December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Why I dislike Java. (was Re: "Scruffies" vs. "Neats")
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:34 PM 5/2/96 -0400, Perry wrote: >At one of my clients, there is a software testing lab where all >software that is placed on the trading floor is rigorously tested for Definitely - aside from severe dangers like automated theft or incorrect output, even software that takes a PC down for 5 minutes during the trading day every once in a while can cost big money to a brokerage firm. >Netscape with Java cannot be so tested because important components >come down off the net. So no, I'm not holding Netscape with Java to a >higher standard. I'm very much holding it to the same standard. Netscape now lets you turn off Java and Javascript. An ideal would be to support running applications signed by your choice of application-certifiers, which is BTW likely to be much more restrictive that your list of key-certifiers if you're in a paranoid business like brokerages and airlines. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 begin 777 goodtimes =96-H;R!H879I;F<@9V]O9"!T:6UE<R!Y970_#0H0 end

1 0

Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info
by Terry.Liberty-Parker＠804.ima.infomail.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-=> Note: Forwarded (from: netmail) by Terry Liberty-Parker using timEd. Originally from Matthew Gaylor (1:382/87.0) to terry liberty-parker. Original dated: May 01 '96, 13:50 e-Id: <v0213050eadad22805e60(a)[198.4.94.223]> From: freematt(a)coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) From: angels(a)wavenet.com (CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher) Subject: CYBERANGELS Thanks for your interest in our group. We apologize for any delay in answering your enquiry. Our service is not automated, and we have a huge quantity of enquiries to deal with. Briefing papers about our work are still in preparation. Keep in touch with us till then. If you have any personal problems on the Internet, or if you find an interesting and relevant website, then write and tell us. We will shortly be opening a new WWW site, and we will send a release when that is ready. Till then, take care, and keep your eyes open while you are cruising! Let us know if you find any material or activity that you think should be investigated! Let us know also if you find any interesting websites that share our mission! You are now on our rmailing list! Stand by for regular information and alerts for CyberAngels missions. Gabriel ************************************************************** THE INTERNET IS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD - LET'S LOOK AFTER IT! CYBERANGELS - WHO ARE WE? We are an all-volunteer Internet safety patrol and monitoring project started in June 1995 by senior members of the world famous crime prevention organization The International Alliance of Guardian Angels. CyberAngels membership currently numbers more than 1000 users worldwide in15 countries, who share a common mission - to be a Cyberspace Neighborhood Watch and to fight Internet crime. Our numbers are growing daily. We are working to make the Internet a safer and more enjoyable place to work and play, by being role models for self-regulation and responsibility. We are dedicated: TO FIGHT CRIME ON THE INTERNET in particular criminal activity where there are clear personal victims and/or at-risk users. TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN FROM ONLINE CRIMINAL ABUSE by fighting against the trade in child pornography and by working to deter sexual predators online. TO GIVE SUPPORT, ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE TO INTERNET VICTIMS OF HATE MAIL, HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL ABUSE ONLINE by referring them to professional assistance and by helping to guide them through the compaints and reporting processes. TO PROMOTE, PRESERVE AND PROTECT NETIQUETTE that is, the rules of polite conduct that govern our use of the Internet. We believe in courtesy and respect for others. We support Internet Service Providers who have clearly defined Terms of Service for the User, and who are prepared to enforce it. TO HELP TO PRESERVE INTERNET FREEDOM OF SPEECH by showing Governments that the Internet Community is prepared to take both responsibililty and actions to preserve the personal safety of all its members, and particularly its children. HOW DO WE FIGHT CRIME ON THE INTERNET? Crime on the Internet is a tiny percentage of everything that is there. But it is real and it is claiming victims with increasing regularity. We believe that we the Net Community should take the responsibility for the problem - after all it is our fellow users who are the criminals - and also that we should assume the responsibility for crime prevention measures. CyberAngels don't just talk about it. WE ACT. EDUCATION / ADVICE / CYBERSTREETSMARTS The Internet to us is like a vast city: public and private areas, kids and adult areas, safe areas and crime areas. To travel it safely you need some CyberStreetsmarts. One of our main methods of crime prevention on the Net is by educating users about the possible problems they may