December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?
by Mike Godwin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perry writes: > Mike Godwin says: > > But cable service would be far more valuable to me (and I'd pay more for > > it) if I could, say, upload a video of my little girl taking her first > > steps and send it to Tim. (Not that he'd necessarily pay for that > > privilege, but you get the idea.) > > Why do we need government for this? We don't. We need private providers for this. > Seems to me that bandwidth is > going to be nearly free in both directions in a few years whether > government intervenes or not. I agree about the potential for it to be free, but, I gotta tell you, the monopolists running the cable systems in this country have no inclination to share that nearly free bandwidth with you, even if you're willing to pay for access to it. In order to get to a world in which free markets can meet our demand for high-bandwidth connectivity, we have to dig ourselves out from the market-failure position we're in now. And because government is part of the problem, changing government policy is part of the solution. So, that's one of the major thrusts of EFF's NII policy. --Mike

4 8

Fwd: [gtoal@an-teallach.com (Graham Toal)]Info on Clipper chip and fabrication of it
by Postmaster＠cproject.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <9311092013.AA09822(a)vangogh.VIS.ColoState.EDU> nate(a)vis.colostate.edu writes: > Last I heard, hte model of the ARM series used in the Newton (the > ARM 610 processor) cranked out about 30,000 Drystones and used > _very_ little power. Oh boy, wait till the guys on comp.sys.acorn hear about this! I can tell why the arm was chosen: it comes as a drop-in circuit that manufacturers can use in their own designs. Not many of the other low-power fast CPUs are available like this. And its very small, and blindingly fast. 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

1 0

re: Should we build the Data Superhighway/NII
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

DISCLAIMER; This is for the private reading of the members of the Cypherpunks list, and may not be redistributed without permission. The opinions expressed are strictly my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ameritech or it's alliance partners. My two bits on the data highway; - on universal access Ameritech, the consortium of the five regional midwest RBOC's filed a plan for complete deregulation and access to the local loop the first week in March under the title of "Advanced Universal Access" The gist of it? If you remove the regulations against us competeing in everyone elses markets, we will allow and provide complete unbundled access to the local loop. Number plan the whole bit, right to the copper pair if you want. My two bits? we don't have any problem with any and all forms of competition. Do you want "Universal Access"? Then all participants have to share the costs involved. In Illinois alone there are more than 30 companies providing local loop service, each functions as a "Monopoly" within it's geographic area. Sprint the long distance company owns and is a "Local Loop Monopoly" in about 8 areas that I recall,(This was the result of there purchase of Centel) GTE, all the big boys are here. Large corporate customers are directly connected with long distance carriers without touching the local loop. - Bell Atlantic and TCI merger? couldn't care less, bring them on! I am involved with a number of projects that pertain to the "Data Highway" concept. - The Extended classroom, part of the "Superschools" project. This will provide E-mail services and basic info services to K-12 students. The next stage calls for Internet/Usenet Access and interactive MultiMedia (Hyperlearning) access. - Health services network, this is already providing shared info between various medical agencies and hospitals, it is limited right now by regulatory restrictions. - Announced just this morning....Ameritech has announced an alliance with Citibank to provide for "Display Telephone" access to Citibank financial services, this will also provide access to directory services and advanced telephone services. This is basically a variation of the French "Minitel" system from the look of it. I intend on pushing for Internet/Usenet access as well. Of course this is only the start, got an idea for a service? give us a call. All are welcome, I expect to see numerous "Garage" startups providing content of all sorts. - Video Dialtone, basically a piece of cake if you have the bandwidth, currently works well down to T-1 speeds (1.54 MPS) The Battle to build the "Superhighway" has been called the battle of 250 million trenches. This refers to the notion that 250 million sections of local loop will have to be replaced with fiber eventually. It's true that ISDN can play a part and ADSL (Asymetrical digital subscriber loop) which has been successfully tested at 3MPS over UTP and should clear 6MPS in the next 6 months will help fill the gaps. Some Cable companies will have their own offerings, as will various "Telecosm" pioneers we've yet to see. The cost of building the initial "Fibersphere" has been estimated at 250 billion dollars. Who's going to foot the bill? The existing cable plant is more than sufficient for the services the telco's are currently permitted to offer. We've made our point clear ( see the FCC filing "Advanced Universal Access") Turn us loose, and we'll build it, or at least contribute to it, ;) and equal access will be provided to all competitors. We're going to build it anyway, " Are you with me men!" Brian Williams Cypherpatriot Extropian * Telecosm and Fibersphere are from the works of futurist George Gilder, his work is highly recommended. * Hyperlearning is from the work of Lewis J. Perelman particularly "Schools Out, Hyperlearning, the new technology, and the end of education." Also highly recommended.

