December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Any more like www.anonymizer.com ??
by ! Drive 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:58 PM 2/18/97 -0500, Jeremiah A Blatz might have said: >edgarswank(a)juno.com (Edgar W Swank) writes: >> Does anyone have a list of web proxies for anonymous surfing? >> >> I already know about www.anonymizer.com, and there was a >> "canadianizer" that would alter text to make it more "Canadian", >> but that is now apparently defunct. > >There's a Zippifier (inserts Zippy the Pinhead quotes) at: >http://www.metahtml.com/apps/zippy/welcome.mhtml > A proposal and prototype of a different anonymity mechanism can be found at: http://www.itd.nrl.navy.mil/ITD/5540/projects/onion-routing/overview.html

1 0

Re: Any more like www.anonymizer.com ??
by ! Drive 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:58 PM 2/18/97 -0500, Jeremiah A Blatz might have said: >edgarswank(a)juno.com (Edgar W Swank) writes: >> Does anyone have a list of web proxies for anonymous surfing? >> >> I already know about www.anonymizer.com, and there was a >> "canadianizer" that would alter text to make it more "Canadian", >> but that is now apparently defunct. > >There's a Zippifier (inserts Zippy the Pinhead quotes) at: >http://www.metahtml.com/apps/zippy/welcome.mhtml > A proposal and prototype of a different anonymity mechanism can be found at: http://www.itd.nrl.navy.mil/ITD/5540/projects/onion-routing/overview.html

1 0

Re: alt.cypherpunks.ebonics
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:16 AM 2/18/97 -0500, Alec wrote: >A friend, who, in the CP tradition requested to remain anonymous, and I were >doing an informal analysis of those subjects/topics which over the past year >generated the most discussion and, by implication, interest on the CP list. >Since the list at that time was reportedly unmoderated, we felt some weight >should be given to members' interests/desires as measured by their posts, >regardless of the applicability to the list topic. > >With the exceptions of AP (oh so clearly way off-topic), Quite to the contrary, AP is NOT "oh so clearly way off-topic." First AP, as I've sketched it uses many of the encryption/digital-signature/verification techniques which are often discussed here and are essentially universally agreed as being on-topic. Secondly, the _PROSPECT_ of AP (or, if you'd like, more generally, the whole field of cryptoanarchy, which disables the State by making it unnecessary and powerless) would be and probably is most of the motivation for the various "let's control encryption" proposals that the US government and others have pushed over the last few years. On the other hand, it is equally clear that while AP is "on-topic," nevertheless it is quite distinctly distasteful to a few people around here who seem to believe that the _political_ and _technical" implications of good encryption can be kept safely separated. It is obvious that you are one of those people. It is equally obvious that you are not honest enough to admit that. So rather than say merely "I don't like it" you try to embellish your claims with "oh so clearly way off-topic." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Removal from newsgroup listing
by PIONEER146＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please remove from the mailing list, please. Thank you. Pioneer146(a)aol.com

1 0

Re: alt.cypherpunks.ebonics
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:16 AM 2/18/97 -0500, Alec wrote: >A friend, who, in the CP tradition requested to remain anonymous, and I were >doing an informal analysis of those subjects/topics which over the past year >generated the most discussion and, by implication, interest on the CP list. >Since the list at that time was reportedly unmoderated, we felt some weight >should be given to members' interests/desires as measured by their posts, >regardless of the applicability to the list topic. > >With the exceptions of AP (oh so clearly way off-topic), Quite to the contrary, AP is NOT "oh so clearly way off-topic." First AP, as I've sketched it uses many of the encryption/digital-signature/verification techniques which are often discussed here and are essentially universally agreed as being on-topic. Secondly, the _PROSPECT_ of AP (or, if you'd like, more generally, the whole field of cryptoanarchy, which disables the State by making it unnecessary and powerless) would be and probably is most of the motivation for the various "let's control encryption" proposals that the US government and others have pushed over the last few years. On the other hand, it is equally clear that while AP is "on-topic," nevertheless it is quite distinctly distasteful to a few people around here who seem to believe that the _political_ and _technical" implications of good encryption can be kept safely separated. It is obvious that you are one of those people. It is equally obvious that you are not honest enough to admit that. So rather than say merely "I don't like it" you try to embellish your claims with "oh so clearly way off-topic." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Removal from newsgroup listing
by PIONEER146＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please remove from the mailing list, please. Thank you. Pioneer146(a)aol.com

1 0

7.9 cpm long-distance
by remove＠structuremg.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Starway Telecommunications Inc. Announces . . . 7.9 cpm flat rate long-distance period. Anywhere in the US to anywhere in the US for 7.9 cpm, including your own state! Calls to Canada at 9.9! Canada to Canada at 7.9 too! Calling cards - 9.9 cpm! It's unbelievable! Don't worry about switching carriers, you don't need to. Still waiting for the mystical "BLACKBOX" technology? We've got the low rates secure NOW without the box and we will be the first ones with the boxes when they are released! Other companies promise it - we've GOT it NOW!! Contracts have been signed between a major health related network marketing firm called Neways, with 750,000 distributors and grossing $100 million in 1996, and each of the top three long distance carriers, to create Starway Telecommunications Inc. Low international rates will be released later this week! Cellular long-distance rumored to be at 7.9 as well. And cellular service will be available in another month. Pagers and many other services will be available soon! For more information check out my webpage - http://www.structuremg.com/program/starways.htm Sounds like an incredible company, doesn't it? They are! Want to learn how you can profit from this amazing opportunity? Check out the website. We are now accepting applications for distributors. Don't pass up this timelyopportunity. Save money on your long-distance and make some money! Bryant Salus Structure Marketing Group ************************************************************** If you wish to be removed from our future mailings simply reply with "REMOVE" in the subject and place your email address in the body. You must do this correctly to be removed. **************************************************************

