December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn wrote: > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > How about this scenario: I borrow 1 million dollars from, let's say, > > Phill Hallam-Baker. Not wanting to pay it back, I pay to the > > assassination bot and arrange him to be murdered. > > Igor, there's an old saying in this country: the best way to lose a > friend is to lend him money. Phill, in this example, is not my friend, but a lender. > > Another story: suppose that I negligently caused fire that destroys > > house of, say, Toto. Toto knows that if he sues me, I can arrange him > > murdered for the amount less than the amount of damages. As a result, > > he refrains from suing me, or (if he is a mean person) pays additional > > money to have me murdered. A suit would probably be a much better outcome. > > Sometimes you have to pay a steep price for negligence, like neglecting > to watch how close you get to the edge of the road on, say, Topanga > Canyon or one of those (long way down). Now, since people *know* to > be extra careful on the canyon roads, don't you think by the same > analogy they'd be extra careful with other things when AP is running? Mmm, likely the result will be that Toto will be impoverished (it is an example, do not take it personally) and will not only not be able to murder me, but also will be too afraid to sue me (because I would rather pay for a cheaper assassination than to pay damages). > > Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then > > our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very > > unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she. > > If she does it right, with empathy, there is not likely to be a > problem. On the other hand, if she bad-mouths you to prospective > employers or customers you want to do business with, you might be > inclined to hit her. This happens a lot when AP is not available. ... But would happen more often if it was. > > The bottom line is, it becomes very hard to do ANYTHING that disappoints > > at least somebody. That can lead to a lot of inefficiencies. > > To get rid of everyone who pisses you off, you'd have to pay a lot > more money than you'll ever have, therefore not a problem. Those Why, I will have a lot of money. > people who have such money are not going to bump off very many more > people than they already do, because: > > 1. They need the people to make money off of (Mafia rule #4, never > kill someone who owes you money [or is a money source]). This is a wrong Mafia rule, they do kill debtors who are in default. > 2. Rich people have a lot of eyes on them, and it would be easy to > triangulate a series of murders to them, even without hard evidence. > In an AP world, this triangulation/correlation would be enough to > convince people to either shun this killer, or kill him outright. When ten people make deals with each other, it becomes hard to triangulate. And it is easy, if you know what deals are done, to change the result of triangulation: suppose that I know that you borrowed 1 million from Toto, that my _and_ yours business partner had been murdered (by me, but no one knows), and I am afraid that someone will triangulate me and implicate me in that murder. I secretly order the AP bot to kill Toto, and you get implicated. Not good. - Igor.

1 0

Re: Key Security Question
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199702021555.HAA25423(a)toad.com>, on 02/02/97 at 09:34 AM, "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> said: >ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes: >> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >> > Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> writes: >> > > On the other hand, if the "repairman" replaced your pgp executable >> > > with version 2.6.3kgb, which uses your hashed passphrase as the >> > > session key, you're hosed. Or if he installed a keystroke sniffer, >> > > or added a small radio transmitter to your keyboard, or whatever. >> > > Depends on your threat model. If you need to be paranoid, >> > > they've already gotten you.... >> > >> > If you're really paranoid, you can boot from a clean floppy and >> > reinstall everything from your backup tapes. You do have a >> > contingency plan in case your hard disk goes bad, or gets a >> > virus, don't you? Well, if you're in doubt, exercise it. >> >> And what if the repairman replaces BIOS ROM chips with KGBios? >On some computers it's possible to add executable code to the boot >sequence without replacing the actual ROM chip because they're >rewritiable. Examples: most Sun boxes; intel motherboards with 'flash >bios'. V-Communications has a nice Bios Pre-Processor for their dissasembler for anyone intrested it playing with their bios code. Most newer MB's come with Flash Bios and the software to Flash the chip is available for download from the Manufacture. I'v gone and tinkered around with the bios on a couple of my AMI motherboards. Flash bios does open the possibility for a virus infection of ones bios. I have had several intresting discussions with the AMI programmers about this. IMHO any device that has flash bios should have a jumper on the circuit board to enable/disable the flash option. I have not seen anyone that is doing this with their products. The MB bios is relativly safe as the flash process happens pre-post but considering that flash bios can be found in almost all computer prerifials the potential for harm is there. Currently on my system I have flash bios on the HD's, modem's, NIC's, & SCSI card's. All are a potential hiding spot for a virus. - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii(a)amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info - ----------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: Air conditioned environment - Do not open Windows. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Registered User E-Secure v1.1 0000000 iQCVAwUBMvUl1Y9Co1n+aLhhAQHVcAQAmlU7/gY80+0C3KTowerMkZHa1ro4A5g5 0qKRuuAO08eOmnwND16bBxOo5KKZU/2Xxydvdg2CpE4C9ga/po3QTasa+kKzpsR7 jBQxDAWauirLlJtXCnfiaYQrycxX6YoFoZanRGticT4ObRmFvT0OcqYqqL/fgXe0 oSiw02JDATQ= =S97o -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: Libel, Times v. Sullivan
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Attila T. Hun +Yes, if the Magna Carta guaranteed a right and the forefathers fought +to secure it, why should any of us ever have to lift a finger in our +own defense. seems to me Jefferson said it took a rebellion every 20 years or so to keep democracy awake... other than presuming your answer is tongue in cheek (not elsewhere), complacency == welfare. ......................................................... Definitely tongue-in-cheek. Just noting that if a thing has been "guaranteed", this means (by my interpretation) that it is a done deal and nothing further need be done about it - it's established and automatic. But obviously a "right", though it be a basic operant in Nature and existent as an abstract concept in some people's minds, is not recognized either naturally or formally by many. Therefore, as Jefferson remarked, we cannot depend on our forefather's vision to uphold our honor but must re-establish it as needed. .. Blanc