2 1

Re: Are we gatewayed to Usenet?
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think there's a difference between a gateway into USENET and a gateway from USENET. The latter would give us a feed from Sternlight, Pope, et al. - Carl

1 0

Applications of cryptography
by an41418＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My apologies for getting caught up in the political momentum of the Private vs. Public debate on income tax. It was too tempting... Anyway, back to wondering. I am trying to compile information about the different applications of cryptography. I would like to create something like the handbook of cryptography. Some examples that come to mind are: digital cash, DC nets, coin flipping, mental poker, digital signatures, secure communication, encrypted file systems, etc. Any help will be appreciated. If people respond to me directly, I will post a summary to the list, and maybe distribute the handbook if it is a successful project in a few months. Thanks, Wonderer ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

oops
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

please ignore the previous message (I must be tired). Access from the net to cpunx is already trivial. so much for that.

1 0

AT&T encryption software
by Philippe Nave 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, well, well. I should have guessed that we [AT&T] would scramble onto the encryption software bandwagon sooner or later. Buried in the bowels of the PBX business, I haven't heard anything about the product yet, but that's about par for the course. I would like to strongly encourage anybody who can get a copy of this product to examine it thoroughly; my gut feel is *bad*, but I'll need some concrete facts if I am to present a dissenting view. Sooner or later, the PC lab guys will probably be installing this thing on our PCs and we'll be the 'vanguard of the future' (again!). I am particularly interested in whether this package is interoperable with PGP- for some reason, I tend to doubt it <tired grin>. [If any of you were wondering whether or not I 'speak for AT&T', this posting should remove all doubt..] ........................................................................ Philippe D. Nave, Jr. | The person who does not use message encryption pdn(a)dwroll.dw.att.com | will soon be at the mercy of those who DO... Denver, Colorado USA | PGP public key: by arrangement.

1 0

Hardware for Sale
by abootch＠sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FYI -- Noticed in new ish of 2600 an ad for Consumertronics in NM selling Tempest, Van Eck systems, KX Radar Emitter -- and more (of course). No free catalog, tho'. -- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.3a mQBNAizdNhgAAAECAKYlJfK4YQoaRYtiywdgR7OQmsS23oRFr3QYZf4mE1pQTvPg DGB7xVx2mfRjsqUdQsar4vdWyNZmXLMmHNdez9UABRG0K0FuZHkgSS4gTWF0aW5v ZyA8YWJvb3RjaEBzZnN1dmF4MS5zZnN1LmVkdT4= =KJFP -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Re: Is Clipper Almost Dead? (was: Clipper and Tipper on Route 666)
by owen＠autodesk.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Clark Reynard <clark(a)metal.psu.edu> > I think it would be very important if we could attempt to > sway the Christian right into this; it is certain we > probably don't agree on many issues, and the "700 Club" > anti-Clipper piece was very effective, good video. > > If you don't believe me, watch it. They almost seem > to agree with us entirely on the issue of cryptography. > Perhaps it's time for a _new_ group; the cyphermonks. > > I nominate St. John the Divine as a patron saint. Don Corleone taught his son Michael to *keep his friends close, and his enemys closer*. meanwhile, don't forget for a second that the christian right *will* toss your anarchic ass on the pyre where they *will* roast pagan faggots like myself after they've squeezed you for your support. Religion has it's protection clearly enumerated in the constitution, and a clear agenda to keep everyone elses freedom from being similary enumerated. Caveat emptor, and carry a loaded flamethrower, because the first chance they get to cut you out of the deal you will need it. Me, I plan to be long gone into the "Inner Zone (TM)". LUX ./. owen

