December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

K. Mitnick
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks for all the info on K.Mitnick, the `dark side hacker'. Some have mailed me saying he changed his name and is living, got a job in security consulting or something like that (!), and is living in `2.5 kids land' Another few questions. I heard that the judge barred him from using a modem for life, or something like that. What was the sentence? How is it being enforced? Also, I assume that Mr. Mitnick changed his name legally (hee, hee). Anyway, I would like to email him, if anyone knows his address.

1 0

Black Market in Russia
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour, a PBS television show (for you non-U.S. residents), has a good report tonight on the black market in Russia. Mostly an emphasis on the "shuttle traders" who take chartered flights down to Dubai and stock up on massive amounts of stuff to sell back in Moscow. (An inefficient system, compared to the systems of shippping and mega-malls we have, but encouraging to see.) The traders then pay off customs inspectors, etc. Apparently Russians are doing better than official stats would indicate, similar to the way Italians are much wealthier than tax stats would suggest. I was heartened to see this report. All Cypherpunks, of course, are encouraged to see thriving black markets (or markets of color, to be politically correct about it). --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Key Servers
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I wonder if anyone would want to start a PGP key server dedicated only to *real* identities. Obviously, there is no such demand with the current ones. And please don't start with the `that would be impossible' arguments. A key server that had the official policy `if you register here, on your honor your legal name is what you give, under penalty of public exposure if you are caught' would be enough for me.

8 17

pseudospoofing, copyrights, and ECPA
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Some losers are still assaulting me with claims that I failed to respect His Royal Eminence's privacy by revealing his mailbomb to the list, saying I was not polite or courteous. Please, hypocrites, go away. Where does this bizarre philosophy originate? Where do you guys get your `ethics', anyway? At least have the decency to codify them, sign your names to them, and stick them on an FTP site if you are going to spout this bizarre depravity. Next: Mr. Zions, while one of the `protect the mailbombers privacy' advocates, brought up some interesting points. Does the ECPA (the law regulating communications privacy) or the copyright laws apply to material that was written under a *pseudonymous* identity? I would consider this a grey area. A court test would be extremely fascinating. What if work was redistributed if printed under imaginary identities? the whole aspect of both of the laws involves *ownership* and *identity*. If ECPA or copyright laws are interpreted to protect pseudonymous identities, I propose they be amended and revised to afford no protection. (Legitimate variations like pseudonymity and anonymity should be protected in any case.) One man's opinion. Feel free to stone me some more. Have you figured out who my personal friends are yet? Have you found any nifty blackmail on me? I can't wait for the next sordid perversion.

1 0

pseudopools
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

One application of pseudospoofing, a particularly insideous and treacherous form, would be to create a `pool' of different accounts. Everyone in the group can negotiate with each other `behind the scenes' when to post from different accounts. This would be even more difficult to detect than regular pseudospoofing (and, IMHO, even that much more of a perversion) because all traces of consistency of identity are subverted and lost.

1 0

Re: Key Servers
by jim＠bilbo.suite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

L. Detweiler writes: > I wonder if anyone would want to start a PGP key server > dedicated only to *real* identities. Obviously, there > is no such demand with the current ones. > > And please don't start with the `that would be > impossible' arguments. A key server that had the > official policy `if you register here, on your honor your > legal name is what you give, under penalty of public > exposure if you are caught' would be enough for me. > It's not PGP, but RSA, Inc. and others (Internet Policy Registration Authority) are already setting up a system for registering pubilc-keys that are "proven" to belong to actual humans. You can read about it in RSA's newletter available at their ftp site (rsa.com) The newsletter is called "Ciphertext - The RSA newsletter". Of course, their system for "proving" the identity of a human is not perfect. If you can obtain some fake IDs, you can defeat their public-key registration system. This is probably true for any non-biometric identification system. Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

1 0

cypherpunk archives?
by an12070＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm looking for an official cypherpunk document on `pseudospoofing' -- I looked all over soda.berkeley.edu:/pub/cypherpunks, but couldn't find one anywhere. Does anyone have one, preferrably written or endorsed by E.Hughes or T.C.May? Also, any messages they have posted on the subject sought. I have some stuff, but they seem extremely reluctant to talk about it publicly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