1 0

Re: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:06 AM 2/15/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 10:19 AM -0600 2/15/97, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: > >>I much prefer the plan where a potential mail correspondant includes an >>e-cash dollar directly cashable by me. If I like the mail (and the >>sender), I throw the dollar away and the sender goes on the approved >>list. If not, I keep the dollar, and the sender goes on the twit list. >>Paper junk mail costs an advertiser more than $1 per piece, so they'd >>still be getting a bargain. And potentially, some receivers may throw >>away the dollar and welcome the spam. > >The basic flaw in all of these schemes is that they are "top-down" >solutions, imposed on the market for invented reasons. There we must disagree. Not that "top-down" imposed solutions won't generally work, I agree with that. Rather, I suggest that there are valid and logical market-driven reasons that people, both buyers and sellers, would want to adopt the system I've proposed. The benefits for the recipient of the payment-containing spam/advertising are obvious. He gets money. Admittedly it is less obvious why a seller would want to pay for what he seemed to previously got for free, but that's more-or-less the case. More in a moment. [snip] >However, just "making up" a fee--as Roy does here, and as Jim Bell and >others have done before--is not a solution either. Nor does it stand any >chance of being "enforced" (for a large number of reasons I won't get into >here). >--Tim May Yes, the charge will be "enforced"...by the market! Here's how. "Spam" in other media is termed "advertising" or "junk mail." And advertisers pay good money for it, precisely because that it will drum up enough business to not only pay for the ad rates, but also make some profit as well. They're apparently correct, because those companies stay in business for years or decades. Now, you'd probably imagine that businessmen would like to see the cost of their advertising drop. Superficially, you'd be right, but in reality if the cost of advertising on TV or radio or newspapers is an essential element of the system. To understand why, imagine that the price of such advertising dropped by a factor of 100. Suddenly, anybody doing ads could do ten times as many, for a tenth the total cost, or any such similar ratio. Or thousands of companies whose products didn't previously profit enough for such ads would now be able to do them, as well. The airwaves would be flooded. There wouldn't be enough time for entertainment, or news, or much of anything other than ads. Worse, since total advertising revenue would probably be down by at least a factor of 25, even assuming "only" a 4x increase in ad volume, there would be far less money available for producing good shows. With fewer, worse shows, and many more ads, the average viewers would stay away in droves. Pretty soon, the VALUE of that advertising to the advertiser would drop...to 1/100 of what it was before. The newspapers would, likewise, be flooded with ads. Even local newspapers would look like the Sunday New York Times. And the current newspaper reader might as well stay away, because it would be a rare page that actually contained an article, and was not filled with ads. Junk mail, if the TOTAL cost (paper, printing, labelling, mailing, etc) dropped by a factor of 100, our mailboxes would be filled with paper three times a day, maybe more often. Well, actually this is not true. There are other effects which would limit this progression. For example, as ad space went up, people would watch/read less, so advertisers won't be motived to place ads even if they are free. If junk mail was free, nobody would have the time to read most of it, and it would go into the trash even faster than it does today. In effect, if nothing else limited this advertising, our patience (or lack of it) would do so. The _value_ of that advertising would drop to zero, along with its cost. The end result, I argue, would be occasional low-value, sporadic advertising that "nobody" reads and everybody hates. Sound familiar? On the Internet, it's called, "spam." Classic Internet-type spam is, essentially, a "zero-cost" ad. Not _exactly_ zero cost, but pretty close, at least in terms of bare cash outlay. What limits Internet-spam is that if it's overdone (or, some would argue, done at all!) an advertiser ends up pissing off the reader, making him even less likely to purchase the goods or services the spammer/advertiser was offering. At that point, in effect the cost of that advertising is "infinite," because the outlay of zero money caused a _reduction_ in sales. An advertiser can't force a customer to buy, and he knows it. But what he wants is the customer's time and attention, even if there's no guarantee of a sale. Really, what he wants is to buy the attention of a potential customer, maybe only few a few seconds or a minute or so. That's what advertising does. But like an ad in a newspaper or a commercial on TV (which the target customer can ignore, mute, or walk away from) there is no guarantee of contact. So how, you'll ask, can the "free money with spam" deal be "enforced"? Well, it can't, if your definition of "enforced" includes merely the idea of some higher legal authority like a government or a trade organization or something. But if you include the idea of the participants in the market, themselves, "enforcing" such a payment, it can. Let's suppose, for simplicity's sake, that we are considering two types of advertisers. One has a product that few people want. Not NONE, just few. It's either poor quality, or too expensive (compared to its perceived value), or just not particularly interesting to the majority of the public. The other has a product that far more people want. It's good, or is seen to be inexpensive, or is interesting. Now, the former advertiser must put out far more ads to make a given buck than the latter. The latter advertiser wants and needs the attention of any given potential customer more than the former, because the latter is far more likely to satisfy the customer's curiosity and desires and be able to do business with him. In short, the purveyor of products that more people want (products which are more likely to interest the average potential advertisement reader...) can AFFORD to pay a larger amount of money to a given ad-recipient than can the other advertiser, the seller of junk. Logic suggests that in the competition for "share of mind," the good-product seller would choose to give a larger amount of money to any given ad-recipient, in order to attract his attention and distinguish him from the other guy, if nothing else. After all, that's the one thing HE CAN DO that the other guy, statistically, cannot. He can say, in effect, "My ad is more important and intersting to look at, and I can prove it by paying you more!" He is also saying that he values you, as a customer, more than the guy who can only pay less. Moreover, if I were a potential ad-reader, faced with the prospect of reading "N" ads where "N" is a larger number than I really want to see, presumably I would like to be able to pre-separate the ads into two groups, the ones I'm more likely to want to read and the other pile. Even if I were to totally ignore the fact that I'm more enriched by ads which contain a larger payment (for example if that payment were to go (hypothetically) to a charity of my choice) I should STILL recognize that it is more likely that an interesting, useful ad would be able to afford a larger payment to potential recipients. Therefore, logic suggests that absent any other guide, I should spend my limited time reading preferentially reading the ads where the advertiser was willing (and able) to make a larger payment. Were a mail-reader program equipped with the ability to collect such payments and change the ranking of ads, it seems logical to believe that one of the most frequently-chosen options would be one which presented the highest-paying ads FIRST, then the others in decending order of value. There are multiple levels of self-interest at work here, reinforcing themselves. First, in the short term, advertisers who pay more make you, the customer, richer. But more importantly, if the customer preferentially reads high-payment ads, over the medium-term the advertisers will tend to get the idea and will raise their payments to whatever they feel they must to get your attention. Further, in the long term giving more business to advertisers who pay customers more will tend to strengthen those advertisers, leading to their dominance in the industry. In short, like Darwin's natural-selection concept, the idea of including payments with unsolicited ads will simply take over. In fact, at some point the concept of sending unsolicited product or service advertising (at least on the Internet) WITHOUT including a gratuity will become as gauche as exiting a restaurant without leaving a tip. At that point, the behavior of millions of potential customers will, in effort, ENFORCE the practice, because the vast majority of the public will simply ignore advertising by rude, un-generous people. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Michael Ehling wrote: > > At 10:31 AM 2/14/97 -0800, you wrote: > <snip> > > > >Having been "on" the net for over 15 years -- and with experience > >in both ends of the censorship/moderation problem (I'm probably > >the only Cypherpunks member to have had a book "banned in Boston"), > >I'm sorry that a handful of sociopaths managed to destroy this > >experiment in anarchy, but I suspect that this was inevitable. The experiment in anarchy continues full speed. Cypherpunks is not dead, although it will take the newly created online communities to pick up steam. Cypherpunks mailing list simply expanded and took another form. Again, thanks to John Gilmore for running this list for years. His job required a lot of dedication and effort and I am thankful to him for what he did for it. cypherpunks(a)toad.com enhanced my understanding of reality immensely. - Igor.