1 0

Re: Big Mother can't protect our privacy
by cfrye＠ciis.mitre.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim writes: > >(* MMPI is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Index test, which >sounds like the test described here. It has a couple of thousand of >these questions. Without defending the analytical powers of this test, >let me say that the intent is psychological, not political. The >famoous questions about believing in God, having homosexual >experiences, washing one's hands, and so on, are devised by shrinks, >not designed to ferret out atheists and homos. The MMPI has been in >wide use since the 1950s, though it's use is declining as people file >lawsuits over it.) > It should also be noted that the MMPI is designed to diagnose abnormal personalities, while the California Personality Inventory (CPI) is designed to diagnose more or less normal personality traits. It seems that companies indiscriminately giving the MMPI to individuals without suspision of neurotic/ psychotic tendencies would open themselves up for a solid thumping in court. P.S. - I noticed a book on the statistical basis of the MMPI in the psychology section of Border's Bookstore in Tysons Corner, VA, a few months ago. If there's interest, I could look for a citation on my next trip there. Curtis D. Frye cfrye(a)ciis.mitre.org "If you think I speak for MITRE, I'll tell you how much they pay me and make you feel foolish."

1 0

Privacy, Property, Cryptography (long)
by Dark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I guess this is particularly political, but I thought it interesting enough to attach to cypherpunks. Subject matter appropriateness flames by E-Mail please. Questions of Privacy and Property: How Encryption narrows the focus. - -> There is no right to privacy in this country. The much touted "Right to privacy" is a common law conception and invention that, for the most part, has little foundation. There are constitutional provisions that _suggest_ privacy, but none that "assure" it. To enforce a right to privacy in court, judges have to do a lot of reaching. I can't recall who it was, but some cypherpunk mentioned that they had not consented to the "social contract" or "convention" that gave the government the right to "violate" their "privacy" or collect data on them. I agree with you on principal (oh, unnamed privacy patron) but unfortunately logically I can't. Your natural rights approach to the rights of privacy is limited in that, unlike other rights founded in a Natural Rights / Victorian legal thought fashion, privacy has no logical precedent in the state of nature. When you see assertions of Natural Rights concepts, they tend to work down from grand principals. In the past, these principals have their root in a concept of the "State of Nature" or the Creation myth. e.g., Property exists and is enforceable because God created the Earth for common use, and what you take, and can reasonably put to use, becomes yours by means of the labor you put into it (Locke). How to find these precedents with regards to privacy is quite beyond me. It seems almost ingrained in the culture of Natural Rights that the Divine was all knowing. It leaves little basis to find a protection for privacy in Natural Rights theory. So move to the more progressive social convention theories. These are almost always more empowering to the judicial system, with a concept that the judge was not just a tool to enforce law, but to shape it as well. In the 1920's-30's we begin to see more and more frequent legal applications of nebulous "balancing tests" to replace the bright line rules as a result. Unfortunately the departure of the formalist approach takes with it the notion of the public and private spheres distinction. The progressive movement began to blend the spheres, and what distinction was left between them was gelded by the notion that the public sphere was the larger and more important of the two. Farewell individual rights, hello good of the collective. I think this is much of the reason that the appeal to the absolute right of privacy gets little attention today. Instead we see privacy taking a back seat to public elements like the war on drugs and national security. Avoiding for a moment the basic conflict between security and liberty, so long as the "establishment" can assert that a particular action is for the good of the public, it will justify the removal of any right or privilege. Turn for a second to the nature of right and privilege. Privacy is really not a right to begin with but a privilege. Before you get up in arms, and make analogies to driver's licenses, consider the following, courtesy of Hohfield. Every entitlement is either a right or a privilege. All rights have corresponding duties, (by definition in Hohfield's explanation) privileges by contrast are met on the other side by the existence of a no-right. For example: If I verbally assault Tom on the street, he has no legal recourse. I have the privilege of verbal assault, and Tom has a no-right relationship with my privilege. He has no right to redress. If I burn down Tom's house, Tom has had his right (to use and enjoyment of land) violated, and as a result, I have a duty not to infringe on that right. Privacy in the past has fit nicely into the privilege hole. It wasn't that you had a right to privacy, but rather that everyone else had no-right to pry. Privacy was in a Hohfieldian manner, a privilege. Today this changes. Privacy, or more accurately LACK OF PRIVACY, is now a duty. The social security administration has a RIGHT to assign you a number. The IRS has a RIGHT to poke around. The FBI has a RIGHT to tap your phone (with cause, [or not]). We have gone from a privilege to the opposite side of a right, a duty in effect. Enter cryptography. Now we have the means to protect our information. Technology makes it easier to avoid the "duty" of disclosure. One way or another, something will give. Privacy is on the fence right now with a movement to a government entitlement against it. Cryptography will either force the hand, or force a backdown. Which one is a matter of conjecture. Personally I would like to see the elements of privacy become guarded by right to privacy, with the typical bundle of property rights that follows such a designation. Right to use, right to exclude, right to transfer the property of information, personal or proprietary. This opens the door for more radical injunctive and money damage relief for the violation of these rights than is currently available. It is with this goal in mind that I approach my support of cypherpunks and cryptography. No one in my mind has a right to intrude and it is entirely counterintuitive to expect citizens to submit to a duty of disclosure as is the current practice and direction. Even with respect to business and banking, the only reason identity has become important is with the rise of the credit transaction. There is simply no need for identity disclosure with cash transactions. Numbered bank accounts and even lines of credit exist and will continue to prosper. Thank you for your time and attention. :) - -uni- (Dark) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLOFzGxibHbaiMfO5AQHSqAP/Z/yfWAOAA7vh1+KqaRbBgiRa2wnt59As 2Y+K0KvhZCdwBScR/Ft4ewAvHnu3JFKG4NYUSJ1IYlasQ23YjYZOkE0YxatDMY35 X/P2AF5oX3WTV0zGNsMFX88uUeJUTx83yCt24o+ZgX+FxM5aNDuNME1LDH2voatP mFdiGatQhS4= =7SjQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

