we offer you a full 90 day money back guarantee - no questions asked - so how can you lose? This manual could make the difference in your life... the difference between having beautiful women in your life or just dreaming about them! PLUS, if you order now, as an added bonus you will receive absolutely FREE the fantastic new report "Rapid Start Dating Guide" If, after examining this book, you are not completely satisfied and ready to put these steps into action, you can return it for a full refund! Try our step by step approach presented to you for 90 days and are not meeting and dating more women, you can return this book in good condition, for a full refund... no questions asked. Either way, the free report is yours to keep! Order the book now!! (Cut here) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEET, ATTRACT AND DATE GORGEOUS WOMEN!!! BOOK ORDER INFORMATION THE BOOK YOU WISH TO ORDER IS (US) $49.95 EACH HOWEVER DURING OUR SPECIAL INTRODUCTORY OFFER FOR THE NEXT 10 DAYS..... YOU CAN ORDER IT NOW FOR ONLY (US) $24.95 EACH !!! SHIPPING COSTS: USA, Canada & Mexico $24.95 add $3.50 (Add US$12 for International) for shipping and handling. PLEASE ENTER YOUR TOTAL HERE: ___________________ ********************************************************** ** Please give us your name, E-mail address, and the postal ** ** address where you would like your book order to be sent. ** ********************************************************** YOUR FULL NAME: ____________________________________________ YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS: _______________________________________ YOUR TELEPHONE NUMBER: ___________________________________ YOUR FULL MAILING ADDRESS(Including City, State, Postal Code & Country): _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ *************************** *** PAYMENT INFORMATION *** *************************** METHOD OF PAYMENT: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ___ Master Card ___ Visa ___ American Express ___ Check ___ Money Orders CREDIT CARD INFORMATION: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NAME AS IT APPEARS ON CARD: ____________________________________ ACCOUNT NUMBER ON CARD: ______________________________________ EXPIRATION DATE ON CARD: _______________________________________ SIGNATURE: _____________________________________________________ ADDRESS WHERE YOU RECEIVE YOUR CREDIT CARD STATEMENTS: _______________________________________________________________ PAYING BY CHECK: (US Currency) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Please make checks payable and mail orders to: M.J.H. PO Box 14909 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-4909 ALL orders must be postal mailed!

1 0