1 0

Re: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly]
by Michael Ehling 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:31 AM 2/14/97 -0800, you wrote: <snip> > >Having been "on" the net for over 15 years -- and with experience >in both ends of the censorship/moderation problem (I'm probably >the only Cypherpunks member to have had a book "banned in Boston"), >I'm sorry that a handful of sociopaths managed to destroy this >experiment in anarchy, but I suspect that this was inevitable. > >Martin Minow >minow(a)apple.com > For the FWIW dept: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Hmm...yes I agree. Handful of sociopaths. Inevitable? Perhaps. On one hand anarchy, on the other control. Free-wheeling vs. stifling. Complete free speech vs. censorship. Oh, sure. You can always say that one is more "right" than the other. But I believe everyone sees the validity of both sides...whether you agree with them is another thing. So, we seem stuck between the two. And yet, they say there is always a third option. We just need some time to pull away and see it. This "experiment in anarchy" may be coming to an end. But I like your choice of words: "experiment." We've learned a great deal through this one. Perhaps next time we'll structure things differently. Who knows? Long after the last packet leaves cyhperpunks(a)toad.com, the spirit, the ideas and ideals will remain. Take good care, Michael Ehling mehling(a)ibm.net

1 0

Re: Good Bye Cypherpunks!
by John W. Noerenberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:07 PM -0500 2/14/97, Vin McLellan wrote: > > So now we ourselves burn the village in order to save it. > > <nostalgic sigh> > > How American! > Vin, your words are poignant and heartfelt. To be honest, I share your feelings (but I can't help but be amused that having recently decided to resubscribe after a lengthy absence, I returned just in time to wallow into a sea of discontent -- sorta like walking out the door of the cabin and all the snow on the roof falling on your head -- you're cold, you're wet, and you feel pretty damn stupid to boot). However, the denizens of this place are a resourceful lot. If alt.cypherpunks doesn't work out, if the distributed mailing lists don't work, we'll try something else. I don't think anyone is ready to give up, yet. best, john noerenberg jwn2(a)qualcomm.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ishmael gave himself to the writing of it, and as he did so he understood this, too: that accident ruled every corner of the universe except the chambers of the human heart. -- David Guterson, Snow Falling on Cedars, 1995 --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:06 AM 2/15/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 10:19 AM -0600 2/15/97, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: > >>I much prefer the plan where a potential mail correspondant includes an >>e-cash dollar directly cashable by me. If I like the mail (and the >>sender), I throw the dollar away and the sender goes on the approved >>list. If not, I keep the dollar, and the sender goes on the twit list. >>Paper junk mail costs an advertiser more than $1 per piece, so they'd >>still be getting a bargain. And potentially, some receivers may throw >>away the dollar and welcome the spam. > >The basic flaw in all of these schemes is that they are "top-down" >solutions, imposed on the market for invented reasons. There we must disagree. Not that "top-down" imposed solutions won't generally work, I agree with that. Rather, I suggest that there are valid and logical market-driven reasons that people, both buyers and sellers, would want to adopt the system I've proposed. The benefits for the recipient of the payment-containing spam/advertising are obvious. He gets money. Admittedly it is less obvious why a seller would want to pay for what he seemed to previously got for free, but that's more-or-less the case. More in a moment. [snip] >However, just "making up" a fee--as Roy does here, and as Jim Bell and >others have done before--is not a solution either. Nor does it stand any >chance of being "enforced" (for a large number of reasons I won't get into >here). >--Tim May Yes, the charge will be "enforced"...by the market! Here's how. "Spam" in other media is termed "advertising" or "junk mail." And advertisers pay good money for it, precisely because that it will drum up enough business to not only pay for the ad rates, but also make some profit as well. They're apparently correct, because those companies stay in business for years or decades. Now, you'd probably imagine that businessmen would like to see the cost of their advertising drop. Superficially, you'd be right, but in reality if the cost of advertising on TV or radio or newspapers is an essential element of the system. To understand why, imagine that the price of such advertising dropped by a factor of 100. Suddenly, anybody doing ads could do ten times as many, for a tenth the total cost, or any such similar ratio. Or thousands of companies whose products didn't previously profit enough for such ads would now be able to do them, as well. The airwaves would be flooded. There wouldn't be enough time for entertainment, or news, or much of anything other than ads. Worse, since total advertising revenue would probably be down by at least a factor of 25, even assuming "only" a 4x increase in ad volume, there would be far less money available for producing good shows. With fewer, worse shows, and many more ads, the average viewers would stay away in droves. Pretty soon, the VALUE of that advertising to the advertiser would drop...to 1/100 of what it was before. The newspapers would, likewise, be flooded with ads. Even local newspapers would look like the Sunday New York Times. And the current newspaper reader might as well stay away, because it would be a rare page that actually contained an article, and was not filled with ads. Junk mail, if the TOTAL cost (paper, printing, labelling, mailing, etc) dropped by a factor of 100, our mailboxes would be filled with paper three times a day, maybe more often. Well, actually this is not true. There are other effects which would limit this progression. For example, as ad space went up, people would watch/read less, so advertisers won't be motived to place ads even if they are free. If junk mail was free, nobody would have the time to read most of it, and it would go into the trash even faster than it does today. In effect, if nothing else limited this advertising, our patience (or lack of it) would do so. The _value_ of that advertising would drop to zero, along with its cost. The end result, I argue, would be occasional low-value, sporadic advertising that "nobody" reads and everybody hates. Sound familiar? On the Internet, it's called, "spam." Classic Internet-type spam is, essentially, a "zero-cost" ad. Not _exactly_ zero cost, but pretty close, at least in terms of bare cash outlay. What limits Internet-spam is that if it's overdone (or, some would argue, done at all!) an advertiser ends up pissing off the reader, making him even less likely to purchase the goods or services the spammer/advertiser was offering. At that point, in effect the cost of that advertising is "infinite," because the outlay of zero money caused a _reduction_ in sales. An advertiser can't force a customer to buy, and he knows it. But what he wants is the customer's time and attention, even if there's no guarantee of a sale. Really, what he wants is to buy the attention of a potential customer, maybe only few a few seconds or a minute or so. That's what advertising does. But like an ad in a newspaper or a commercial on TV (which the target customer can ignore, mute, or walk away from) there is no guarantee of contact. So how, you'll ask, can the "free money with spam" deal be "enforced"? Well, it can't, if your definition of "enforced" includes merely the idea of some higher legal authority like a government or a trade organization or something. But if you include the idea of the participants in the market, themselves, "enforcing" such a payment, it can. Let's suppose, for simplicity's sake, that we are considering two types of advertisers. One has a product that few people want. Not NONE, just few. It's either poor quality, or too expensive (compared to its perceived value), or just not particularly interesting to the majority of the public. The other has a product that far more people want. It's good, or is seen to be inexpensive, or is interesting. Now, the former advertiser must put out far more ads to make a given buck than the latter. The latter advertiser wants and needs the attention of any given potential customer more than the former, because the latter is far more likely to satisfy the customer's curiosity and desires and be able to do business with him. In short, the purveyor of products that more people want (products which are more likely to interest the average potential advertisement reader...) can AFFORD to pay a larger amount of money to a given ad-recipient than can the other advertiser, the seller of junk. Logic suggests that in the competition for "share of mind," the good-product seller would choose to give a larger amount of money to any given ad-recipient, in order to attract his attention and distinguish him from the other guy, if nothing else. After all, that's the one thing HE CAN DO that the other guy, statistically, cannot. He can say, in effect, "My ad is more important and intersting to look at, and I can prove it by paying you more!" He is also saying that he values you, as a customer, more than the guy who can only pay less. Moreover, if I were a potential ad-reader, faced with the prospect of reading "N" ads where "N" is a larger number than I really want to see, presumably I would like to be able to pre-separate the ads into two groups, the ones I'm more likely to want to read and the other pile. Even if I were to totally ignore the fact that I'm more enriched by ads which contain a larger payment (for example if that payment were to go (hypothetically) to a charity of my choice) I should STILL recognize that it is more likely that an interesting, useful ad would be able to afford a larger payment to potential recipients. Therefore, logic suggests that absent any other guide, I should spend my limited time reading preferentially reading the ads where the advertiser was willing (and able) to make a larger payment. Were a mail-reader program equipped with the ability to collect such payments and change the ranking of ads, it seems logical to believe that one of the most frequently-chosen options would be one which presented the highest-paying ads FIRST, then the others in decending order of value. There are multiple levels of self-interest at work here, reinforcing themselves. First, in the short term, advertisers who pay more make you, the customer, richer. But more importantly, if the customer preferentially reads high-payment ads, over the medium-term the advertisers will tend to get the idea and will raise their payments to whatever they feel they must to get your attention. Further, in the long term giving more business to advertisers who pay customers more will tend to strengthen those advertisers, leading to their dominance in the industry. In short, like Darwin's natural-selection concept, the idea of including payments with unsolicited ads will simply take over. In fact, at some point the concept of sending unsolicited product or service advertising (at least on the Internet) WITHOUT including a gratuity will become as gauche as exiting a restaurant without leaving a tip. At that point, the behavior of millions of potential customers will, in effort, ENFORCE the practice, because the vast majority of the public will simply ignore advertising by rude, un-generous people. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