cypherpunks hardware list
by jdblair＠lust.cas.muohio.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To all of those interested in the cypherpunks hardware list: I apoligize for the delay- I expected to have it on-line by now. It is really close to running, I'm just getting some errors from the ListProc software that my SysAdmin is ironing out right now. It should be running within 24 hours. later, -john.

1 0

Re: Modem taps/Caller ID
by mycal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 8 Nov 1993 13:05:58 -1000 (HST), "Timothy Newsham" <newsham(a)wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu> wrote: > The number is transmitted in ascii at 1200 bits per second. The > standard used to transmit the data is not the "normal" 1200 bps > mode of your modem. Normally 1200 bps is accomplished by sending > > I have no idea how you would get your modem to go into the right > mode (and how it would react to data on the line before it goes > off hook). > The 1200 bps it uses is called bell 202, kinda reminds me of the old days with an apple, an apple cat modem, and first disfer then catsend and catfer... Hmmm maybe I can dust off that apple cat modem and use it for caller ID :) The apple cat modem is the only modem I know of that supported this flavor of 1200bps, which was great for short bursts of data with little syncronization neccary. mycal

1 0

Re: (fwd) Clipper and Tipper on Route 666
by owen＠autodesk.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> To: tcmay(a)netcom.netcom.com (Timothy C. May) > Tim May suggests we called the "Data Superhighway" > > > "Route 666." > > In Unix file permissions 666 means the file is readable by > world. Apropos for a panoptic net where encryption is banned > or "Clipped". There is an actual route 666, its in New Mexico or Arizona. A t shirt manufacturer here in SF prints up a version of the sign on a black shirt. one of my favorite *cruising* shirts BTW :-) LUX ./. owen

1 0

Re: Wired 1.6 is not yet publically available
by trestrab＠GVSU.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May (tcmay(a)netcom.com) wrote: >A couple of you have asked about "Wired" and the availability of the >new issue, 1.6. Especially as the first "monthly" issue, 1.5, has >only been out a few weeks. (And it mentions a strange thing >called "BlackNet" on page 32, as sharp observers have >noted.) >I've been told by Sandy Sandfort that the issue is not yet on the >newstands, and may not even be sent out to contributor and >subscribers for a couple more weeks....so no point in >looking for it now. How'd I get one, then? "Wired" 1.6 was on the newstands in West. Michigan today. Jeff -- .......................................................................... 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

random dot stereo code
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have just uploaded to soda a file of code for generating random dot stereograms, as well as the following short description file. This is the code to which I referred a month ago or so. I'm going to play with the code myself as soon as I have time, but because of the expressed interest, I thought I'd give the rest of the list a crack at it as soon as I got permission. - cme ==================================================================== The file stereo.tar.gz holds code for generating random dot stereograms which I discussed earlier on the list. This code is not mine. I received it from a friend of the man who wrote it. She assures me that he doesn't care who uses the code or for what. I haven't run this code myself. - Carl cme(a)sw.stratus.com