1 0

VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Awhile back we were discussing voice-stress analysis; just got this item on the subject; he said it's okay to post it. >From: Spectre334(a)aol.com >Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 09:31:17 -0500 (EST) >To: jimbell(a)pacifier.com >cc: BLAMES2778(a)aol.com, AFSCA(a)aol.com, JLeek426(a)aol.com >Subject: VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS > >MR. BELL: > >I FOUND YOUR QUERY ABOUT VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS ON THE INTERNET, AND I TOO, >HAVE FOUND A DEARTH OF INFORMATION THERE - UNTIL NOW. > >I'M PLEASED TO REPORT THAT VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS (VSA) IS ALIVE AND WELL. IT >HAS BEEN QUIETLY PERFORMING IN THE SHADOW OF THE POLYGRAPH FOR MANY YEARS. > NOW, HOWEVER, IT IS COMING INTO ITS AND IS USED IN MANY STATES TO AID IN >CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS. > >AMONG ITS OTHER BENEFITS, VSA REQUIRES NO INTIMIDATING HOOKUP TO THE >SUBJECT'S BODY, IN ORDER TO MEASURE THE LEVEL OF STRESS. IT CAN BE CONDUCTED >VIRTUALLY ANYWHERE - EVEN WHERE NO ELECTRICITY IS PRESENT. PERHAPS MOST >PERTINENT TO YOUR QUESTION, VSA CAN BE SOMETIMES PERFORMED ON PEOPLE WHO ARE >NO LONGER AROUND, THROUGH THEIR RECORDED VOICES. THIS IS CALLED "NARRATIVE >ANALYSIS" AND IS SOMEWHAT TOUGHER THAN THE BASIC QUESTION - AND -ANSWER >APPROACH, SINCE THE EXAMINER CANNOT CONTROL THE CONTENT AND SEQUENCE OF >QUESTIONS, IF THE SOURCE IS A PAST RECORDING. > >THE DIOGENES GROUP, INC., OF WHICH I AM PRESIDENT, HAS DEVELOPED A TOTALLY >DIGITAL APPROACH TO VSA, AND BEGAN DELIVERING SYSTEMS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT >AGENCIES IN DECEMBER, 1996. THE PREMIER DIOGENES VSA PRODUCT IS REDUCED TO >THE SIZE OF A NOTEBOOK COMPUTER, BUT PRODUCES REALTIME PROCESSING FOR >SOFTCOPY DISPLAY, AND HARDCOPY PRINTING WITHIN SECONDS. > >YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THE PREVIOUS STATE-OF-THE-ART, WHICH WAS A >RELATIVELY LARGE ANALOG MACHINE, USING A SINGLE CHANNEL AND PRINTING OUT THAT >DATA ON A ROLL OF THERMAL PAPER. THOSE DAYS ARE GONE FOREVER. > >IF YOU WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION ON THE DIOGENES GROUP AND ITS PRODUCTS, >PLEASE USE THIS CHANNEL TO SEND ME YOUR MAILING ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER, AND >FAX NUMBER. > >THANKS FOR YOUR INTEREST IN VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS. > >SINCERELY, > >TOM > >(THOMAS F. MCGRAW) > > Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: "Strong" crypto and export rule changes.
by Vin McLellan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ian popped the 40-bit RC5 (not RC4) challenge with 259 processors, almost all standard Unix college-lab workstations, as I understand it. (RC5 has a variable block size and a variable number of rounds; but the unknown plaintexts for this contest were enciphered using a declared 12-round RC5 with a 32-bit word size.) The message Ian revealed was something like: "That's why you need a longer key!!!!!" RSA posted rewards for anyone who can break a 56-bit DES challenge and/or any of 12 variable-length RC5 challenge messages. The 40-bit RC5 cipher was the least of these and was expected to fall quickly. The initial RSA announcement of the contest emphatically declared that even 56-bit-key crypto (DES or RC5) offers only "marginal protection" against a committed adversary -- which is not to in any way minimize Ian's accomplishment, or the efforts (some also successful!) of others who also tackled the 40-bit challenge. SDTI/RSA celebrated Ian's achievement enthusiastically at the RSA Security Conference in San Fran last week. Burt Kalisky, the Chief Scientist at RSA, preempted a main session at the Conference to do an on-stage telephone interview with Ian about his attack. SDTI (RSA) apparently hopes to use Ian's "timely" achievement to urge Congress to challenge the idiotic 40-bit EAR ceiling and the key-escrow contracts required to get a 56-bit export license. (The network Ian used to link his lab workstations, NOW at Berkeley, is definitely not standard, however. I think there is a description of it online; but briefly, NOW seems designed to very efficiently handle this sort of intensive distributed processing project. More important, perhaps, was the fact that Ian just chewed through the possible keys with a pure brute-force attack on the key space. His attack was not really optimized for RC5, or designed to attack any specific element in the RC5 crypto architecture.) Jim Bitzos of RSA also gave a thought-provoking thumbnail summary of the IBM Key Recovery Alliance (making a better case for it in 30 seconds than the long technical presentatations from IBM.) As Bitzos explained it, the variable key-size control allows a corporate user to communicate through encrypted links to a variety of international recipients -- dynamically adjusting the encryption mechanism to whatever varied restrictions are required by the French, German, US, UK, etc. , govenments. "It's an imperfect world," growled Bitzos -- but both users and vendors need workable mechanisms today to allow them to adapt to whatever contraints on strong encryption that are, or will be, required by the various national authorities. It's a mistake, he suggested, to think of the IBM Key Recovery Initiative soley in terms of US controls. Many governments are reacting with hostility to the availability of strong encryption -- and until the Market finds a voice and educates the political and spook cultures, commercial entities will inevitably have to adapt their work-a-day communications security to a wide variety of national crypto controls and key-length restrictions. (What I got about the IBM presentations was the realization that there is nothing in the key recovery mechanism, per se, that requires the recovery key to be held by a third party. That, to my mind, is the essential distinction between key escrow and key recovery. I also realized that IBM has, for years, quietly held a crucial piece of the PKC scheme in its patented "control vector" tech, which irrevocably binds a whole set of context-specific rules and constraints to a decryption key. I now realize that the control vector technology was the foundation much of the the DoD's Blacknet development. Important stuff -- check it out!) Like Big Jim said, it's an imperfect world -- and likely to become more so, from the C'punk perspective, before it becomes better. The rumor mill among the 2,500 cryptographers, mostly developers, who attended the RSA Conference was pumping overtime. One of the saddest and most persistent rumors was that the Clinton Administration would, within months, introduce a Congressional bill to make unescrowed strong encryption illegal in the US. (Personally, I'd put bitter money on that one. <sigh>) David Aaron, US Crypto Ambassador and the US permanent rep to the OECD -- in which role he has strove to convince the newly liberated nations of Eastern Europe that built-in wiretap links are essential design components for a modern democratic nation's communications infrastructure -- was charming and gracious... but it was no surprise that he didn't budge a bit from the "sovereign right to listen" policy line. You shouldn't have skipped the RSA bash, Adam, not even for your DCS gig in the sunny Caribbean. There were numerous Lion and the Lamb drinking bouts thoughout the week (some rather amazing, in terms of both the participants and the volume of "input".) You would have loved it. Passions often ran high, but usually in quiet intense coversations. I (one Lamb, white wool turning gray;-) had distinct impression that there many US government cryptographers uncomfortable with the Administration's NSA/FBI-inspired absolutist POV. Not even all senior feds feel that Constitutional Law should be (re)written by FBI case agents obsessed with making it easier to bust some two-bit crack dealer next month. (Doesn't mean much in the larger scheme of things, but the pained ambivalence vividly reminded me of Vietnam debates so many years ago.) My favorite quote, from a federal LEA lawyer deep in his cups: "If the colonial cops, rather than the philosophers, had drafted the Constitution -- would Madison and Jefferson, et al, have been willing to even put their names to it??" Suerte, _Vin -------- In Reply To: >Steve Schear wrote: >| > What the US government will allow to be exported is not "strong >| >encryption." It is encryption only slightly too strong to be broken >| >by an amateur effort. For the right investment in custom hardware, it >| >falls quickly. (500,000 $US = 3.5 hour avg break). >| > >| >| Considering Ian's feat you certainly seem to have had your crystal >| ball in hand. Adam Shostack responded: > I wear three around my neck. Its a new age thing. > > More seriously, that estimate is the cost of breaking DES on >custom hardware, based on Wiener's figures. Ian got RC4-40 in 3.5 >hours on I don't know how much hardware, not a lot of it custom, >AFAIK. Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + <vin(a)shore.net> 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Where to begin? Tim May has taken the time to write broad and thought provoking essay on this list's current moderation experiment. I appreciate his analysis--and candor. While I do not agree with all he has written, I enormously respect his dedication to his point of view. On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: > I chose not to write a "departing flame" (or message, but some might call > it a flame) when I unsubscribed several weeks ago--within an hour of > reading that John and Sandy had decided to make "their" list a moderated > list,... This is Tim's first error of fact. I point it out not to insult him, but because it seriously affects much of the rest of his analysis. We are conducting an experiment. It will last one month. After that, it's over if list members want it to be over. If, on the other hand, moderation is seen by the list members as beneficial to their use and enjoyment of the list, the current form of moderation--or some variation will continue. > ...and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New > Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait > accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list > _founders_, at least not me) were being sought. Factual error #2. There was a call for comment; Tim chose not to do so. In retrospect, I wish we had run it by Tim, Eric and Hugh in more detail before making the annoucement, but we didn't. Certainly a tactical error and a breach of protocol, but not the end of the world. Sorry Tim. I should have spoken to you first. > I see vast amounts of bandwidth consumed by arguments about > moderation, about the putative biases of the Moderator and Director of the > New Cypherpunks World Order, about alternative moderation strategies (which > is stupid, as John and Sandy announced what they were going to do, not just > some of their preliminary thoughts), and so on. I've also noticed fewer > substantive essays. And I see something different. Since previously, Tim actively filter the list, I'm not sure on what basis he can make his comparison. As just one example (though a signicant one) Dimitri has posted more non-flaming, on-topic posts during the two weeks of this experiment then in the previous several months. In my opinion, other than for the hysterical posts of a very few self-righteous loudmouths, the overall quality of the posts has been far superior to what it had become in the weeks before the experiment began. YMMV. > With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose substantive > essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day. I would hope that Tim will return to this practice irrespective of whether the list remains moderated or returns to its previous policies. More on this, below. > (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list > to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" > ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name > Nurdane Oksas,... Two points: Since Tim largely agrees with those in opposition to moderation, and because of the extraordinary nature of Tim's post, I did not send it to the "flames" list. It was a judgment call. The problems Tim describes, did not arise with moderation. Indeed, they were the imputus for the moderation. > * But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the > Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list > was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider > these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group?... I think this is a Straw Man. John and I have never argued that John "owns" cypherpunks. When a Cypherpunk meeting is held in someone's living room, however, I don't think it's asking to much to ask everyone to follow the local rules (e.g., "no shoes in the house" or "no smoking" or even "no ad hominem attacks"). As Tim is fond of saying, "my house; my rules." I don't think this means Tim "owns" a physical meeting in his house. > While John had (and has) every legal right > to do with his property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First, > Vulis found other ways to post (duh). Tim, do you really believe that John did not anticipate this? > Second, the list was consumed with > flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others. It was consumed with flames before. Now, at least, the vast majority of folks on the list don't have to read them, nor jump through any hoops to implement some sort of dynamic filtering half-measure. > Third, journalists (who love sizzle over substance any day of > the week) lept into the fray with articles which gave Vulis the > publicity he craved. That's what journalist do, though I wasn't aware of ANY articles on this issue. I would appreciate it if Tim could give us some citations. > Fourth, it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the > Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their anarchic > ways." That's one message that one could take from all this, I suppose. I don't see it that way, nor do several list members who thanked me in private e-mail for improving the list. Again, YMMV. > (I'm well aware of the issues with pests like Vulis, who seek to destroy > virtual communities like ours. But the solution John used did not work, and > generated more crap.... What didn't work was "local filtering" which has no feed-back loop to engender comity. This might not work either, but I see no evidence that it has made things worse. Remember, there are a hand-full of subscribers to the Flames list, 20-30 on the Unedited list and *2000* or so on the Moderated list. Sure some of that may be due to laziness, but it would be cavalier in the extreme to claim that such an overwhelming acceptance of moderation is merely an artifact of inertia. But to make things perfectly clear one more time, ANYONE WHO WANTS TO READ THE ENTIRE CYPHERPUNKS FEED SHOULD SUBSCRIBE TO "CYPHERPUNKS-UNEDITED" AND/OR "CYPHERPUNK-FLAMES." > * "Censorship" is another overloaded term. I don't think the "Definition 1" > of dictionary definitions, about _governmental_ restrictions, is the only > meaningful definition. Everybody knows what it meant when we say that > "Lockheed is censoring the views of employees," even though we know > Lockheed is not using government power. A censor is one who censors. And > even my "American Heritage Dictionary" gives this as its "definition 1": > > "censor n. 1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other > material and to remove or suppress morally, politically, or otherwise > objectionable." Tim and I disagree on which definition of "censorship" applies in this situation. Dale Thorne, and others, have argued, in essence, that there is censorship if ANY definition would apply. I'm not sure time is going that far, but if so, I respectfully disagree. But let's apply Tim's above definition for the sake of argument. Am I, thereby, a censor? Well I am examining "other material" and I am making judgments with regard to whether or not it is "objectionable," unfortunately for Tim's argument, I am neither "removing" nor "supressing" anything. Anybody can read anything that gets posted to Cypherpunks--in two places. I am sorting, but even my sorting can be completely avoided. > * OK, even given that John had decided to censor "his" list, what about his > choice of Sandy Sandfort as the censor? John didn't choose me, I approached him. I offered my opinion as to what I thought HE ought to do about the list disruptions. The short version of his answer was, "if you think you can do a better job, go for it." I accepted the challenge, so here I am. I don't want this job. If the list members decide to keep the list moderated, I hope to keep my involvement as a moderator to a minimum. Any volunteers? > * Nor do the announced criteria make any sense. While the inane one-line > scatological insults have been filtered out, many "flames" make it through, > based on what I've seen in perusing the hks archive site. And some > reasonable comments get dumped in the flame bucket. Very possibly true. Moderation is like crypto, perfection isn't and option. However, a 90% solution is a heck of a lot better than no solution at all. Yes, I've made what I consider to be errors, but I think on some, I've done a very good job overall. > * (Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I > would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by > Sandy for whatever reasons.... Tim, I think this is disingenuous. I have been quite clear on my moderation criteria. You are too intelligent to feign such a lack of understanding. > maybe he might think my essay was off-topic, Clearly not a criterion I ever enunciated. > or used one of the Seven Deadly Words, Clearly not a criterion I ever enunciated. >or was "too flamish." Bingo (with the proviso that it be a personal attack on a list member as opposed to the substance of his or her argument). > * The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful > ammunition to give to our opponents, Piffle. Letting spoiled children destroy the list puts a far more powerful weapon in the hands of our enemies. > and Vulis is certainly gleeful that > his fondest wishes have been realized. I do not have a crystal ball. My Vulcan mind meld is in the shop. No one--neither Tim, nor I, nor probably even Vulis--knows whether is gleeful about all this or not. An frankly, who cares? The question is, are list members happy or not with moderation. Tim was not. I am. By the end of the experiment, I dare say we will have a good idea what most list members think. > (I would venture a guess that a Duncan Frissell would almost certainly get a > libertarian rant past Sandy while a Phill Hallam-Baker might easily fail to > get a leftist rant past him.) I sorry Tim gives me so little credit. Rather than merely post a self-serving denial, I would ask that Phill confirm or deny Tim's supposition. To the best of my recollection, I have sent only one post of Phill's to the Flames list. It flamed Jim Bell. As far as moderating political rants go, I'm agnostic. Look folks, when you stop trying new things, and stop questioning conventional wisdom, you are as good as dead. Maybe moderation is the best think since sliced bread; maybe it sucks. How about we give it a good-faith try for the next 2+ weeks and see how it goes? If the consensus is it sucks, I intend to be gracious in defeat. If it goes the other way, I hope that the neighsayers will accept it and let the list get on with its role as a forum for the protection of privacy. Thanks again, Tim, for sharing your views with us. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