7.9 cpm long-distance
by remove＠structuremg.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Starway Telecommunications Inc. Announces . . . 7.9 cpm flat rate long-distance period. Anywhere in the US to anywhere in the US for 7.9 cpm, including your own state! Calls to Canada at 9.9! Canada to Canada at 7.9 too! Calling cards - 9.9 cpm! It's unbelievable! Don't worry about switching carriers, you don't need to. Still waiting for the mystical "BLACKBOX" technology? We've got the low rates secure NOW without the box and we will be the first ones with the boxes when they are released! Other companies promise it - we've GOT it NOW!! Contracts have been signed between a major health related network marketing firm called Neways, with 750,000 distributors and grossing $100 million in 1996, and each of the top three long distance carriers, to create Starway Telecommunications Inc. Low international rates will be released later this week! Cellular long-distance rumored to be at 7.9 as well. And cellular service will be available in another month. Pagers and many other services will be available soon! For more information check out my webpage - http://www.structuremg.com/program/starways.htm Sounds like an incredible company, doesn't it? They are! Want to learn how you can profit from this amazing opportunity? Check out the website. We are now accepting applications for distributors. Don't pass up this timelyopportunity. Save money on your long-distance and make some money! Bryant Salus Structure Marketing Group ************************************************************** If you wish to be removed from our future mailings simply reply with "REMOVE" in the subject and place your email address in the body. You must do this correctly to be removed. **************************************************************

1 0

John Who? / WAS--Re: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Again, thanks to John Gilmore for running this list for years. His > job required a lot of dedication and effort and I am thankful to him > for what he did for it. cypherpunks(a)toad.com enhanced my understanding > of reality immensely. I certainly hope that the lack of posts expressing gratitude to John Gilmore for his maintenance of the CypherPunks list on toad.com for all these years is merely because those who have benefitted from his efforts are expressing their thanks via private email to him. Certainly, as Igor has indicated, he did not just sit on his butt playing with Little Peter while 'the machine' ran itself and provided the CypherPunks with a home for both rational discourse and mad ramblings. There are quite a few people, ranging from long-term members to passers-by who have had their horizons broadened by the list, and I would hope that they are appreciative of the fact that the mechanics of bits and bytes underlying the distribution of our grand soliloquys came at the expense of a considerable portion of his own time and energy. I know that I am. Toto

1 0

Still no sign of alt.cypherpunks heirarchy at Netcom
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm tapping my toes, druming my fingers and waiting... --Steve

1 0

Re: Why Digital Video Disks are late to market
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone seen discussions on how these protection mechanisms can be circumvented? >http://techweb.cmp.com/eet/news/97/942news/encryp.html > >To summarize, the Digital Video Disk standard contains an encryption >standard for copyright and anti-piracy protection. however, "some U.S. >PC and silicon vendors have just about abandoned hope of keeping to >their revised launch schedules for DVD-enabled systems." [snip] >A solution may be in the offing within days. Some sources said late last >week that Matsushita [who owns license rights] and key U.S. computer >companies may resolve the software-licensing issues by the end of this >week. The PC industry seeks amendments to the licensing-agreement language >that would result in equivalent treatment of software- and hardware-based >CSS decryption. > >... there apparently has been some speculation among the U.S. PC community >that Matsushita may be stonewalling on the software-licensing issue so that >it can establish its hardware-based decryption solution in the marketplace. > --Steve

2 1

Re: PGP key compromise with multiple independent encryptions of same message?
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:27 AM 2/17/97 -0500, David Coe wrote: >If I were to PGP-encrypt the same exact message to a number of >different people, each copy with that person's public key, would >I be making it easy (or easier) for one (or a group) of those >recipients to compromise another recipient's private key? If you're doing it as N separate messages, you're using N separate IDEA session keys; IDEA's strong enough that's no risk, especially since they'll be using separate Initialization Vectors. If you use the multiple-recipient capability, which uses one copy of the message encrypted with one session key, and separate headers with the session key encrypted with each public key. If PGP didn't take precautions to prevent it, there are attacks on RSA which can be used when you encrypt the same message with different RSA keys. However, PGP pads the session key with different random padding for each session-key-encrypted-with-public-key header, so they're different messages, so there's no risk there either. So don't keep worrying about it; use whichever is more convenient. (But it was worth worrying about once. :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

RE: We're in Anguilla! Comon down!!!
by Juriaan Massenza 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ROFL. Rock on Bill! ;-) >-----Original Message----- >From: Bill Clinton [SMTP:president@whitehouse.gov] >Sent: Sunday, February 16, 1997 4:57 PM >To: Those cypher-rebels >Subject: We're in Anguilla! Comon down!!! > >My fellow cypherpunks, > > I wanted to let you all know, we are having a great time, building >a router to the 21st Century, down here in sunny Anguilla. Al and I will >be wiring Anguilla's great high school for the internet. Afterwards, we'll >meet with some longtime supporters of the democratic party for a beer. > > Spaces at the conference are still available, I didn't let those >folks at American strike, so you have no excuses to be anywhere else next >week. > >Willy >Citizen Unit 429-92-9947 > >