1 0

MPJ2 Encryption Algorithm
by mpjohnso＠nyx10.cs.du.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For a sneak preview of the MPJ2 Encryption Algorithm article I just submitted to the IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, anonymous ftp to csn.org and look in the mpj directory or call my BBS at 303-938-9654. I used the same mechanism used by rsa.com to isolate the nonexportable stuff (source code, programs) from the Constitutionally protected publication (article describing the algorithm). Seems strange to me, but if it works for the Department of State and rsa.com thinks it won't get them in trouble, then I guess I'm not sticking my neck out too far. Any technical types among you want to take a look at the algorithm and tell me what you think about its security? I've been trying to break it for several years, but I'm just an amateur who reads a lot. Why MPJ2 and not just IDEA or 3DES? Never put all your crypto eggs in one basket. Besides, MPJ2 is royalty-free. Go build some useful code or hardware. (MPJ2 is faster and simpler in hardware, once the key is set up). Mike Johnson mpj(a)csn.org (aka mpjohnso(a)nyx.cs.du.edu) Never thumb your nose at a giant, but don't let the giant intimidate the life out of you. -- Jack's Goose.

1 0

Elm Filtering on CC???
by hatzm＠bigbird.cso.gtegsc.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is it possible to get Elm's filter to pick out messages that are cc'd to the cypherpunks list? I would like to keep all the cypherpunk mail in one place and have no trouble getting it properly copied when the message is "to" the cypherpunks list. I'm just not sure how to work on the CC part. Thanks! Mike

1 0

Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?
by fnerd＠smds.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Godwin sez > In order to get to a world in which free markets can meet our demand for > high-bandwidth connectivity, we have to dig ourselves out from the > market-failure position we're in now. And because government is part of > the problem, changing government policy is part of the solution. So, > that's one of the major thrusts of EFF's NII policy. As I understand it, for both telephones and cable TV, it is still common for local governments to "grant" "franchises" to single companies for phone and cable wires. If there were one thing to change, that would be it. In other words, the "market failure" you're talking about is in a situation where the law forbids a market. And the change required is that the government not be involved. It would be nice if that were how EFF stated its NII policy: Yankee Go Home. Also, isn't the FCC is somehow involved in defining cable and telephone services, and what combinations of services companies are allowed to offer? Or am I thinking of "information providers" vs....something? Here again, the limitation is merely in what's legal. -fnerd(a)smds.com quote me -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a aKxB8nktcBAeQHabQP/d7yhWgpGZBIoIqII8cY9nG55HYHgvtoxiQCVAgUBLMs3K ui6XaCZmKH68fOWYYySKAzPkXyfYKnOlzsIjp2toust1Q5A3/n54PBKrUDN9tHVz 3Ch466q9EKUuDulTU6OLsilzmRvQJn0EJhzd4pht6hanC0R3seYNhUYhoJViCcCG sRjLQs4iVVM= =9wqs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

6 9

New Cash Card Announced
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Today's WSJ reports that VISA USA intends to launch a "prepaid" travel card for use in ATMs and POS terminals. The card, meant as an electronic travelers check, would be yet another form of cash substitute. This would, in reality, be a Visa card you could purchase for cash. Presumably US sales of these cards would be subject to cash transaction reporting rules but not those in other countries. Interesting scenario. I buy one of these babies for $100,000 in Switzerland. I arrange to have it not yet "turned on." (Many of the new prepaid phone cards must be activated before they can be used.) I enter the US carrying a card worth $0. I order it activated. Suddenly I have a $100,000 cash card in the US without having imported $100,000 into the US. The nice thing about the explosion of payment forms that is going on right now is that the regulators tend to get swamped. It is hard to regulate things with 10 different payment forms (cash, checks, money orders, travelers checks, credit cards, ATM cards, debit cards, bank wires, consumer electronic money transfers, and bill payment services). When these new cards hit and all of the new electronic banking payment systems are up and running, the Feds will be hard pressed to even keep up with the bare outline of the payments system much less regulate it closely. Duncan Frissell "Dowd's the name, Elwood P. Here, let me give you one of my cards. Don't use that phone number it's the old one use the other number. I'd like you to meet a friend of mine. His name's Harvey. He's a Pooka." --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165