1 0

True Name Keyservers
by Mike Ingle 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>"ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu" "L. Detweiler" wrote: >Subject: Key Servers >I wonder if anyone would want to start a PGP key server dedicated only >to *real* identities. Obviously, there is no such demand with the current >ones. >And please don't start with the `that would be impossible' arguments. A >key server that had the official policy `if you register here, on your >honor your legal name is what you give, under penalty of public >exposure if you are caught' would be enough for me. That might be somewhat effective if there was a way to expose the person's True Name if they were caught using a nym. If the only thing to be exposed was the falsity of the nym, the person could just create a new nym, with no penalty for lying except a bit of inconvenience. Another approach would be to have some people who certify keys as being True Name keys, using special signer keys which are labeled "True Name certifier key" or something similar. These certifiers would be risking their own credibility if they were tricked, so they would have a motive to be careful. If this was a for-profit undertaking (i.e. "send me ten bucks and a copy of your birth certificate, driver's license, and a third form of ID") then it could be fairly effective. Any of you capitalists out there...? Somewhere I read about "is-a-person" certificates, which, if I remember correctly, allow you to prove your identity is unique without giving out your True Name. How do these work? Is this a blind signature of your key? Whatever is done involving True Names, nyms should have a right to exist as well. --- MikeIngle(a)delphi.com

2 1

EDM--Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've gotten a few requests already for info on the book I mentioned. I usually avoid giving ISBN numbers for folks to order a book sight unseen--if they're going to spend $50-70 for a book, they at least ought to flip through it in person and see if they really want it. (Sidenote: Must be the electronic age...often when I mention a paper on something, I get notes asking me where it's available online! I admire these Net-dwellers (no relation to Detweiler!), but the fact is that most of the good stuff is only in print. The reasons are many.) Anyway, here's the EDM info: > > > ObCrytp Note: Just got the English translation in paperback of the > > > Japanese-published "Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics," a large > > > 2-volume set with detailed articles on many branches of math. If the > > > math talked about in crypto is sometimes obscure to you, check this > > > out. The cost is $59, a real bargain these days. > MIT Press, ISBN 0-262-59020-4 (paperback), "Encyclopedic Dictionary of > Mathematics," Second Edition, edited by Kiyosi Ito, 1993. For $59, a real bargain. But if you don't have a fairly good crypto library (Schneier, especially, and perhaps Denning, Salomaa, Brassard, Simmons, etc.), then you'd probably do better to get some of them first. --Tim -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.

1 0

Info on L.Detweiler
by Graham Toal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <9311151727.AA17924(a)illuminati.IO.COM> cman(a)io.com "Douglas Barnes" writes: > Here's some info folks might appreciate (all numbers area code > 303, unless otherwise noted): Oh for christ's sake, knock it off! If the poor bastard really is going through a paranoid phase (and I'll bet there more of us on this list who've been there than would care to admit it) this is just the sort of thing to push him over the edge. If you can't ignore him, install procmail and put him in your killfile. If you escalate this into a petty netwar, just think how hard it's going to be for him when he finally starts to get over it. Would _you_ want to be in that position? I suppose someone posting from a site called 'Illuminati' thinks this is all very funny. I don't. Neither would you if you were above the age of 14. G -- Personal mail to gtoal(a)gtoal.com (I read it in the evenings) Business mail to gtoal(a)an-teallach.com (Be careful with the spelling!) Faxes to An Teallach Limited: +44 31 662 4678 Voice: +44 31 668 1550 x212