1 0

Crypto Law Survey updated
by Bert-Jaap Koops 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have just updated my survey of existing and envisaged cryptography laws and regulations. See the Crypto Law Survey at http://cwis.kub.nl/~frw/people/koops/lawsurvy.htm This update includes: - New lay-out. Digital signatures replaced to a separate overview. - New entries on Finland (export), Hong Kong (import, export), New Zealand (export), Poland (import) -Update on Australia (government encryption of classified data), Finland (no key-escrow), France (TTP law published), Japan (general position, wiretap law), Netherlands (extend decryption command), OECD (Group of Expert okays guidelines), Scandinavia (secure email system), Switzerland (telecom encryption, export), US (Karn appeal, annual figures report) -Corrections or clarifications on Australia (export, public domain software), Belgium (export), Germany (export), US (Bernstein, NRC report) -URLs changed in France (TTP law), US (Bernstein) Bert-Jaap

1 0

alt.cypherpunks.*, cypherpunks@*.*
by Mullen, Patrick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just got my news admin to add alt.cypherpunks. Unfortunately, I can't remember the names of the subgroups (which weren't added), and I deleted the mailings which listed them. If I remember correctly, they were along the lines of alt.cypherpunks.technical alt.cypherpunks.social alt.cypherpunks.announce alt.cypherpunks.ebonics :-) Sorry, couldn't resist! Did I miss any? Name-mangle? I also have listed the following alternate list hosts cypherpunks(a)algebra.com cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net cypherpunks(a)ssz.com If anyone has a more complete list of hosts, I'd be happy for additions to the list. Thanks! ~ Patrick

2 1

Still no sign of alt.cypherpunks heirarchy at Netcom
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm tapping my toes, druming my fingers and waiting... --Steve

1 0

Crypto Law Survey updated
by Bert-Jaap Koops 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Re: Raph
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:22 AM 2/18/97 -0500, Alec wrote: >I have found it convenient to retrieve Raph's list off c'punks, as opposed to >fingering. I do hope this service to the community will continue on one forum >or another. You can of course also get it from the web page listed in the listing... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

alt.cypherpunks.*, cypherpunks@*.*
by Mullen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just got my news admin to add alt.cypherpunks. Unfortunately, I can't remember the names of the subgroups (which weren't added), and I deleted the mailings which listed them. If I remember correctly, they were along the lines of alt.cypherpunks.technical alt.cypherpunks.social alt.cypherpunks.announce alt.cypherpunks.ebonics :-) Sorry, couldn't resist! Did I miss any? Name-mangle? I also have listed the following alternate list hosts cypherpunks(a)algebra.com cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net cypherpunks(a)ssz.com If anyone has a more complete list of hosts, I'd be happy for additions to the list. Thanks! ~ Patrick

1 0

Re: Any more like www.anonymizer.com ??
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:29 pm -0500 on 2/18/97, ! Drive wrote: > A proposal and prototype of a different anonymity mechanism can be found at: > http://www.itd.nrl.navy.mil/ITD/5540/projects/onion-routing/overview.html And, of course, you can hear about the next generation from the same bunch, on Monday morning at FC97: Unlinkable Serial Transactions Paul F. Syverson (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, USA), Stuart G. Stubblebine (AT&T Labs--Research, Murray Hill, NJ, USA), David M. Goldschlag (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, USA) :-). <http://www.offshore.com.ai/fc97/> Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/

1 0

Re: PGP key compromise with multiple independent encryptions of same message?
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:27 AM 2/17/97 -0500, David Coe wrote: >If I were to PGP-encrypt the same exact message to a number of >different people, each copy with that person's public key, would >I be making it easy (or easier) for one (or a group) of those >recipients to compromise another recipient's private key? If you're doing it as N separate messages, you're using N separate IDEA session keys; IDEA's strong enough that's no risk, especially since they'll be using separate Initialization Vectors. If you use the multiple-recipient capability, which uses one copy of the message encrypted with one session key, and separate headers with the session key encrypted with each public key. If PGP didn't take precautions to prevent it, there are attacks on RSA which can be used when you encrypt the same message with different RSA keys. However, PGP pads the session key with different random padding for each session-key-encrypted-with-public-key header, so they're different messages, so there's no risk there either. So don't keep worrying about it; use whichever is more convenient. (But it was worth worrying about once. :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Crypto Law Survey updated
by Bert-Jaap Koops 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have just updated my survey of existing and envisaged cryptography laws and regulations. See the Crypto Law Survey at http://cwis.kub.nl/~frw/people/koops/lawsurvy.htm This update includes: - New lay-out. Digital signatures replaced to a separate overview. - New entries on Finland (export), Hong Kong (import, export), New Zealand (export), Poland (import) -Update on Australia (government encryption of classified data), Finland (no key-escrow), France (TTP law published), Japan (general position, wiretap law), Netherlands (extend decryption command), OECD (Group of Expert okays guidelines), Scandinavia (secure email system), Switzerland (telecom encryption, export), US (Karn appeal, annual figures report) -Corrections or clarifications on Australia (export, public domain software), Belgium (export), Germany (export), US (Bernstein, NRC report) -URLs changed in France (TTP law), US (Bernstein) Bert-Jaap

1 0

Re: alt.cypherpunks.ebonics
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mr. Bell wrote: > At 11:16 AM 2/18/97 -0500, Alec wrote: > >With the exceptions of AP (oh so clearly way off-topic), > Quite to the contrary, AP is NOT "oh so clearly way off-topic." First AP, > as I've sketched it uses many of the > encryption/digital-signature/verification techniques which are often > discussed here and are essentially universally agreed as being on-topic. Uhhh.... Jim? I think that Alec and friend were tweaking Igor. Think Sarcasm. Then again I could be wrong. I was once.

1 0

RE: We're in Anguilla! Comon down!!!
by Juriaan Massenza 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ROFL. Rock on Bill! ;-) >-----Original Message----- >From: Bill Clinton [SMTP:president@whitehouse.gov] >Sent: Sunday, February 16, 1997 4:57 PM >To: Those cypher-rebels >Subject: We're in Anguilla! Comon down!!! > >My fellow cypherpunks, > > I wanted to let you all know, we are having a great time, building >a router to the 21st Century, down here in sunny Anguilla. Al and I will >be wiring Anguilla's great high school for the internet. Afterwards, we'll >meet with some longtime supporters of the democratic party for a beer. > > Spaces at the conference are still available, I didn't let those >folks at American strike, so you have no excuses to be anywhere else next >week. > >Willy >Citizen Unit 429-92-9947 > >