6 6

Re: "Secret" Postal Device stolen
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: > In Minneapolis and Anchorage (the two cities of which I have knowledge) > mail carriers have a key that opens not only apartment-style mailboxes, > but little boxes on the outside of apartment buildings that hold a key > to the building's lobby. Snag one of those keys and a large portion of > the city opens its doors to you. (some buildings have further locked > doors beyond the mailbox lobby to counter this threat) So much for key escrow. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy May has been a source of endless embarassments to his sympathizers on and off the net. o/ Timmy May <| / >

1 0

Man in the Middle
by winsock＠rigel.cyberpass.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Derisve Vibrator K[retin]OfTheMonth had his foreskin ripped off last night by a vacuum cleaner. .-._ {_}^ )o {\________//~` ( ) Derisve Vibrator K[retin]OfTheMonth /||~~~~~||\ |_\\_ \\_\_ "' ""' ""'"'

1 0

Re: None
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri Vinyl K{rust}OfTheMonth will fuck anything that moves, but he'd rather be fucking his own mother's dead body. v-v-v-@@-v-v-v (..) Dimitri Vinyl K{rust}OfTheMonth

1 0

Re: None
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri Vinyl K{rust}OfTheMonth will fuck anything that moves, but he'd rather be fucking his own mother's dead body. v-v-v-@@-v-v-v (..) Dimitri Vinyl K{rust}OfTheMonth

1 0

Re: Free & Open Society & toleration (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:18 PM 2/1/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: > >Forwarded message: > >> Nobody has a problem with your ideals, it's just that Jim Bell is >> trying to say (correct me and forgive me if I'm wrong) that: >> >> 1. Society will never subscribe to your ideals. > >But other than two points they already do. The two points being, > >1. Libel is a recognized legal concept now, the difference is one of degree. Maybe this will appear to you to be too-subtle a distinction, but I don't share the misimpression of equating what "society" (the citizenry?) accepts and what government-types accept. For instance, as I understand it the public uniformly rejects the concept of wiretaps as a method of law-enforcement, yet they are done anyway. In effect, it would be correct both to say: a. Society will never accept wiretapping. (where "society" is defined as the collection of individuals) as well as saying... b. Wiretapping is a "recognized legal concept now." (because the implication is that "recognized" refers to a tiny subset of society, the thugs who run the "justice system.") Now, it's my own personal opinion that wiretapping is unconstitutional, but is done anyway for the same reason other unconstitutional things are regularly done by government: Despite public disapproval, the public is never actually given the opportunity to make the decision. The fact is, libel lawsuits are apparently a rather rare "tool" that we don't even need. Perhaps a REAL LAWYER <tm> who is aware of the statistics can tell us how often they actually occur. I argue that something that rare is, almost by definition, not really needed. >My solutions to these two issues are: > >1. Removal of the lawyer from the ultimate choice of whether the case > should be pursued. Yes, I'd like to "remove a few lawyers," as well. Not quite the way you would, however. >4. By the implimentation of a bond proviso on the part of the plaintiff > the system provides a check and balance reducing nuisance cases as > well as reducing the taxation load on the citizenry. Why not a full "loser pays" system? And I mean NOT ONLY for civil cases, but also criminal cases! Perhaps the government would be a bit less enthusiastic about harassing drug defendants if it was forced to pay for their acquittals after a FIJA loss! Consider, for example, that if the government had to pay after a loss, it would become very difficult for the government to harrass a person like Phil Zimmermann, unlike today where charges can be brought even if it is recognized they won't stick, secure in the knowledge that he'd be out a great deal of money in his defense. How much sweeter would the victory be if all costs were compensated? > >> 2. Society is not static, i.e., instead of remaining at a constant >> level of corruption, the officials will keep demanding more, >> until there's a sudden, catastrophic break. > >Absolutely, that is one of the reasons I refuse to seperate those who >represent the social contract (eg the Constitution) and those who are >impacted by it, which includes even those who represent it and enforce its >various responsibilities. AP relies on this distinction as axiomatic. Do you always produce such opaque commentary? <Sigh> Perhaps you could re-write the above statement in ordinary English. The reality is, the guarantees supposedly provided by the US Constitution are guarantees in name only. The system is thoroughly corrupted and biased. >This >axiomatic view is ultimately based in a jealous greed for what others have >(ie power, percieved or real) and the implicit belief that all people are >NOT created equal. It's hard to know how you come to this conclusion. If anything, what I'm trying to do is to permanently destroy a system which has allowed a tiny fraction of society to control things for the rest of us for centuries, and longer. If anything, it is the system I'm trying to destroy which has taken the position that, in reality, people are not equal. On the other hand, I'm NOT a proponent for "egalitarianism," or enforced equality, at all! I'm confident that once the system is dismantled that enforces inequality on us, we can live with the result. >> 3. The AP solution has the potential to stabilize the level of >> corruption, which should make violent revolutions and genocide >> unnecessary. > >But it doesn't. What it does is provide a mechanism for de-stabalization. >Just look at the Middle East and the history of assassination. >Assassinations have never stabalized that region or any other. It's interesting that I keep seeing the same misinterpretations of the AP system. AP is not simply about killing people. And no, it hasn't been tried before. The occasional assassination is no more like AP than a random shot in the dark is like a well-aimed round. The first may, rarely, do the same thing as the second, but there is no prospect of a likely repetition. _SOME_ people seem to "get" this, why not you? The _absolutely_essential_ element that distinguishes AP is the system that allows people's individual desires to be denominated in terms of money, and accumulated until an anonymous person satisfies that desire and collects the reward. And, moreover, that this system remains in place forever. > There is >nothging in our current understanding of human psychology and social >interactions that leads to the conclusion that threats of violence will >necessarily force people to comply. If it did the government (as perceived >by AP) would not have to deal with real opposition. Simply threaten the >opposition and it melts away for the same reason that supposedly the >government would cease to oppose radicalism (ie changes in the status quo >forced by small groups upon the masses). If anything every real world >example of AP demonstrates an increase in corruption (eg. Beirut). I keep telling you that "AP has never been tried before." > >The closest analog in history to AP is the "Flowery Wars" as practiced by >the Aztecs. However, these were motivated by a belief in religous homogeneity >and not one of politics. Also, implicit in this was the axiomatic acceptance >of a real class seperation between those who ruled and those who were ruled. >By no means could one accept the premise that this caused the Aztec rulers >to be more sensitive to corruption or the continued existance of their >system. Another good example is assassination in ancient Rome, it is clear >that such activities in no way reduced corruption. AP is NOT the same thing as mere assassination. Period. If anything, there are excellent reasons why ordinary assassination can, indeed, increase corruption while the AP system would reduce it. The most obvious difference is this: The motivations are vastly different. Heretofore, assassinations have occurred based on the desires of only a tiny fraction of the population. Often one person, or only a few. In other words, the assassinations which DO occur are NOT the ones that "the rest of us" would choose. The latter type DO NOT occur! >If anything AP provides a rationale (ie self-defence) to impose even harsher >a priori conditions on sections of a society by another part of that society. >Hardly what I would consider a stabalizing condition let alone democratic. It isn't necessary that any system be "democratic." "Democracy" assumes that certain questions need to be answered by VOTE, as opposed to simply allowing individuals to answer those questions for themselves. We don't all get together and vote on what religion we'll all be forced to observe, do we? No. That's because it is accepted that certain areas are off-limits for even a "democratic" system to decide. We don't have a national vote to decide what color to paint ALL of our houses. We don't have a vote to decide what meal to eat next Thursday. Well, in my opinion there are few if any proper functions for a so-called "democratic" system. That's because I believe that most if not all decisions currently made in any "democratic" system shouldn't be made at that level at all! >What is required for stability is for each group to feel unthreatened and >secure in expressing their beliefs without fear of reprisals and at the same >time recognizing they must provide room for others beliefs. There must also >be the realization that refusal to abide by these precepts will be met with >immediate consequences. Something AP can't do, as it explicitly promotes >threats and the carrying out thereof. You clearly don't understand it! Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