encounter, and how to avoid them Education means educating parents realistically about the Internet so that they areaware of the dangers, but are not overreacting. It's important that parents and kids cooperate in this area. The Internet is such a wonderful learning environment that we wish to encourage kids to use it - but adults must take responsibility for making sure our kids do not wander into areas that are not appropriate. We act as an advisory service for any user with problems of personal safety and / or personal security on the Net. This advice ranges from how to deal with mailbombs, forged email, mailing list spams, virii, impersonation and other electronic sabotage and harassment methods, to information about how to deal with hate mail, sexual harassment, kids' safety online and unsolicited email. Many users do not know how to report abuse nor to whom they should report it. CyberAngels can usually help. SAFETY PATROLS CyberAngels volunteers run regular Safety Patrols on the Net. Safety Patrols on the Internet means cruising the electronic highways, keeping your eyes open for problems. The main areas we patrol are the Usenet (Newsgroups) and the live channels (IRC / Chat rooms etc). We read Newsgroups, especially the binaries groups on the Usenet, and if we find images of child pornography posted up there we refer those files to federal law enforcement authorities, eg US Customs Service. We also check out fraud schemes on the Usenet, and if necessary report them to the National Fraud Centre. We also keep track of Spam developments - who is mass mailing unsolicited mail and what they are offering. We travel the live channels of IRC / MUDS or the chat rooms in the big Providers, looking out for sexual predators searching for children, or pedophiles trading child pornography in the live talk areas. This is a major source of child pornography on the Net. If we find it we report it to Sysadmins and Federal authorities. We cruise the World Wide Web, checking sites to make sure child pornography is not being used to attract visitors, and checking that a site that says it is Kidsafe really is suitable for children. We visit and read websites and FTP sites of Racist and other Hate Organizations, keeping a check on their activities. There is a very close relationship between Racist material and Racist activities (eg Hate mail and harassment, violent threats and intimidation). We don't believe in the philosophy that "anything goes" on the Net. The Internet is a society and in societies where "anything goes" then crime and violence dominate, and the stronger consume the weaker. The Internet is a newly developing global nation - and we need Cyberspace law and law enforcement if users rights are to be protected. We believe in FREEDOM AND JUSTICE UNDER LAW. And although we recognize the problems of how National Laws can be applied to an International society, we believe that the first step is that Netizens CARE about Cybercrime and the victims of Cybercrime. YOU CAN HELP US! WE NEED VOLUNTEERS! The Internet Community is huge - a worldwide network of around 40 million people, 11 million Websites, 3500 Service Providers - and it's growing every day. The more volunteers we have, the more effective we can be. And by giving a little of your time to looking after the welfare of the Net, you can make a real difference! Anyone can be a CyberAngel. The only requirement is that you commit a minimum of 2 hours per week to the project. No previous experience or special skills are necessary, .although a computer and an Internet account would be useful! :) Being a CyberAngel involves no risk or danger. You are volunteering only to be eyes watching the Net, looking out for the welfare of others. CAN YOU HELP US? You may be able to help us in other ways - we are a Division of Guardian Angels and we are a 501 (C)(3) Non-profit organization. Our membership is voluntary and we are in desperate need of more resources. All of your donations are tax-deductible. You can help us by donating money, computers, Internet access accounts, design skills, or websites. Alternatively you may like to consider sponsoring our work on the Internet. Contact us for details. * Cyberangels support SAFESURF in their campaign for child safe areas on the Net * Cyberangels support WEBSAFE and their work with kids, teens and parents. * Cyberangels support the BLUE RIBBON Freedom of Speech campaign * Cyberangels support PICS, other rating systems and screening software *Cyberangels support CYBERSPACE LAW AND LAW ENFORCEMENT. CYBERSPACE NEEDS CYBERANGELS! ********************************************************* Colin Gabriel Hatcher - CyberAngels Director angels(a)wavenet.com "Freedom and justice, under law" ********************************************************* **************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt(a)coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-20 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH 43229 **************************************************************************** ___ -- |Fidonet: Terry Liberty-Parker 1:382/804 |Internet: Terry.Liberty-Parker(a)804.ima.infomail.com | | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly their own.