1 0

Cypherpunks Mailing List (Was: Re: When and where?)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Please post the date when this list will shift to Usenet if that is indeed to >happen. I have not been able to sort out the facts (?) from the speculation, >argument, and gas. There are a variety of approaches being pursued in parallel. You can subscribe to cypherpunks(a)Cyberpass.net by sending mail to majordomo(a)Cyberpass.net with the usual syntax (send it a message body of "help" if you want details.) It should gateway to the other mail servers as they develop. It's currently getting everything from cypherpunks(a)toad.com, which I've no unsubscribed to to avoid getting duplicate copies of everything. If you're one of those people getting one or more copies of the cypherpunks mailing list and you don't want to, find out where your mail is coming from and send mail to majordomo there.... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: Constitution and a Right to Privacy
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mr. may wrote: > At 1:22 PM -0600 2/17/97, snow wrote: > > My rights are WHATEVER ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION, and the government > >can only, ONLY do what the constitution says it can. > But why do you not object that the "right to free speech," "the right to > keep and bear arms," and so on, are specifically enumeratedin the Bill of > Rights? The privacy issue is that there is no such enumeration of a right > to privacy in the Bill of Rights, though many think it to be implicit in > some of the other enumerated rights, e.g,, the Fourth, and even in the > First. Amendment X- (1791) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. As far as my reading goes, the Constitution (of which the BoR is a portion, IIR my "civics" (more like uncivics) classes properly) doesn't give the Feds the right to invade my privacy, and although not _explicit_, Also: Amendment IX -(1791) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Seems to indicate that even if it isn't listed, we should still have it. Then: Amendment IV- (1791) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Seems (to me, and IANAL) indicate that there is (at least in the minds of the writers) a distinction between _public_ information which is fair game, and public information, which is only fair game if there is enough public information to justify crossing that line. > Constitutional issues are not easily discussed in short messages like this. > Suffice it to say the issue of whether a "right to privacy" exists has been > long discussed, most recently by Bork, Posner, and others (I skimmed the > latest Posner book a while back, and liked his style). There is a big question in my mind whether things are so complicated that we need lawyers, or they are so complicated because we have lawyers. It seems to me that the constitution is written rather simply, at least prior to the 14th amendment. Congress Shall Make No Law... where is the confusion? It is the fact that some people "know best" what is good for others, and wish to enforce this "knowlege" upon the rest of us. God save me from your over zelous followers. > > The issue hit when abortion advocates argued that a "woman's right to > privacy" allowed abortions. However, none of the enumerated rights made > this obvious. Bork has opined that no right to privacy can be inferred from > the Constitution. > > (And I always thought the "woman's right to privacy" argument for abortion > was flaky. Accepting such an argument, wouldn't infanticide be equally > protected by a woman's right to privacy?) Or a man's.

1 0

Re: Why Digital Video Disks are late to market
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone seen discussions on how these protection mechanisms can be circumvented? >http://techweb.cmp.com/eet/news/97/942news/encryp.html > >To summarize, the Digital Video Disk standard contains an encryption >standard for copyright and anti-piracy protection. however, "some U.S. >PC and silicon vendors have just about abandoned hope of keeping to >their revised launch schedules for DVD-enabled systems." [snip] >A solution may be in the offing within days. Some sources said late last >week that Matsushita [who owns license rights] and key U.S. computer >companies may resolve the software-licensing issues by the end of this >week. The PC industry seeks amendments to the licensing-agreement language >that would result in equivalent treatment of software- and hardware-based >CSS decryption. > >... there apparently has been some speculation among the U.S. PC community >that Matsushita may be stonewalling on the software-licensing issue so that >it can establish its hardware-based decryption solution in the marketplace. > --Steve

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks FAQ
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Toto wrote: > > The primal instinct of those with interest in 'control' is centered > > around the need for 'total' control. The history of dictators in > > general has shown more than a few who have allowed the sheep to escape > > from their pens while they were fixated on chasing down the few 'black > > sheep' that had strayed from their control. > > The CypherPunks list is a prime example of this. John and Sandy became > > so fixated on their attack on Dr. Vulis (and subsequent 'dissenters') > > that they eventually lost control of the other sheep in the fold who > > were willing to go along with a 'moderate' abrogation of their right > > to free speech by the censoring of only the 'black' sheep. > Take no offense, but why nobody thought about an obviously more likely > conclusion: that it is Dr. Vulis who was, say, hired by Detweiler to > destroy cypherpunks. I personally find the above unlikely, but at least > more likely than all other suggestions (which I think are an example > of the delusion of grandeur). Remember the movie Die Hard (#1)? Remember what the wife said about how her husband would drive people stark, raving mad? I humbly suggest by analogy that it was me, since that is my effect on a lot of people, particularly (and especially) the John and Sandy types.

1 0

Belated thank you's
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It seems somewhat trite to say thank you for the service John provided now that it is going away, when while it was here it was taken for granted. Still, I will say thank you. Perhaps in this respect it is like good health, which while it is ours is not given much though, but once lost, becomes the whole of our thoughts. The loss of John's involvement is a real loss. At the same time, I would like to think that virtual communities such as this one are robust enough to survive the type of strife that we have undergone. People being what they are, the list would have had a hard time staying static without some strong guiding focus. Given the anarchic leanings of many people on this list, John's actions have done much to test the practicality of the principles that have been spoken about here. They may also show how much work it is to follow these same principles. Still, I wonder how John will feel about the cypherpunks list as it moves beyond him. Will it grow and become widespread? Or, will it slowly die from lack of interest or time? I think he might not like either answer. A la prochain fois, James The advancement and perfection of mathematics are intimately connected with the prosperity of the State. - Napoleon I

1 0

Re: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives?
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> However, I'm very confused on just what to do at this > point, my news server doesn't see alt.cypherpunks > yet and if it did would probably lose about 75% of > the posts if past performance is to be any indicator. > (Or more accurately, would never get them, we seem > to be a bottom feeder here in South Florida as far > as the newsgroups go.) try pubnews.demon.co.uk, its a public server open to everyone and his dog, recognises all newsgroups, doesn`t accept rmgroups and is quite fast (quickest line between UK and USA, 100mbit/sec as I remember). Alternatively there is always dejanews.com 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

FW: Rules for The Great DES Replacement Contest
by Mullen, Patrick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:24:38 -0500 (EST) >From: Christof Paar <christof(a)ece.WPI.EDU> >To: christof(a)ece.WPI.EDU >Subject: (fwd) Rules for The Great DES Replacement Contest >Newsgroups: sci.crypt > > >Rules for The Great DES Replacement Contest > >On 1997 Jan 02, the National Institute of Standards and Technology >of The Department of Commerce announced the start of a process to >approve an "Advanced Encryption Standard." (See the Federal >Register Vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 93-94; for example, by going to > > http://www.lib.auburn.edu/gpo/index.html > >and searching the Federal Register for "Advanced Encryption >Standard.") > > >The first part of the process seems to be requesting comments >on the cipher requirements and submission guidelines as follows: > >"Proposed Draft Minimum Acceptability Requirements and Evaluation >Criteria > > "The draft minimum acceptability requirements and evaluation >criteria are: > A.1 AES shall be publicly defined. > A.2 AES shall be a symmetric block cipher. > A.3 AES shall be designed so that the key length may be increased >as needed. > A.4 AES shall be implementable in both hardware and software. > A.5 AES shall either be (a) freely available or (b) available >under terms consistent with the American National Standards Institute >(ANSI) patent policy. > A.6 Algorithms which meet the above requirements will be judged >based on the following factors: > (a) Security (i.e., the effort required to cryptanalyze), > (b) Computational efficiency, > (c) Memory requirements, > (d) Hardware and software suitability, > (e) Simplicity, > (f) Flexibility, and > (g) Licensing requirements." > > >"Proposed Draft Submission Requirements" > > "In order to provide for an orderly, fair, and timely evaluation of >candidate algorithm proposals, submission requirements will specify the >procedures and supporting documentation necessary to submit a candidate >algorithm. > > B.1 A complete written specification of the algorithm including >all necessary mathematical equations, tables, and parameters needed to >implement the algorithm. > B.2 Software implementation and source code, in ANSI C code, which >will compile on a personal computer. This code will be used to compare >software performance and memory requirements with respect to other >algorithms. > B.3 Statement of estimated computational efficiency in hardware >and software. > B.4 Encryption example mapping a specified plaintext value into >ciphertext. > B.5 Statement of licensing requirements and patents which may be >infringed by implementations of this algorithm. > B.6 An analysis of the algorithm with respect to known attacks. > B.7 Statement of advantages and limitations of the submitted >algorithm." > >