3 2

True Name keys
by Mike Ingle 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu" "L. Detweiler" complains: ><sigh> nobody is interested in preventing pseudospoofing here. the >people who have most maneuvered themselves into a position to aid >future cyberspace are instead constraining it. that's the point, isn't >it? gosh, how could I have been so blind... Not true at all. I proposed a more secure method, signing of keys by trusted certifiers, and JMDiehl said he'd look into implementing it. Warlord said that he didn't like the idea of having a separate network of keyservers for True Names, but that keys could be certified as True Name keys. Nobody said that they opposed the idea of True Name keys. Such certifications, especially if from multiple parties, would be much more secure than a network of keyservers. Remember that these exchange keys, and if you could hack one, you could put a phony key into the loop. JMDiehl: your service would be more widely trusted, and potentially profitable, if you bought a copy of ViaCrypt PGP for legality and charged a small fee for your services. If there is money and your reputation at stake, people will assume you are going to be more careful in checking keys, and they will trust your service more. You don't want any kind of automation; you want to verify each one before signing it. Warlord: Is there any way to clean out old keys from the keyservers? How about keeping track of when a key was uploaded, and killing them after a year or so. If a person wants to keep a key active, he can mail it to the keyserver again before the year runs out. The keyservers are full of old, dead, and revoked keys, and the number will continue to grow as more people use PGP. Present keys could be killed a year from now, or whenever. Detweiler: why don't you do it? You could advance your crusade and make some money in the process. Start a service to certify keys. If a key were certified by several services, you could be pretty sure of its authenticity. Everyone: is it possible to translate RIPEM keys into PGP keys? Can the signature be kept intact? Is it possible to use Mac signer keys for encryption as well as signing? Doesn't it seem just a bit political that the Mac system has RSA for signatures and a symmetric cryptosystem, but no public-key encryption? Maybe something could be done about this, but I don't have a Mac to try it. --- MikeIngle(a)delphi.com

4 4

UNIX: Chaos Gains Reliability
by Chael Hall 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, all, I am about six-thousand messages behind on the cypherpunks list, but I just wanted to tell everyone that I *finally* got a reliable kernel last night. The patch to my hard drive driver has been installed and verified to be avoiding the hang problems that chaos had. The system maintenance schedule has likewise been modified. It now reboots only at 5 am daily. If it holds up this week, I will change the reboot schedule to once a week (probably Sunday or Monday morning at 5 am CST). If anyone is interested in an account on chaos, they are freely available granted you have a good reason (i.e., intend to write code, be a productive user, etc.) by request. Telnet to chaos.bsu.edu (147.226.53.28) and login as guest (all lowercase). It will direct you through the account request procedure. **IMPORTANT** Chaos has very limited disk space (200 MB) right now. The planning committee has decided that once a reliable kernel has been installed (which I believe was yesterday), we would begin to solicit donations for an additional 500+ MB of storage. The deal is (and I think this is pretty fair), once the users have raised enough to pay for half of the new hard drive, I will chip in the rest. Anyone who donates money toward the acquisition of a new hard drive will be given extra space on the new drive (we haven't quite decided how it will be done, but two plans are: give donated users write access to an additional partition OR move their home directory to the new partition). Either way, all non-donated users will be the recipients of a brand-spanking-new QUOTA! I'm sorry, there just isn't the space. Oh, another thing, when the new drive arrives, it will supplement what is already there. The old hard drive will not be removed. Any comments? Reply in e-mail, this is not particularly relevant to cypherpunks. BTW, what does everyone think of the gopher site? I'm going to work on the FTP/NFS site some more one of these days. Chael Hall -- nowhere(a)chaos.bsu.edu nowhere(a)bsu-cs.bsu.edu chall(a)bsu.edu 00CCHALL(a)bsuvc.bsu.edu

1 0

Re: "Applied Cryptography" at Cody's
by Jef Poskanzer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>As of 14:30 today, Cody's in Berkeley has 4-1=3 copys of >"Applied Cryptography" by Schneier. One fewer as of 16:30. They had it hidden in the back room upstairs, but I made them file the rest in the math section. I'm about halfway through it now. It's pretty nifty! --- Jef