1 0

AT&T Encryption Product
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NCR - An AT&T Company ____________________________________INTRA CORPORATION From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart(a)pleasantonca.ncr.com> Location: Pleasanton District To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Location: The Real World,or at least Cyberspace Subject: AT&T Encryption Product Well, it was interesting to see Philippe Nave's posting about an AT&T encryption software product (using the government's digital signature and secure hash standards instead of RSA and MD-5, so it won't be PGP- or PEM-compatible). Prices seemed a bit high, though not bad for AT&T, who are cutting some new market turf as well as typically pricey, and the encrypted Zmodem software may be useful. Does anybody know if there are any other SHA / government-signature products out? (I'm assuming there won't be much freeware because of the patent issue; people who don't mind violating RSA's patent generally use PGP.) Bill

2 1

Newsgroups, Sternlight-bashing and screaming children
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NCR - An AT&T Company ____________________________________INTRA CORPORATION From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart(a)pleasantonca.ncr.com> Location: Pleasanton District To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Location: cyberspace Subject: Newsgroups, Sternlight-bashing and screaming children I consider the Sternlight-bashing suggestions to be unreasonable; Sternlight may rave from a warped, pro-government viewpoint, but he is capable of carrying on civilized conversations, even when he's (continually) grinding the same axe. The coffee-house analogy is a very good one, and there *is* occasionally a screaming-children problem on usenet; I assumed the original poster was referring more to the perpetual-newbie types rather than to the newly arrived, chronologically-deficient college students, most of whom are either quiet, productive, or both (though a college student and the author apparently felt otherwise :-) I still prefer having this as a mailing list, in spite of the volume; I can read sci.crypt when I want to, though I'll probably have to get a netcom account rather than keep telnetting into my old system now that I've moved. Thanks; Bill

1 0

rant pointer
by Eli Brandt 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

L. Detweiler has a rather hefty essay in the latest Risks on the subject of `pseudospoofing', social parasites, "a criminal group called the CryptoAnarchists" (with members such as "Eric May" and "T.C. Hughes"), and such matters. I will not forward it to the list, unh unh, no way. PGP 2 key by finger or e-mail Eli ebrandt(a)jarthur.claremont.edu

3 3

P. Metzger
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Assuming you are not P. Metzger, please help him to understand how to implement a kill file rather than assaulting me with mailbombs. ===cut=here=== [insert minimailbomb here]