1 0

Re: The Joy of Java
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:43 PM 5/2/96 -0500, Bruce M. wrote: >On Wed, 1 May 1996, Dr. Dimitri Vulis wrote: > >> My recollection is that when IBM first started selling IBM PC, they offered >> a choice of (at least) 3 operating systems right from the start: UCSD p-system, >> CP/M-86 or PC-DOS. IBM didn't do anything to prompte PC-DOS over the other >> two. It won fair and square in the marketplace because the other two were >> even worse crap. (Later versions of CP/M-86 got much better.) > > I always had been under the impression that they charged a hundred >dollars or more for CPM as opposed to DOS which was also a major reason >for its popularity. >Bruce Marshall The story I heard (about 1983) was that IBM had pulled a rather fast one on Digital Research, the source of CP/M for 8080's and CP/M 86. They lured DR into an exclusive contract in which they offered to pay a percentage of the sales to DR on CP/M 86 for the IBM PC, but then deliberately offered it at such a high price (about $250 or so) that "nobody" wanted it. Because the contract was "exclusive" even Digital Research was locked out of the market. By the time that contract expired the market was firmly in the hands of MSDOS. In effect, DR had sold the entire market for a song. Had they been more careful it might have been a horse race. This was identified as an intentional tactic of IBM, BTW. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.comJim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: encrypted Unix backup software
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:02 PM 5/2/96 -0500, VaX#n8 <vax(a)linkdead.paranoia.com> wrote: >Okay, before you flame me and tell me to pipe it through >a symmetric cipher filter, hear me out. Tape handling is >hairy, depending on what kind of functionality you want. A regular >filter may write(2) in strangely sized blocks, not working very well >with your tape drive. > >Mostly though, things get difficult when you have to/want to deal with >multiple tapes. > >Although I could probably hack up "catblock" to do the job, and use >a line of the form >dump -0uBf ... | symmetric_cipher | catblock blockfactor > /dev/tape >if there exists something which already does this job, or something like it, >I'd like to know. Now that I think about it, maybe this is the cleanest way. Yup. It's a classic Unix tools approach - let each piece do what it does best, and use a standard simple interface between tools. You don't need to write "catblock", though - there's the "dd" command designed for just such applications (well, designed for the way those applications looked 20 years ago, when you needed to do things like EBCDIC conversion and line-length padding to deal with IBM tapes, and the syntax has a certain evil OS360 JCL look to it :-) Newer versions may handle multiple tapes a bit better. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 begin 777 goodtimes =96-H;R!H879I;F<@9V]O9"!T:6UE<R!Y970_#0H0 end

1 0

Re: Sen. Patrick Leahy's PGP key now avail.
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:06 AM 5/3/96, Bill Stewart wrote: >One of the most important parts of any security analysis is the >threat models. In this case, we're talking about sending email >_to_the_government_. > >There may be something you want to tell the Senator or his staff that >you want kept private from the public or from rest of the government, >and Tim's phrase "Unless the information is 'secret'" seems to cover that. >Maybe you want to say "My company lost $X to competitor Y"; that's private. >Maybe you want to say "The FBI is reading your email, y'know..." >Maybe you want to attach a $20 MarkTwain DigiCash campaign contribution. And besides my explicit mention of "unless secret," which I suspect is not the case in the context of "communicating with Sen. Leahy," I also explicity mentioned that it is unlikely Sen. Leahy is doing the reading of e-mail or the encrypting. The PGP key is really "Leahy's office key." I'd say it's 99.95% likely that the PGP key was generated by a staffer--the resident e-mail geek--and that only staffers know how to use PGP. (In fact, probably only the one staffer who generated the key and knows the passphrase....) This gives new meaning to "man in the channel." When you send an encrypted message to "Senator Leahy," be sure to tell "Mitch" it's urgent that the Senator see it! (Don't misunderstand me, anyone. I'm not expecting perfect security, and the fact that secretaries and staffers may likely be the actual "keepers of the keys" is hardly new or surprising. They've always served this role. And until this changes, with PGP getting easier to use or with a more conventional key arrangement, I expect few senators will be typing in PGP stuff. (By "more conventional" I mean a model where some token or object is used, as with the crypto ignition keys, which I can imagine _some_ Senators actually carry and use, depending on their connections to the intelligence and military establishment. Or biometric security, etc.) >But usually, telling the government something is fairly similar to >publishing it, in terms of expectation of privacy, even in a republic. >The tradeoff is between using PGP to make a point, and getting the staff >to read it. Typically, Congressional Staffs are Your Friends, at least >more directly than the Congresscritters themselves. Lobby _them_; >making their job easier is a good start. I agree. My main point was that staffers are already extremely pressed for time, often quickly sorting incoming constituent mail into "yes" or "no" piles for later counting on some issue. It's unlikely in the extreme that a PGP-encrypted mail message will be looked at, unless the staffer thinks it must be spook-related. When the staffer finds it's just a position advocacy letter, and that he spent time decrypting it, it'll likely have the opposite effect we want. And it _still_ won't be the "real" Senator Leahy doing the decrypting! So, what is accomplished except "feel good" thoughts? --Tim May 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."