1 0

Re: alt.cypherpunks.*, cypherpunks@*.*
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks) At 9:02 AM -0500 2/19/97, Mullen, Patrick wrote: >I just got my news admin to add alt.cypherpunks. Unfortunately, I can't >remember the names of the subgroups (which weren't added), and I >deleted the mailings which listed them. > >If I remember correctly, they were along the lines of > >alt.cypherpunks.technical >alt.cypherpunks.social >alt.cypherpunks.announce >alt.cypherpunks.ebonics :-) Sorry, couldn't resist! Patrick reminds us of why a simple name like "alt.cypherpunks" is preferable to an extensive hierarchy: "I can't remember the names of the subgroups." It was a mistake, I believe, to create the various subgroups, and I hope they fail to propagate. I'd rather use more capable newsreading tools to scan _one_ group and follow interesting threads in it than try to remember what got posted where. And I especially don't want to see the predictable carping about how some topic "belongs" in one of the other groups! And many will simply cross-post their stuff to more than one of the groups, trying to guess which are most relevant, which are being read by enough people, etc. Even at a hundred messages a day, a single group is easily managed. And having four of them will not cut the traffic in the main group significantly. --Tim May, who plans to only post to the main group. -- Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Why Digital Video Disks are late to market
by Jeremiah A Blatz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- azur(a)netcom.com (Steve Schear) writes: > Has anyone seen discussions on how these protection mechanisms can be > circumvented? Ummm, sector copy? AFAIK, the reader/writer manfacturer is trusted to cripple any copies it makes. Of course, it's all software, so if some EVIL person were to write a driver that did not honor the "don't copy me" header, society would just come crashing down around us. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwsT98kz/YzIV3P5AQFzRgMA1FLUxHHCv509ucqHbysLFQZCGplZbfXj Z3J9FAicOwmMp/6G1kCATc7193ZxbgpHfhNQ7Z+SIEPaxusL5MjkrWuCvoB9Kh4s JTyspKmgBVJ+/RnIro+QeRHqFH8atowh =7SI9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: alt.cypherpunks.*, cypherpunks@*.*
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mullen, Patrick wrote: > alt.cypherpunks.ebonics :-) Sorry, couldn't resist! > > Did I miss any? Name-mangle? alt.cypherpunks.purebred-sovoks > I also have listed the following alternate list hosts > > cypherpunks(a)algebra.com > cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net > cypherpunks(a)ssz.com > > If anyone has a more complete list of hosts, I'd be happy > for additions to the list. Dave Hayes was going to create one: Dave Hayes wrote: Dave> To: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org, cypherpunks(a)toad.com Dave> Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Dave> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:29:41 -0800 Dave> Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Dave> Precedence: bulk Dave> Dave> Ok. I'll "put up". Dave> Dave> If the cypherpunks will have me, -I'll- run the cypherpunks Dave> list. Those that know me know that I will *not* censor, moderate, or Dave> otherwise alter the content (other than the stuff majordomo does with Dave> "resend") of any messages to the list. and then wrote: Dave> To: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org Dave> Cc: dthorn(a)gte.net (Dale Thorn), ichudov(a)algebra.com, cypherpunks(a)toad.com Dave> Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Dave> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 13:13:40 -0800 Dave> Dave> Kent Crispin writes: Dave> > Dave is offering a single mailing list, which, while I am sure Dave is Dave> > a great person, still represents a single point of control and a Dave> > single point of failure. A distributed mailing list has a potential Dave> > for being much more robust, and for supporting a wide range of Dave> > viewpoints. Dave> Dave> I can also offer my participation in the distributed mailing list, if Dave> that is what it takes to get cypherpunks free of control interests again. I am not sure if it already exists... - Igor.

1 0

news article:fake email on Capitol Hill (fwd)
by Z.B. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 06:36:28 -0600 From: Gekko <gekko(a)midusa.net> To: dc-stuff(a)dis.org Subject: news article:fake email on Capitol Hill Spoofing Congress Fake e-mail floods Capitol Hill NO, THESE weren't lobbyists pummeling members of Congress with propaganda, but apparently pranksters under the guise of legitimate Net users. In recent weeks, they have flooded lawmakers with hundreds of e-mail threats to delete all files in the Capitol Hill computer system. One of the identities used was that of Mercury News Computing Editor Dan Gillmor in the ruse that included 200 messages to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. The FBI is looking into the incidents of "spoofing," but apparently no damage has yet been found. Story by Rory J. O'Connor of the Mercury News Washington Bureau

1 0

Re: Constitution and a Right to Privacy
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

snow wrote: > Mr. may wrote: > > At 1:22 PM -0600 2/17/97, snow wrote: > Amendment IV- > (1791) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, > and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, > and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or > affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the > persons or things to be seized. > It seems to me that the constitution is written rather simply, at least > prior to the 14th amendment. Congress Shall Make No Law... where is the > confusion? Simple, but.... In a right to jury trial of peers, are the peers the peers of the defendant or the peers of the victim? Both the Rodney King officers and the O.J. cases were perfect examples of how, when you switch the peer groups, you reverse the decisions.

1 0

Belated thank you's
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It seems somewhat trite to say thank you for the service John provided now that it is going away, when while it was here it was taken for granted. Still, I will say thank you. Perhaps in this respect it is like good health, which while it is ours is not given much though, but once lost, becomes the whole of our thoughts. The loss of John's involvement is a real loss. At the same time, I would like to think that virtual communities such as this one are robust enough to survive the type of strife that we have undergone. People being what they are, the list would have had a hard time staying static without some strong guiding focus. Given the anarchic leanings of many people on this list, John's actions have done much to test the practicality of the principles that have been spoken about here. They may also show how much work it is to follow these same principles. Still, I wonder how John will feel about the cypherpunks list as it moves beyond him. Will it grow and become widespread? Or, will it slowly die from lack of interest or time? I think he might not like either answer. A la prochain fois, James The advancement and perfection of mathematics are intimately connected with the prosperity of the State. - Napoleon I

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks FAQ
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Toto wrote: > > The primal instinct of those with interest in 'control' is centered > > around the need for 'total' control. The history of dictators in > > general has shown more than a few who have allowed the sheep to escape > > from their pens while they were fixated on chasing down the few 'black > > sheep' that had strayed from their control. > > The CypherPunks list is a prime example of this. John and Sandy became > > so fixated on their attack on Dr. Vulis (and subsequent 'dissenters') > > that they eventually lost control of the other sheep in the fold who > > were willing to go along with a 'moderate' abrogation of their right > > to free speech by the censoring of only the 'black' sheep. > Take no offense, but why nobody thought about an obviously more likely > conclusion: that it is Dr. Vulis who was, say, hired by Detweiler to > destroy cypherpunks. I personally find the above unlikely, but at least > more likely than all other suggestions (which I think are an example > of the delusion of grandeur). Remember the movie Die Hard (#1)? Remember what the wife said about how her husband would drive people stark, raving mad? I humbly suggest by analogy that it was me, since that is my effect on a lot of people, particularly (and especially) the John and Sandy types.