1 0

The Depravities of Cypherpunks
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I did not understand Mr. Metzger at first. When he sent me messages in the form `go away and leave us alone' I thought he was suggesting I be censored from the cypherpunks mailing list. Apparently he is only objecting to personal email from me. Well, after receiving 40 messages with the concatenated contents of other messages from him and myself over the matter, in response to the following two, I certainly will not do so. Mr. Metzger did say it was OK for me to post to the Cypherpunks list, for which I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude in his allowing me his permission. He threatened to send me 400 letters the next time I sent him personal mail however, and of course he is certainly capable of it. I mailed postmaster(a)lehman.com, asking him to encourage Mr. Metzger to learn how to use a kill file instead of sending me mailbombs in response to his obvious intense mental anguish at seeing my name <g>, but unfortunately Mr. Metzger is the postmaster at his site. Mr. Hughes is quite perplexed at my sheer rage at Mr. Metzger's unsurpassed childishness. He didn't approve of me attempting to shame Mr. Metzger (a close personal friend, I suppose) into refraining from sending me mailbombs and dealing with his own insanity in a more proactive manner -- like figuring out how to implement a kill file in his mail -- by informing the cypherpunk world of his puerile prank. I told Mr. Hughes that it was likely that Mr. Metzger was his own site administrator (I was not positive at this point, alas). Mr. Hughes has not responded to that letter. Mr. Hughes is also quite puzzled why I should violate Mr. Metzger's privacy in revealing his `private' mailbomb to other members of the community he (supposedly) resides in. I guess he believes that mailbombs, like everything else, are a private matter. My apologies, Mr. Hughes, for what you consider an inappropriate use of your mailing list. My personal opinion is that I had essentially no other recourse, and even the `recourse' I chose was obviously ineffective! I asked Mr. Hughes to condemn Mr. Metzger's behavior. So far his only comment is that it was `rude'. Maybe he will have another opinion upon learning of Mr. Metzgers 40 letter bomb just received, or his 400 letter threat. Or maybe he thinks that Mr. Metzger is just another patriotic cypherpunk, perhaps even deserving of a medal! Also, I have mail from Mr. Jason Zions (jazz(a)hal.com) also complaining that I violated Mr. Metzger's privacy in revealing his mailbomb to me to the list as a whole. This strange code of cypherpunk chivalry I am not familar with. I am quite bewildered! Perhaps someone can point me to an FTP site housing the Cypherpunk Code of Chivalry. I looked on soda.berkeley.com and found the Cypherpunk Charter (By E.Hughes) talking a lot about things like privacy and software, but it didn't really seem to address the issue of mailbombing. Maybe the basic idea is just privacy *everywhere*, even with cyberspacial assault and societal criminals. I guess I did miss the point. If all the other cypherpunks condone or applaud Mr. Metzger's behavior, please let me know. I'm not really sure what the consensus is on this. (Of course, here, no one can really be sure of the consensus on *anything*! <g>) I certainly haven't heard from anyone I respect yet, assuming these people are still on the list. BTW -- I do get the impression that the list membership is down. Perhaps Mr. Hughes can reveal that directly. Some people have been blaming me for the `deterioration of the list' lately. Another person told me that the list had `quite improved since I stopped posting'. I'm not sure what to make of all this -- unless both were tentacles, I suppose that might explain it all. Frankly, I have been posting very little lately compared to my Golden Cypherpunk Days. (ah, the carefree and naive life of youth.) Also, Mr. Hughes has always advocated software solutions like kill files, and if anyone objects to my presence, please put me in yours. It is silly to continually be offended by me! The people who are interested in listening will not plonk me, and those that are inflamed by my postings *will* -- what could be simpler? That certainly couldn't be a problem for anyone, could it? I mean, if what I am saying has no merit, people will immediately recognize that, right? To paraphrase somebody else, `There is only a message'. * * * P.M., after the 40 letter mailbomb >If you insist on 400 detweiler, I'll send them to you. Last warning. Mr. Metzger, I assure you an apocalypse in cyberspace will happen before I will ever send a message to the address pmetzger(a)lehman.com. In fact, perhaps you could tell me all your other addresses, so I do not inadvertently send mail to them. For example, I had a glimmer of hope that postmaster(a)lehman.com was not you, and paid dearly for it with your 40 letter mailbomb. Mr. Metzger, Do you pseudospoof? This could be a problem. What if I inadvertently send something to one of your tentacles? Does that count? Will you mailbomb me in that case, or just forgive me for my stark ignorance? I have to ask a favor, if you don't--perhaps you could give me a list of all the addresses you post from. I mean, that would compromise the pseudoanonymous security of your identities, but on the other hand I have absolutely no desire to be subject to another explosion in my mailbox when I open my mail! I guess in this case, you might have to decide which is worth more, your hatred for me and insane desire that you not see any communication from me in any form, or your passionate goal of further undetected, secret pseudospoofing. You have to forgive me for my instinct of replying to the letters in my mailbox. It has served me well until now. I assure you I will now make an exception in your case! For example, my response to your last letterbomb threat might have been `please don't do it!' but I now realize that would have gotten me `nowhere' (or wherever it is that bomb victims go) thanks to the previous two mailbombs! Thanks for the valuable education in cyberspacial netiquette! (All my habits and perceptions in cyberspace have been radically altered lately in response to changing circumstances, and your mailbombing is just the latest incarnation, so I certainly shouldn't be complaining!) HOWEVER -- I will continue to post to the cypherpunks list, since you, Mr. Metzger, have so kindly given me permission and I am still not being censored yet. Please, please, please Mr. Metzger, do not interpret this as sending you private mail! I certainly have NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER to be subject to your 400 LETTER MAILBOMB. Perhaps some other cypherpunks, who have no objections to your behavior so far, and criticize me for taking a stand by condemning it publicly, would like to VOLUNTEER IN MY PLACE. So, here is what bought me the 40 letter mailbomb: ===cut=here===

1 0