1 0

Re: LAW: Wireless interception
by karn＠qualcomm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike is correct that early models of cordless phones could often be picked up on broadcast radios. Their base stations transmitted just above the AM broadcast band (in the 1.7 Mhz region). Since then, all new cordless phones operate on the 46 and 49 Mhz bands, which generally require a scanner to receive. However, cell phones still operate in what used to be UHF TV channels 70-83, and it is still possible in some cases to intercept cell phone calls on a UHF TV set. So much for *that* theory. :-) I still think my original explanation for the ECPA's distinction between cordless and cellular phones is the dominant one. Phil

3 2

D. Barnes
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>You have become major pest, you have done more than anyone else to >disrupt this list and make it next to impossible for real work to get >done on it (including work that would help mitigate problems of the >kind you believe your "enemies" are perpetrating on you.) please, characterize this `work' and your own involvement in it. >we don't see pseudospoofing as a "danger" like you >do. Personally, I consider it a necessity. I like being able to hide >behind an anonymous identity (not that I do, mind you). I don't see >pseudospoofing as "constraining". On the contrary, I see it as >freeing us. oh.

1 0

*hot* pseudospoofing ideas!
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

here's an interesting idea. Suppose that whenever cypherpunks in favor of pseudospoofing emailed me, I put all their posts into a big pot. Since they all advocate the same ideas, I would just file all the different paragraphs in favor of pseudanonymity, against democracy, in favor of anarchy, in favor of tax evasion etc. in different folders. Then, whenever one of the cypherpunks sends me mail, I just pick a paragraph at random from the folders that match his idea. I could do this with public postings too. I have been filling out very many form letters lately anyway on the same old tired, depraved ideas. And I might even have a lot of fun with misattributing people's writing. That would be quite clever! I'm sure the cypherpunks would get a great kick out of that. The blurring of identities is perfect. No one would know who said what! Why, I might even put together software that promotes all this, and turn it loose on the Cypherpunks list (but of course, not tell anyone--that would take all the fun of it, and besides, if they knew they might leave). There's nothing unethical about it, because I *can* do it. It would be like those scenarios right out of that great science fiction, like Enders Game. I could pretend that different cypherpunks existed. No one would care. The effect would be the same. They are all interchangeable anyway. there is only a message.

1 0

Re: *hot* pseudospoofing ideas!
by Jef Poskanzer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>here's an interesting idea. Suppose that whenever cypherpunks in favor >of pseudospoofing emailed me, I put all their posts into a big pot.... Say.... Does anyone have an archive of Detweiler's messages handy? There's this nifty program called "travesty" that I suddenly have an urge to play with. --- Jef

1 0

A Glimmer of Light
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Some miscellaneous psychopunk (I forget who, they are all interchangeable) said >> <sigh> nobody is interested in preventing pseudospoofing here. the >> people who have most maneuvered themselves into a position to aid >> future cyberspace are instead constraining it. that's the point, isn't >> it? gosh, how could I have been so blind... > >I think its because we don't see pseudospoofing as a "danger" like you >do. Personally, I consider it a necessity. I like being able to hide >behind an anonymous identity (not that I do, mind you). I don't see >pseudospoofing as "constraining". On the contrary, I see it as >freeing us. wow! a break in the clouds! a breath of fresh air! who is `we'? please elaborate! This miscellaneous psychopunk is posting from MIT. Do you think his burdensome flesh-cucoon is in Boston? or California? AT LAST! HONESTY! (even if it is criminal or perverted) Psychopunks, I'm most impressed with this new atmosphere of open advocation of pseudoanonymity instead of all the black disinformation snippets about `true anonymity' and all the other nonsense about it not being widespread, no cypherpunks being personally involved, etc. for the dreary 10 months or so I've been here. What trouble and heartache for all of us you have caused me in pretending it isn't! Finally, they Come Out of the Closet. Imagine -- having to hide in your own neighborhood for so long. Really, it's all right. There, there. When will the articles on Pseudospoofing come out in Wired and NYT? Oh, let's see, there's Newsweek and all those other places too. Please, tell me, I'm really in a tizzy. I'll have to call Mr. Kelly and Mr. Markoff and tell them of your new openness. I'm sure they will be quite interested! So, I would like to collect a list of all the Psychopunks who are PSEUDOSPOOFERS and PROUD OF IT. Please, describe your lovely techniques, all the pain and victimization you have gone through from your tormenters (like me), and how you are going to Change the World so that Pseudospoofers can Live without Harassment. `Live and Let Live'. Sort of like Gay Pride. When are you going to stick it in your charter, anyway? How pseudospoofing == privacy == anonymity == pseudoanonymity == pseudonymity == holy liberation == bliss? What a delicious mystery. Life a SF book by Card. What a Card. Also, I'm still waiting for some kind of comment from those *fabulous* leaders of yours. They're so coy with me. They've been flirting with me since I've been on the list. It's really sexy and erotic, actually, the way they strut around. You can look, but you can't touch! They're real masters at the dance. Ooooooh... just FABULOUTHS.