1 0

Re: alt.cypherpunks.*, cypherpunks@*.*
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks) At 9:02 AM -0500 2/19/97, Mullen, Patrick wrote: >I just got my news admin to add alt.cypherpunks. Unfortunately, I can't >remember the names of the subgroups (which weren't added), and I >deleted the mailings which listed them. > >If I remember correctly, they were along the lines of > >alt.cypherpunks.technical >alt.cypherpunks.social >alt.cypherpunks.announce >alt.cypherpunks.ebonics :-) Sorry, couldn't resist! Patrick reminds us of why a simple name like "alt.cypherpunks" is preferable to an extensive hierarchy: "I can't remember the names of the subgroups." It was a mistake, I believe, to create the various subgroups, and I hope they fail to propagate. I'd rather use more capable newsreading tools to scan _one_ group and follow interesting threads in it than try to remember what got posted where. And I especially don't want to see the predictable carping about how some topic "belongs" in one of the other groups! And many will simply cross-post their stuff to more than one of the groups, trying to guess which are most relevant, which are being read by enough people, etc. Even at a hundred messages a day, a single group is easily managed. And having four of them will not cut the traffic in the main group significantly. --Tim May, who plans to only post to the main group. -- Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

FW: Rules for The Great DES Replacement Contest
by Mullen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:24:38 -0500 (EST) >From: Christof Paar <christof(a)ece.WPI.EDU> >To: christof(a)ece.WPI.EDU >Subject: (fwd) Rules for The Great DES Replacement Contest >Newsgroups: sci.crypt > > >Rules for The Great DES Replacement Contest > >On 1997 Jan 02, the National Institute of Standards and Technology >of The Department of Commerce announced the start of a process to >approve an "Advanced Encryption Standard." (See the Federal >Register Vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 93-94; for example, by going to > > http://www.lib.auburn.edu/gpo/index.html > >and searching the Federal Register for "Advanced Encryption >Standard.") > > >The first part of the process seems to be requesting comments >on the cipher requirements and submission guidelines as follows: > >"Proposed Draft Minimum Acceptability Requirements and Evaluation >Criteria > > "The draft minimum acceptability requirements and evaluation >criteria are: > A.1 AES shall be publicly defined. > A.2 AES shall be a symmetric block cipher. > A.3 AES shall be designed so that the key length may be increased >as needed. > A.4 AES shall be implementable in both hardware and software. > A.5 AES shall either be (a) freely available or (b) available >under terms consistent with the American National Standards Institute >(ANSI) patent policy. > A.6 Algorithms which meet the above requirements will be judged >based on the following factors: > (a) Security (i.e., the effort required to cryptanalyze), > (b) Computational efficiency, > (c) Memory requirements, > (d) Hardware and software suitability, > (e) Simplicity, > (f) Flexibility, and > (g) Licensing requirements." > > >"Proposed Draft Submission Requirements" > > "In order to provide for an orderly, fair, and timely evaluation of >candidate algorithm proposals, submission requirements will specify the >procedures and supporting documentation necessary to submit a candidate >algorithm. > > B.1 A complete written specification of the algorithm including >all necessary mathematical equations, tables, and parameters needed to >implement the algorithm. > B.2 Software implementation and source code, in ANSI C code, which >will compile on a personal computer. This code will be used to compare >software performance and memory requirements with respect to other >algorithms. > B.3 Statement of estimated computational efficiency in hardware >and software. > B.4 Encryption example mapping a specified plaintext value into >ciphertext. > B.5 Statement of licensing requirements and patents which may be >infringed by implementations of this algorithm. > B.6 An analysis of the algorithm with respect to known attacks. > B.7 Statement of advantages and limitations of the submitted >algorithm." > >

1 0

Re: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives?
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> However, I'm very confused on just what to do at this > point, my news server doesn't see alt.cypherpunks > yet and if it did would probably lose about 75% of > the posts if past performance is to be any indicator. > (Or more accurately, would never get them, we seem > to be a bottom feeder here in South Florida as far > as the newsgroups go.) try pubnews.demon.co.uk, its a public server open to everyone and his dog, recognises all newsgroups, doesn`t accept rmgroups and is quite fast (quickest line between UK and USA, 100mbit/sec as I remember). Alternatively there is always dejanews.com 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

No Subject
by Shark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Trial

2 1

OECD on Dirty Money
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Last week's FT-reported OECD money laundering paper, "FATF-VIII Money Laundering Typologies Exercise Public Report," 5 February 1997 is at: http://jya.com/fatf8.htm (Text 94K; 4 images 78K)

1 0

Re: Belated thank you's
by Thomas M. McGhan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

in a message apparently-from: jbugden(a)smtplink.alis.ca these words appeared: >The loss of John's involvement is a real loss. {snip} I would expect that "John's involvement" will not be lost just because the primary mass storage for the data comprising these messages is not on a disk drive in toad hall. >...how John will feel about the cypherpunks list as it moves beyond him. {snip} Unless the openness of this list, which was such a cause celebre, is compromised, I do not envision any mechanisms being put in place to exclude his contributions, if he chooses to make any. I also expect that the outcome of the in-progress election for ISOC board of trustees may have a certain effect on his time-and-energy resource allocation algorithm for the next few years. ======= tmcghan(a)mail.bcpl.lib.md.us http://www.gill-simpson.com voice: (410) 467-3335 fax: (410) 235-6961 pagenet: (410) 716-1342 cellular: (410) 241-9113 ICBM: 39.395N 76.469W

1 0

Netcom carriage of alt.cypherpunk newsgroups
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I received the following reply to my inquiry: --------- Dear Mr. Schear: Thank you for your request. The addition of newsgroups is handled by our System Administrators, and we have forwarded your message over to their department. If we are able to add this group it should be available within two weeks of receipt. If we are unable to add the group for any reason we will also inform you of this within two weeks. If you have any other questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us again. - Leigh Ann --------------------------------------------------------------------- _ _ |_|_ |_| Email Technical Support _ |_|_ NETCOM On-Line Communication Services, Inc. |_| _|_| http://www.netcom.com/bin/webtech |_| 24-Hour Technical Support: (408) 881-1810 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0