Re: Free & Open Society & toleration (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:18 PM 2/1/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: > >Forwarded message: > >> Nobody has a problem with your ideals, it's just that Jim Bell is >> trying to say (correct me and forgive me if I'm wrong) that: >> >> 1. Society will never subscribe to your ideals. > >But other than two points they already do. The two points being, > >1. Libel is a recognized legal concept now, the difference is one of degree. Maybe this will appear to you to be too-subtle a distinction, but I don't share the misimpression of equating what "society" (the citizenry?) accepts and what government-types accept. For instance, as I understand it the public uniformly rejects the concept of wiretaps as a method of law-enforcement, yet they are done anyway. In effect, it would be correct both to say: a. Society will never accept wiretapping. (where "society" is defined as the collection of individuals) as well as saying... b. Wiretapping is a "recognized legal concept now." (because the implication is that "recognized" refers to a tiny subset of society, the thugs who run the "justice system.") Now, it's my own personal opinion that wiretapping is unconstitutional, but is done anyway for the same reason other unconstitutional things are regularly done by government: Despite public disapproval, the public is never actually given the opportunity to make the decision. The fact is, libel lawsuits are apparently a rather rare "tool" that we don't even need. Perhaps a REAL LAWYER <tm> who is aware of the statistics can tell us how often they actually occur. I argue that something that rare is, almost by definition, not really needed. >My solutions to these two issues are: > >1. Removal of the lawyer from the ultimate choice of whether the case > should be pursued. Yes, I'd like to "remove a few lawyers," as well. Not quite the way you would, however. >4. By the implimentation of a bond proviso on the part of the plaintiff > the system provides a check and balance reducing nuisance cases as > well as reducing the taxation load on the citizenry. Why not a full "loser pays" system? And I mean NOT ONLY for civil cases, but also criminal cases! Perhaps the government would be a bit less enthusiastic about harassing drug defendants if it was forced to pay for their acquittals after a FIJA loss! Consider, for example, that if the government had to pay after a loss, it would become very difficult for the government to harrass a person like Phil Zimmermann, unlike today where charges can be brought even if it is recognized they won't stick, secure in the knowledge that he'd be out a great deal of money in his defense. How much sweeter would the victory be if all costs were compensated? > >> 2. Society is not static, i.e., instead of remaining at a constant >> level of corruption, the officials will keep demanding more, >> until there's a sudden, catastrophic break. > >Absolutely, that is one of the reasons I refuse to seperate those who >represent the social contract (eg the Constitution) and those who are >impacted by it, which includes even those who represent it and enforce its >various responsibilities. AP relies on this distinction as axiomatic. Do you always produce such opaque commentary? <Sigh> Perhaps you could re-write the above statement in ordinary English. The reality is, the guarantees supposedly provided by the US Constitution are guarantees in name only. The system is thoroughly corrupted and biased. >This >axiomatic view is ultimately based in a jealous greed for what others have >(ie power, percieved or real) and the implicit belief that all people are >NOT created equal. It's hard to know how you come to this conclusion. If anything, what I'm trying to do is to permanently destroy a system which has allowed a tiny fraction of society to control things for the rest of us for centuries, and longer. If anything, it is the system I'm trying to destroy which has taken the position that, in reality, people are not equal. On the other hand, I'm NOT a proponent for "egalitarianism," or enforced equality, at all! I'm confident that once the system is dismantled that enforces inequality on us, we can live with the result. >> 3. The AP solution has the potential to stabilize the level of >> corruption, which should make violent revolutions and genocide >> unnecessary. > >But it doesn't. What it does is provide a mechanism for de-stabalization. >Just look at the Middle East and the history of assassination. >Assassinations have never stabalized that region or any other. It's interesting that I keep seeing the same misinterpretations of the AP system. AP is not simply about killing people. And no, it hasn't been tried before. The occasional assassination is no more like AP than a random shot in the dark is like a well-aimed round. The first may, rarely, do the same thing as the second, but there is no prospect of a likely repetition. _SOME_ people seem to "get" this, why not you? The _absolutely_essential_ element that distinguishes AP is the system that allows people's individual desires to be denominated in terms of money, and accumulated until an anonymous person satisfies that desire and collects the reward. And, moreover, that this system remains in place forever. > There is >nothging in our current understanding of human psychology and social >interactions that leads to the conclusion that threats of violence will >necessarily force people to comply. If it did the government (as perceived >by AP) would not have to deal with real opposition. Simply threaten the >opposition and it melts away for the same reason that supposedly the >government would cease to oppose radicalism (ie changes in the status quo >forced by small groups upon the masses). If anything every real world >example of AP demonstrates an increase in corruption (eg. Beirut). I keep telling you that "AP has never been tried before." > >The closest analog in history to AP is the "Flowery Wars" as practiced by >the Aztecs. However, these were motivated by a belief in religous homogeneity >and not one of politics. Also, implicit in this was the axiomatic acceptance >of a real class seperation between those who ruled and those who were ruled. >By no means could one accept the premise that this caused the Aztec rulers >to be more sensitive to corruption or the continued existance of their >system. Another good example is assassination in ancient Rome, it is clear >that such activities in no way reduced corruption. AP is NOT the same thing as mere assassination. Period. If anything, there are excellent reasons why ordinary assassination can, indeed, increase corruption while the AP system would reduce it. The most obvious difference is this: The motivations are vastly different. Heretofore, assassinations have occurred based on the desires of only a tiny fraction of the population. Often one person, or only a few. In other words, the assassinations which DO occur are NOT the ones that "the rest of us" would choose. The latter type DO NOT occur! >If anything AP provides a rationale (ie self-defence) to impose even harsher >a priori conditions on sections of a society by another part of that society. >Hardly what I would consider a stabalizing condition let alone democratic. It isn't necessary that any system be "democratic." "Democracy" assumes that certain questions need to be answered by VOTE, as opposed to simply allowing individuals to answer those questions for themselves. We don't all get together and vote on what religion we'll all be forced to observe, do we? No. That's because it is accepted that certain areas are off-limits for even a "democratic" system to decide. We don't have a national vote to decide what color to paint ALL of our houses. We don't have a vote to decide what meal to eat next Thursday. Well, in my opinion there are few if any proper functions for a so-called "democratic" system. That's because I believe that most if not all decisions currently made in any "democratic" system shouldn't be made at that level at all! >What is required for stability is for each group to feel unthreatened and >secure in expressing their beliefs without fear of reprisals and at the same >time recognizing they must provide room for others beliefs. There must also >be the realization that refusal to abide by these precepts will be met with >immediate consequences. Something AP can't do, as it explicitly promotes >threats and the carrying out thereof. You clearly don't understand it! Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