1 0

some pseudopool FUN
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

S.Boxx: > <sigh> nobody is interested in preventing pseudospoofing here. the > people who have most maneuvered themselves into a position to aid > future cyberspace are instead constraining it. that's the point, isn't > it? gosh, how could I have been so blind... T.C.May: >I think its because we don't see pseudospoofing as a "danger" like you >do. Personally, I consider it a necessity. I like being able to hide >behind an anonymous identity (not that I do, mind you). I don't see >pseudospoofing as "constraining". On the contrary, I see it as >freeing us. E.Hughes, on Pseudospoofing software >No the software isn't mine, but I consider myself it's God Father. >Tim May and I were talking about this a long >time, and he just beat me to learning enough PERL to write the thing. >But I'd like to think that the two of us did most all of the design of >it. So, in a way, it is my software. Nick Szabo: >As an example, look at Ender's Game, where Ender's brother and sister >get on the net under pseudonyms, and get treated just like everyone >else. There is no biases. People are judged on their actions and >words, not by who they are, how old they are, what they look like, or >anything like that. Maybe you are blind, I don't know. I've never >met you. Arthur Chandler: >And, as I said, it is not the job of the Keyserver to provide any sort >of policy. The job of the Keyserver is to distribute keys. Nothing >more. Nothing less. The job of identifying True Names is solely a >job for Digital Signatures, not a job for the Keyserver. Jamie Dinkelacker: >I oppose using it in a bogus fashion because the software is not >designed for such a use, there is absolutely no protection for it (any >key can be added), because I, and all the other Keyserver admins, >believe that all the keyservers should be interconnected, and because >I feel the job for determining a True Name on a key is a job for >Digital Signatures, not for the Keyserver. Perry Metzger: >I am a cypherpunk. I don't believe in trusting something on faith >alone, but you seem to be asking for that. There is no way to protect >such a reckless use of the Keyserver. The only way to provide a >secure way for True Names is to Cryptographically identify them. Hal Finney: >So, Mr. Detweiler, why do you oppose using Digital Signatures to >verify True Names? I mean, besides that you consider yourself a >Cypherpunk? ;-)

2 2

Re: The Contortions of Cypherpunks
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>N.Szabo <szabo(a)netcom.com> in RISKS > >>I'd like to assure the readers of RISKS that I am in fact a unique person, >>distinct from the other names L. Detweiler listed. Of the people on his list >>I know from personal contact, all are distinct people in Real Life(tm). > >Give specific evidence to support your claim or retract it. Who do you >know from personal contact? What do you mean that you are `distinct >from other names'? I have had lunch with both Tim May and Nick Szabo, and can verify that they simultaneously sat in different seats, wore different clothes, ate different lunches, and had different quantities of facial hair. I have, further, had lunch with Perry Metzger on another occasion and will testify that he is, to the best of my ability to ascertain, neither of the aforementioned people. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