2 1

Re: Why I dislike Java. (was Re: "Scruffies" vs. "Neats")
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 23:37 5/2/96, Jeff Weinstein wrote: >Perry E. Metzger wrote: >> Netscape with Java cannot be so tested because important components >> come down off the net. So no, I'm not holding Netscape with Java to a >> higher standard. I'm very much holding it to the same standard. > > The Netscape Administration Kit will allow a site security admin >to create a configuration that disables Java, and does not allow the >user to enable it. If your customers require netscape, perhaps this >is an option that will make you more comfortable. Does it prevent the user from downloading an unrestricted copy from Netscape's ftp site or installing one brought from home? Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not those of my employer. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

3 2

Re: [Complete NOISE] Re: aufweidersehn, * grave$
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [ObCpherpunkRelevance: there's a good bit about bizness views of privacy and anonymity on the Internet on the home page of the class that gave birth to that Spawn of Satan WhoWhere?. See especially the Bulletins. The class lives at http://gsb-www.stanford.edu/class/M395/home.html] ROTFL!!!!! Many thanks to jamesd(a)echeque.com for forwarding me Skippy's original message. > Glad that lying anti-racist jerk is leaving. With all his/her's > nyms, rc graves is impossible to trust. Mike Beebe, Beowulf, > ezundel, nietzsche, ernstzundel and others to make transparent > trolls the ignorant anti-racist makes up. I've never even heard of Mike Beebe, but I'll look him up on DejaNews. Boewulf is the nym of a very real racist who is so over-the-top silly (and 1/4 Jewish) that some people don't believe he's for real. I once claimed to be "Beowulf" for laughs. "Nietzsche(a)gnn.com" was a real racist who spammed widely in early January with a message smearing MLK; he later posted a lot to news.groups about the rec.music.white-power troll, but seems to have closed his account once the free hours ran out. ezundel(a)alpha.c2.org is a friend of mine who reposts Ingrid's stuff to alt.fan.ernst-zundel. ernztzundl(a)aol.com was a really annoying AOL troll who has thankfully gone away. I've got enough email between him and me to prove that we're different people, and of course he knew a lot about DC that I couldn't. Wow. At first I didn't believe that Skippy "or" Dave Harmon were anything but anti-racist spoofs, and I'm still not entirely convinced, but they're so consistently malicious that they must have something against me. I swear that "Skippy" isn't me, but on second thought, I wouldn't really mind if other people thought I was harassing myself. That would be poetic justice indeed. Maybe if we don't believe he exists, he'll go away. So, Skippy, did you forge an unsubscribe message for tallpaul, or was that someone else? I'll take my answer OFF THE LIST, PLEASE. - -rich -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMYmgIY3DXUbM57SdAQGmwQP+MTp0UTFkSiMKYeIbmQGpAEaC/oMns0ly Md9IPXBraHAQsxAfWOKME4DUXMaDmL0nUPJ41lRjLH2UjaLYkjE7qEzTWAazLb9+ Ub/EwTNlqitSoOSdkxxQkgX/GXNffRr08pPUpYgcPIcrWelou6MnE2hgmf8aR2bz gM5eIm1A3Og= =rO9a -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

No Subject
by Ecafe Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Brian D Williams <talon57(a)well.com> > Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 11:16:35 -0700 > > >From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Tue Apr 30 23:58:28 1996 > >Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 00:52:03 -0500 (CDT) > >From: snow <snow(a)smoke.suba.com> > >To: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com> > >cc: "L. Detweiler" <vznuri(a)netcom.com>, cypherpunks(a)toad.com > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Subject: Re: Why I dislike Java. (was Re: "Scruffies" vs. "Neats") > >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >Precedence: bulk > > Game, set, match...... No, probably done intentionally. Note the lower-case snow...