PGPmail 4.5 exported
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

moderation sucks
by Howard W Campbell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsubscribe cypherpunks(a)toad.com

1 0

Re: Shave the Whales
by winsock＠rigel.cyberpass.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The arrival of warm weather is heralded by the pig shit getting soft in Dainty L<avabo> Vinegar's mini-cranium and the resulting green slime seeping through his cocaine- and syphilis- damaged nose and onto his keyboard. ^-^-^-@@-^-^-^ (..) Dainty L<avabo> Vinegar

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

About: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Larry Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For what it's worth, I think that this Tim May, not being a user of the list, has no place to talk. His type, to me, characterate those who quit something and complain later, knowing that some people will listen to them. So what, if he decided to leave? It was his own choice and he can't just come back and say everyone who stayed is now impelled to listen to him, just because he used to do a bunch of posts. I don't think that hardly any of you would listened to me later if I left the list.

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

COM_int
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

List of reliable remailers
by Raph Levien 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Unfortunately, Sandy responded to my post with his own flames ("piffle," "disingenous," "straw man," etc.). Now he may well think his points are not flames becuase they are "true," but to me they take the form of flames. But then I have long disliked Sandy's method of argument. Nothing personal. But I find Sandy's series of dismissals--in other posts from other people, not just this one--to be "flamish." As Sandy says, your mileage may vary. As Sandy did a too-common section-by-section disssection, I'll do the same for his comments. At 9:55 PM -0800 2/2/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >> I chose not to write a "departing flame" (or message, but some might call >> it a flame) when I unsubscribed several weeks ago--within an hour of >> reading that John and Sandy had decided to make "their" list a moderated >> list,... > >This is Tim's first error of fact. I point it out not to insult >him, but because it seriously affects much of the rest of his How can this be an "error of fact" when I am clearly setting out a point of view? Is it an error of fact that moderation was happening? Or is the disagreement with my quotes around "their"? This was clearly an expression of sarcasm. Hardly an "error of fact." >> ...and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New >> Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait >> accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list >> _founders_, at least not me) were being sought. > >Factual error #2. There was a call for comment; Tim chose not to >do so. In retrospect, I wish we had run it by Tim, Eric and John's message did not say he was thinking about instituting censorship, it said he was in the process of setting up such a system. As for the comments solicited, I noticed no changes whatsoever. (I guess the several dozen comments were "errors of fact," "piffle," and "straw men." Can anyone think of a single one of the various points made after John's announcement that changed the plan in any significant way?) >> I see vast amounts of bandwidth consumed by arguments about >> moderation, about the putative biases of the Moderator and Director of the >> New Cypherpunks World Order, about alternative moderation strategies (which >> is stupid, as John and Sandy announced what they were going to do, not just >> some of their preliminary thoughts), and so on. I've also noticed fewer >> substantive essays. > >And I see something different. Since previously, Tim actively >filter the list, I'm not sure on what basis he can make his >comparison. As just one example (though a signicant one) Dimitri That's an easy one, one I explained at least two or three times in the last half year: I used Eudora Pro to sort mail into various folders. I'm quite aware of what is going into various folders, and sometimes I even look in them. Clear enough? >has posted more non-flaming, on-topic posts during the two weeks >of this experiment then in the previous several months. In my >opinion, other than for the hysterical posts of a very few >self-righteous loudmouths, the overall quality of the posts has >been far superior to what it had become in the weeks before the >experiment began. YMMV. Piffle. Nonsense. If you think the overall quality of posts is superior now to what it had been, your bias in favor of your own brain child is so powerful that it's warped your judgment. Who else thinks the quality is now higher? (By the way, I don't think the proper statistical method is to "average" all of the posts, including the Vulisgrams and the scatolological insults, as these were easily filtered by anyone with a clue. Rather, look at the substantive and stimulating essays, the important ones, and ask if they have gotten better. It's disingenuous to claim that filtering out the childish insults has improved the quality of the essays. As I said, I've seen the opposite. You apparently think differently.) >> (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list >> to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" >> ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name >> Nurdane Oksas,... > >Two points: Since Tim largely agrees with those in opposition to >moderation, and because of the extraordinary nature of Tim's post, >I did not send it to the "flames" list. It was a judgment call. Here Sandy is really going over the line. He is saying he _almost_ filtered my message into the reject pile, where later he claims I would have no problem writing an essay and not knowing whether it would be filtered into the Good or the Bad pile. He later writes, in response to my point: "(Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I >> would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by >> Sandy for whatever reasons.... > >Tim, I think this is disingenuous. I have been quite clear on >my moderation criteria. You are too intelligent to feign such >a lack of understanding." So, given that I wrote my essay today, should I have known if it would be filtered into Sandy's "Not Fit for True Cypherpunks" list, or the Approved list? Sandy implies that he himself had to make a "judment call" on this one. Hey, people, this shows how fucked up things have gotten. Lord Almighty Sandy says my long-considered, well-written essay was _almost_ shitcanned ("It was a judgment call"). And for what reason? Apparently because of a single paragraph that mentioned "Toto" and Dale Thorn (oh, and Nurdane and Vulis and their love relationship) in unflattering terms. Is this the crap the Cypherpunks were founded to put up with? A petty satrap deciding to filter out a long and substantive essay because he feels some paragraph is insulting? What a state of affairs. This more than anything demonstrates the truth of Lord Acton's maxim about absolute power corrupting absolutely. Sandy feels free to flame away (piffle, straw man, logical fallacy), but expresses umbrage at my very accurate comments about ravings and rantings of certain list memmbers. (Perhaps Sandy will censor this message, feeling you readers are not able to handle my dismissal of his asinine views. This will leave the Censor having the final word, which is "not unexpected." When a censor gets into a debate with one of his charges, this is what often happens.) >> * But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the >> Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list >> was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider >> these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group?... > >I think this is a Straw Man. John and I have never argued that >John "owns" cypherpunks. When a Cypherpunk meeting is held in >someone's living room, however, I don't think it's asking to much >to ask everyone to follow the local rules (e.g., "no shoes in the >house" or "no smoking" or even "no ad hominem attacks"). As Tim >is fond of saying, "my house; my rules." I don't think this >means Tim "owns" a physical meeting in his house. This is precisely the point I made! As for John instituting a censorhip policy, as I said, he is of course free to do it. It may be foolish to do so, but he is free to do so. And those of us who don't like what this all means are free to leave. Sounds fair to me. >> While John had (and has) every legal right >> to do with his property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First, >> Vulis found other ways to post (duh). > >Tim, do you really believe that John did not anticipate this? I have no idea what John anticipated and didn't. But if he knew it wouldn't work, why bother? Not only did Vulis actually start posting _more_, it also consumed the list in a frenzy of posts about it. (By the way, remember that we are here talking about the unsubscription of Vulis by