ANON: pseudospoofing confusion
by Karl Lui Barrus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Does the ECPA (the law regulating communications privacy) or the >copyright laws apply to material that was written under a >*pseudonymous* identity? I would consider this a grey area. A court Well, there may be some legal precedent to look up: some of the greatest works of literature were published under "pseudonymous" identities. Lewis Carroll, George Orwell, Mark Twain, George Eliot: none of these people ever existed. In fact, Mary Ann Evans published under "George Eliot" in order to pretend to be male; I guess you could call her master pseudospoofer, since she specifically created a fake identity in order to fool others. I suppose "Publius" doesn't qualify as a pseudospoofer since the three gentlemen who were responsible for the _Federalist Papers_ were probably just trying to hide their identity (at first) and not go about creating new ones. I'm sort of fuzzy on the distinction between pseudonymous and pseudoanonymous; is it that a pseudonym is obviously so? For example, an id on anon.penet.fi is obviously a pseudonym, so if I were to use it, I would be pseudonymous. In a sense, every mail address you see here is a pseudonym. Now, pseudoanonymous is when a fake identity is created, without it being obviously so. (Right?) So if I were to obtain another account with a different user name, etc. and use that account, I would be pseudospoofing. (?) But the difference between these two seems so slight, a semantic one rather than practical. For example, suppose several people were in communication with someone they had never met. One person (of the several) is curious as to the identity of the mystery person, and tries to find out information about this person. Very little is turned up. So little, it could be that the mystery person is "pseudoanonymous", a fake identity. Are the several people being pseudospoofed? How can they tell one way or the other without actually meeting the mystery person? If they can't tell, then what difference does it make? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLOcsTYOA7OpLWtYzAQFKzAQAyx5MNNNyjs/BeJLLqM0EX5A0ZQADCLge fNkndrgT/nSWiVGubE58girFQdNZlI5a50swKeKOqEHo8zxdqYSEIw8mrAm8iXeB mH5uOi2KHpxuWHQ+nkgmEi+KKkFNI6PQH7jR0euVPgu+GZsj40V52mJ9Z9ZYP/EV GvE6VvFkux8= =CA2o -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

the Pseudospoofer Game
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey guys, you are so clever with the cyberspatial software tricks. Here's something I think you should come up with. THE PSEUDOSPOOFING GAME I haven't got all the details of this worked out yet, but bear with me. The scenario is that this would be a game you play on a machine that is a lot like a mail server, except that it is dedicated to the game and everyone knows it (I know you guys won't like that idea, but bear with me.) The object of the game is to uncover each other's true identities. When you start the game, there are a certain number of other real people out there. They all get a fixed number of `pseudoanonyms' (of course, names that look real but aren't). There would be both public and private postings. You have to try to determine who everyone is by analyzing their style and subjects (and of course, evade detection with ingenious cypherpunk techniques). You could use any of your tentacles in any way, public or private, just like on this list (which is a great inspiration for the game, BTW). Every once in awhile, you might make accusations on true reputations, after you have built up enough certainty. The points of the game would depend on how correct you are. You might `bet' different points on various identities. You might be able to bargain with others to collude with you by trading points or something. Maybe there is some kind of mechanisms whereby tentacles are weakened after a lot of accusations or something. Obviously, the possibilities are really endless. All the agent provacateur, double agent, etc. gimmicks you inflicted on me (your white lab rat) could be used there. Maybe `credit' could be synonymous with `reputation' -- when you flame someone successfully others can transfer points between the two, rate your reputations explicitly. You could always rate other people at any time. There might be `public ratings' that are the averages of all the private ratings that everyone knows about. These ratings might tend to fluctuate based on behavior. For example, when somebody lies their rating would go down if other's suspected it. If someone was a hypocrite, it would come back to haunt them in the `bottom line'. The more confused and insane you drive someone with disinformation and lies (dishonesty is the name of the game, after all!) the better. Who knows, you might be able to *really* upset someone over nothing but meaningless ASCII text! Nothing but messages. That would be their own fault for taking it seriously. These `pseudospoofed virgins' should be raped for great sport and satisfaction. You could get together afterwards and drink a few beers and brag about your scores and conquests, and how they wailed or cried at the end. I suppose you could even figure out how to have imaginary postmasters that can censor various real identities if their reputations drop too low, or some other capricious criteria. Maybe you could even design in mail bombs. I'm sure you guys could bang this whole thing together pretty fast, with all your skill, ambition, and practice. But you might have difficulty attracting players if you want to keep it secret and all to yourselves. Another thing, is that everyone would learn about pseudospoofing. That is what you want, right? Since it's their stupidity if they fall for this kind of puerile fantasy, it's an ideal situation if *everyone* knows about it. The Cypherpunk Way.

1 0

LD Admits he is S.Boxx (oops!)
by Mike Ingle 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

LD really blew it this time. One has to be very careful when one maintains multiple identities - it is easy to mix them up and reveal one's deception. As we will see: In the following message, LD quotes S.Boxx: =========================================================================== From: IN%"ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu" "L. Detweiler" 15-NOV-1993 To: IN%"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" CC: IN%"ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu" Subj: some pseudopool FUN S.Boxx: > <sigh> nobody is interested in preventing pseudospoofing here. the > people who have most maneuvered themselves into a position to aid > future cyberspace are instead constraining it. that's the point, isn't > it? gosh, how could I have been so blind... =========================================================================== However, that quote was not from S.Boxx. It was from (who else?) LD himself, in this message: =========================================================================== From: IN%"ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu" "L. Detweiler" 14-NOV-1993 To: IN%"warlord(a)MIT.EDU" "Derek Atkins" CC: IN%"ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu" "L. Detweiler", IN%"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" Subj: RE: Key Servers >> I wonder if anyone would want to start a PGP key server dedicated only >> to *real* identities. Obviously, there is no such demand with the >> current ones. > >This defeats the purpose for which the PGP Keyservers were created. >The Keyservers were created to give a *SINGLE* place where you could >go to request a PGP key for some name (and it doesn't matter whether >that name is real or not). <sigh> nobody is interested in preventing pseudospoofing here. the people who have most maneuvered themselves into a position to aid future cyberspace are instead constraining it. that's the point, isn't it? gosh, how could I have been so blind... =========================================================================== Now, LD wrote that quote himself. How could he forget that? How could he mistakenly attribute it to S.Boxx, unless he is S.Boxx? In this message, LD makes a very valid point: =========================================================================== From: IN%"ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu" "L. Detweiler" 14-NOV-1993 To: IN%"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" CC: IN%"ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu" Subj: Soothing Sayings Mr. Barnes, you tried to convince me of the Joy of Pseudospoofing, for which I suggested you were trying to convert me to the Dark Side (actually, I am indebtedly grateful for that beautiful inspiration for my essay). You told me that E.Hughes' lectures on the subject of pseudospoofing were what drew you to it in the first place! But this is buried very deep in my comprehensive archives, from many weeks ago. (I encourage all other cypherpunks to keep very good archives, because some day we will be able to separate all the pseudospoofed identities from real ones, and it will be quite shocking, I assure you. Some prominent cypherpunks are extremely terrified and staunchly opposed to archives, for obvious reasons.) =========================================================================== Yes, LD, good archives certainly do help in catching pseudospoofers. Like you. You have been using S.Boxx to post some of your rants and create a false consensus - exactly what you have argued against so loudly. How hypocritical can you get? Why don't we post this on comp.risks and discredit him and his rants once and for all? Enough of this crap! --- MikeIngle(a)delphi.com

1 0

The unmentionable word
by bart＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm kind of glad not to have just used filter to remove all of his posts sight unseen. Better to see, and note their frequency. Sadly when I instantly hit delete for them and their replies, there is very little left on the list. It's hard to maintain a coherent conversation in the presence of his raving. Won't he ever run down? Sigh Bart

1 0

souls and Multiple Personality Disorder
by an12070＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When a baby is born, a soul enters the world. When a person dies, a soul exits. Reality is like the Internet. There are legitimate ways for souls to enter and illegitimate ways. You could be `born' under your true name, or you could get in through the subversive route and infect an outlet susceptible to Multiple Personality Disorder, or possess someone. It's very difficult to detect, of course! When it happens, Call 1-800-EXORCIST ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

3 2