John. My reason for this reminder will be clear in a moment.) >> Second, the list was consumed with >> flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others. > >It was consumed with flames before. Now, at least, the vast >majority of folks on the list don't have to read them, nor jump >through any hoops to implement some sort of dynamic filtering >half-measure. We're talking about Vulis being unsubscribed, not the list censorship episode. >> Third, journalists (who love sizzle over substance any day of >> the week) lept into the fray with articles which gave Vulis the >> publicity he craved. > >That's what journalist do, though I wasn't aware of ANY articles >on this issue. I would appreciate it if Tim could give us some >citations. Again, we're talking about the Vulis unsubscription episode. Go back to the archives covering this period. Declan McCullough wrote an article about this, giving Vulis much publicity. And some of us were contacted by other journalists asking for our views, for what this meant about for the list's espoused philosophy about anarchy, etc. (I refused to comment, of course.) >> Fourth, it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the >> Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their anarchic >> ways." > >That's one message that one could take from all this, I suppose. >I don't see it that way, nor do several list members who thanked >me in private e-mail for improving the list. Again, YMMV. Once again, the subject of the section you're citing was about the Vulis unsubscription matter. I think, Sandy, you need to read more carefully before you denounce arguments. >> (I'm well aware of the issues with pests like Vulis, who seek to destroy >> virtual communities like ours. But the solution John used did not work, and >> generated more crap.... > >What didn't work was "local filtering" which has no feed-back >loop to engender comity. This might not work either, but I see >no evidence that it has made things worse. Remember, there are a If you see no evidence that is has made things worse, then apparently you haven't seen that I have not been posting for the past month. Whatever my reasons, if you can seriously claim that you can see "no evidence" that a change of some sort has occurred... >hand-full of subscribers to the Flames list, 20-30 on the >Unedited list and *2000* or so on the Moderated list. Sure some >of that may be due to laziness, but it would be cavalier in the >extreme to claim that such an overwhelming acceptance of >moderation is merely an artifact of inertia. I still maintain, as others have as well, that a better approach would have been to announce the "Sandy-approved" list as a new option. Changing the main list to the censored version was a way to exploit the name of the list, etc. (Consider if Eric Blossom's filtered list was suddenly declared to be the "Cypherpunks" list. This is essentially what has happened. A major screw up. And I don't really think it germane to cite how many are on each list. Sheep are sheep, and, frankly, about 1850 of those putative "*2000*" on the main list are never, ever heard from.) .... >Tim and I disagree on which definition of "censorship" applies in >this situation. Dale Thorne, and others, have argued, in essence, >that there is censorship if ANY definition would apply. I'm not >sure time is going that far, but if so, I respectfully disagree. > >But let's apply Tim's above definition for the sake of argument. >Am I, thereby, a censor? Well I am examining "other material" >and I am making judgments with regard to whether or not it is >"objectionable," unfortunately for Tim's argument, I am neither >"removing" nor "supressing" anything. Anybody can read anything >that gets posted to Cypherpunks--in two places. I am sorting, >but even my sorting can be completely avoided. Sophistry. >> * OK, even given that John had decided to censor "his" list, what about his >> choice of Sandy Sandfort as the censor? > >John didn't choose me, I approached him. I offered my opinion as >to what I thought HE ought to do about the list disruptions. The >short version of his answer was, "if you think you can do a >better job, go for it." I accepted the challenge, so here I am. >I don't want this job. If the list members decide to keep the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ By the way, how is this to be "decided"? A democratic vote of the herd? Do all "*2000*" get a vote? Are we moving from benevolent dictatorship to direct democracy? >> * Nor do the announced criteria make any sense. While the inane one-line >> scatological insults have been filtered out, many "flames" make it through, >> based on what I've seen in perusing the hks archive site. And some >> reasonable comments get dumped in the flame bucket. > >Very possibly true. Moderation is like crypto, perfection isn't >and option. However, a 90% solution is a heck of a lot better >than no solution at all. Yes, I've made what I consider to be >errors, but I think on some, I've done a very good job overall. You seriously think that establishing the idea that "even the Cypherpunks group accepts the need for censorship of unpopular views" is worth the minimal bandwidth savings of not having some of the scatological one-liners and insults? The huge amount of list animosity (so much for "comity") and bandwidth on this censorship issue dwarfs the bandwidth taken up by the Vulisgrams. >> * (Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I >> would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by >> Sandy for whatever reasons.... > >Tim, I think this is disingenuous. I have been quite clear on >my moderation criteria. You are too intelligent to feign such >a lack of understanding. As I noted earlier, you yourself said it was a "judgment call" for you to not put my message in the flames pile. So, did I truly not understand your criteria for approval (which means I wasn't feigning ignorance), or did I understand that which you yourself acknowledged having to make a judgment call (kissing cousin to a "guess" where I come from) on? If you are unsure whether to dump a major, substantive essay into the flames pile or allow it to be read by the main list, then this makes my point precisely. I don't want Sandy Sandfort sitting in judgment on my posts, deciding what the Cypherpunks--a group I co-founded for God's sake!!!!--are to be allowed to read and what they may not. (Saying what Sandy is doing is not "censorship" but is only "sorting" is pure sophistry.) >> maybe he might think my essay was off-topic, > >Clearly not a criterion I ever enunciated. Another part of the problem is that the standards have not been clearly stated. "Flames" have not been defined in any meaningful way. Apparently it's OK for you to refer to my arguments as "disingenuous" and "piffle," but referring to someone's repeated ravings about how O.J. was framed is "flaming." Piffle. >> * The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful >> ammunition to give to our opponents, > >Piffle. Letting spoiled children destroy the list puts a far >more powerful weapon in the hands of our enemies. See what I mean? "Piffle." ("piffle, n. Foolish or futile talk or ideas") Hardly a substantive argument. I'd call it an insult. And I'll bet that if Phill Hallam-Baker dismisses an argument with a "foolish" one-line characterization, it will be viewed as a flame. (Well, not now, now that Sandy is apprised of this.) >> and Vulis is certainly gleeful that >> his fondest wishes have been realized. > >I do not have a crystal ball. My Vulcan mind meld is in the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ah, a non-flamish way of making an argument. Dismissive jokes substituting for responding to my _opinion_. >> (I would venture a guess that a Duncan Frissell would almost certainly get a >> libertarian rant past Sandy while a Phill Hallam-Baker might easily fail to >> get a leftist rant past him.) > >I sorry Tim gives me so little credit. Rather than merely post a >self-serving denial, I would ask that Phill confirm or deny Tim's >supposition. To the best of my recollection, I have sent only >one post of Phill's to the Flames list. It flamed Jim Bell. As >far as moderating political rants go, I'm agnostic. Again, look at what the Cypherpunks list has become! Because some of the barnyard insults were getting to some people, we now have a situation where a thoughtful commentator like Phill H-B (who I rarely agree with, by the way, but his essays show he's thinking about issues deeply) has his stuff sent to the scrap heap because he "flamed" Jim Bell? Or was it a critique of Bell's "assassination politics" ideas and the way he presents them, perhaps with a single flamish comment (a la the comment I made that caused Sandy to almost mark my entire essay as unfit for Cypherpunks)? I urge Phill, or others, to retrieve this offending article and repost it. Or use "*%&$" symbols where the banned flame language was contained, so it will pass muster with Sandy. Then we can better judge just what we're giving up in order to have the kind of "comity" which Sandy thinks he is creating. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 3

PGPmail 4.5 exported
by Huge Cajones Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

Re: PGP 2.1
by Larry Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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

4 3

COM_int
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

List of reliable remailers
by Raph Levien 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

Fortune, 3 Feb
by Mike McNally 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

Fortune, 3 Feb
by Mike McNally 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

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

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

6 5

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

Re: PGP 2.1
by wlkngowl＠unix.asb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 3 Feb 1997 10:46:20 -0500, you wrote: >Mark Henderson wrote: >> >> Larry Johnson writes: >> > Hello, >> > Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? >> > Thanks >> > >> But, why do you want version 2.1? >Because the guy who wrote it was let off after that on his jail Phil Zimmerman? >charges, so I'm not going to use anything he made after that if No, the charges were not "jail charges". They were for exporting munitions. He was let off after 2.5 or 2.6. The urban myth is that 2.3a is safe. You can read the source code yourself. 2.6.2 is fine. Older versions actually have some minor bugs. >I don't know why. >I'm not saying that he rolled over or nothin buyt I'm gonna be >paranoyd like he said in the book. I dont suposse he'd mind, >since he said it. You'd be using a version with holes in it. Why not read the source code of the new version and verify it's security yourself? (If you can't undertsand it, it won't matter which version you're using because you're trusting it no matter what.) >I'm not real smart sometimes but I'nm not a real lamer, either. >(I don't think) Well, start thinking.... Rob ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key.

1 0

No Subject
by Krenn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Mark Henderson wrote: > > > > Larry Johnson writes: > > > Hello, > > > Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? > > > Thanks > > > > > But, why do you want version 2.1? > > Because the guy who wrote it was let off after that on his jail > charges, so I'm not going to use anything he made after that if > I don't know why. > I'm not saying that he rolled over or nothin buyt I'm gonna be > paranoyd like he said in the book. I dont suposse he'd mind, > since he said it. > I'm not real smart sometimes but I'nm not a real lamer, either. > (I don't think) > No, you're not real smart. The source code is _provided_ with PGP. If you are paranoid, _read_ it. Krenn

1 0

Re: Key Security Question
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > > On the other hand, if the "repairman" replaced your pgp executable > > > with version 2.6.3kgb, which uses your hashed passphrase as the > > > session key, you're hosed. Or if he installed a keystroke sniffer, > > > or added a small radio transmitter to your keyboard, or whatever. > > > Depends on your threat model. If you need to be paranoid, > > > they've already gotten you.... > > > > If you're really paranoid, you can boot from a clean floppy and > > reinstall everything from your backup tapes. You do have a > > contingency plan in case your hard disk goes bad, or gets a > > virus, don't you? Well, if you're in doubt, exercise it. Face it, the only solution is to wrap your computer, cat, family, car and yourself in aluminium foil and burn your hard disk whilst chanting "yamma yamma yamma yaaaaamaa" Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" -Reply
by Eldon Jenkins 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy, I've been a member of this list off and on for the past few years. In reading this list daily for quite some time I feel that the filtering you are doing has made quite a substantial and positive change. Normally I would spend an hour or so at work filtering through the list deleting endless threads of nonsense just so I could glean the valuable information that is hidden in midst of the mindless chatter. Now the time I spend searching for information has been drastically reduced and I would like to thank you for this. While I am against censorship and moderation whole-heartedly I see this as a different case. You are not preventing anyone from posting, you just sort the posts and place them in their appropriate list. I see your efforts as more of an organizing project rather then censorship. I would love to see the list continue to be moderated. Just my two cents though. Eldon Jenkins USRobotics Programmer

1 0

Dissolving Choke Points
by pdh＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was amused by the similarities of USG crypto policy and the moderation of the cypherpunks list. Recently a number of new regulations were announced to go into effect by a certain date. Requests for comments were made after the policy was announced. Many of us thought that was pretty sneaky. I feel the same way about the moderation plan. Moderation has been a failure. I'm pretty good at filtering and I can sadly report that there is very little signal out there. There are lessons to be learned here. One is that censorship does not promote a stimulating and creative dialogue. The cypherpunks list right now is about as interesting as hanging out by the 7-11. Another lesson is the danger of choke points. We can see how tempting it is for people to exercise their control. Even John Gilmore was unable to restrain himself from involuntary social engineering experiments. Who would we have considered to be more trustworthy? Toad.com is a choke point, not just in terms of moderation but in terms of the rate at which it can distribute messages. Let's replace it. What we want are many machines carrying the cypherpunks list. A message posted to any machine goes to all of the others. Each machine sends messages to its subscribers only once. Some of these machines should be across borders. The mail loop and multiple posting problems are solved by observing the message IDs. Fast implementation: use moderated mailing list software. Put a filter in the .forward file of the "moderator" account which looks at the message ID and forwards the message if it hasn't been seen already. The mailing list machines all subscribe each other. I've been looking for a stable machine with a good net connection to do this. I haven't found one. However, if we have many machines sharing the load, the stability of any one unit is not as important because the list will survive multiple "hits". Only the subscribers on one machine will be affected by having their messages delayed. This greatly reduces the work and responsibility for any one list operator. (As John will attest, keeping a machine running 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, rain or shine, is a lot of work.) Also, with multiple machines, each unit handles a small amount of the load. This makes more machines available and has less impact on people's net connections. Last I checked, there were about 1200 addresses on the mailing list at toad.com. All we need are about 10 machines to take 120 subscribers each. (This is a completely manageable load.) Do you have a Unix machine on the Net? Does it have sendmail and Perl? Then you have all that it takes to participate. Send me mail and I'll help you set it up. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com P.S. I like and respect John and Sandy and I've learned a lot from both of them. While basically well-intentioned, they just made a mistake in this instance.

5 4

Moderation [Tim,Sandy]
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Since it seems to be the topic of the day, here are some of my thoughts on moderating CP. o Moderation achieved what it could achieve. Spam is no longer clogging up the list. Insults, i.e., "Tim Mayo fucks children", are no longer polluting the list. o Moderation did not achieve what it couldn't achieve. The level of noise has been reduced, but signal has not been increased. This is sad, but true. The attempt was probably bound to fail, since many of the "top signal generators" have long left the list and are not about to come back. All that is remaining are a few diehards, such as myself, some TLA goons (knowingly or unknowingly) working against the cause, and many newbies and observers. I believe that Cypherpunks is beyond hope of recovery. In fact, each day Cypherpunk (as in cypherpunks(a)toad.com) lives on, it does damage to the cause. Let's kill the list. Once and for all. Let the hard core crypto go to Coderpunks, the politics to Cryptography, and the garbage into the void. I am well aware of the name recognition and reputation capital associated with CP, still I believe it best to *kill the list*. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi

1 0