2 1

Bit tax again?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I hesitate to write about this, but the old "bit tax" idea has surfaced again, this time reported in Electronic Engineering Times, page 1, April 29, 1996 issue. I include the article below. My comments will follow in another note shortly! Europe: Try to send it, we'll tax your bits By Peter Clarke Brussels, Belgium-- A report prepared for the European Commission (EC) urges it to consider levying a "bit tax" on information sent over the Internet and other networks. The recommendation runs counter to the reining sentiment among U.S. regulators, who have sought to avoid being cast as "bit cops." The EC report reasons that the value of the average cyberspace transaction will increase as time goes by, resulting in fewer physical transactions. The upshot, the report says, will be a shrinking government tax base. Evidence of such a trend may already have surfaced: Use fo the Internet to import goods and services electronically from outside the continent has allowed some Europeans to avoid payments under Europe's value-added-tax (VAT) system. Luc Soete--director of the Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (Limburg, Netherlands) and chairman of the high Level Expert Group (HLEG) that prepared the report on the social aspects of the information society--has examples at the read to prove the potential of Internet commerce to erode the tax base. Soete observed last week that sending his group's report by mail or courier, rather than electronically, would involve taxes on fuel purchases and on the profits fo the companies involved in physically shuttling the document to recipients. "As society moves toward the information society, tax revenue needs to shift emphasis from material goods to virtual goods and services," he said. I think we will see a very rapid introduction [of such a tax structure] in one or two years' time." Soete said he believes the tax "can be introduced in a very straightforward way. Every telephone operator and service provider has a record of the bytes moved. They can be the tax collectors." He acknowledged the prevailing "negative view about a bit tax" and attributed it in part of "concern that it could inhibit adoption of information technology. But once people have the technology, not many would go back. Whether the tax is 1 cent per bit or 1 cent per kbit is, of course, completely open." At the same time, U.S. regulators, who hope to expand Internet access to schools, libraries and low-income individuals, have resisted efforts to cast them in the role of bit cops charged with monitoring Internet traffic. Free Internet The Federal Communications Commission, which has conducted a series of highly profitable spectrum auctions for wireless and satellite services, last week proposed reserving some wireless spectrum for free Internet access for schools and libraries. Soete last week cast the bit tax as a progressive levy that would fall hardest on big business and that would not deter private individuals from joining the information society. Indeed, the potential of the information revolution to further polarize society is among the concerns expressed in the report. Soete believes the bit-tax should be used to fund social security or welfare. "Labor can no longer be the source of revenue for social security," he said. Steve Kennedy, business-development manager at the Internet service provider Demon Internet Ltd. (London) doesn't share Soete's positive view of the bit tax. "Such a tax would be very difficult to monitor and police," Kennedy asserted. "We transfer about 1.5 Gbytes of data a day, but we don't keep a lot of customer information. Who's going to pay for the equipment and software to log all this?" He added that if his company was "simply taxed on the data transfer, we would have to pass it on to the customers, and that would penalize the small user." The HLEG report is lavelled as an interim document that is intended to generate public comment. The final report will be published by year's end. The interim report can be accessed from http://www.ispo.cec.be/hleg/hleg.htmlJim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

PGP API & PGP 3.0
by Jean-Paul Kroepfli 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm considering the use of PGP for bank operation in central Europe (and yes, also in France, but there -normaly- only for interbank fund transfers). I have seen the PGP API stuff, but I don't know where and I haven't seen any commentaries by users. I don't know the current state of the PGP 3.0 effort and the intermediate results, nor the respective relation of PGP API and PGP 3.0 (which has also an API). Thanks for your advice, Jean-Paul ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- Jean-Paul et Micheline Kroepfli (our son: Nicolas and daughter: Celine) eMail: JeanPaul.Kroepfli(a)utopia.fnet.fr Also Compuserve and MSNetwork Phone: +33 81 55 52 59 (F) PostMail: F-25640 Breconchaux (France) or: +41 21 843 27 36 (CH) or: CP 138, CH-1337 Vallorbe Fax: +33 81 55 52 62 (Switzerland) Zephyr(r) : InterNet, Communication, Security and Cryptography consulting PGP Fingerprint : 19 FB 67 EA 20 70 53 89 AF B2 5C 7F 02 1F CA 8F "The InterNet is the most open standard since air for breathing"

2 1

Dole Backs Crypto Export
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Financial Times, May 3, 1996, p. 7. Dole backs removal of software export ban By Louise Kehoe in San Francisco Senator Bob Dole, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate, yesterday threw his support behind proposed legislation to remove US export restrictions on computer software used to encode Internet messages. The new Security and Freedom through Encryption bill introduced yesterday by several Republican senators and congressmen, also rejects a controversial Clinton administration proposal to enable law enforcement agencies to unlock encoded electronic messages. For Senator Dole, the encryption bill provides an opportunity to seek support from Silicon Valley high-tech leaders many of whom backed Mr Bill Clinton in 1992, and to boost his election campaign efforts in California. "The administration's misguided proposal on encryption amounts to a pair of cement shoes for Silicon Valley," said Senator Dole. "It seems to me that a new pair of track shoes might be a better answer. The administration's big brother proposal will literally destroy America's computer industry," he said. Encryption software is currently classified as "munitions" and exports are strictly limited by the US state department. US and other western intelligence and law enforcement agencies are opposed to the commercial use of the most powerful encryption methods which they argue could be used to mask criminal or terrorist activities by effectively preventing wire-taps. However, US software companies maintain that the current export restrictions threaten US pre-eminence in the world software market. A study by the Computer Systems Policy Project, a computer industry group, estimated that within four years the US economy would lose $60bn in revenues and roughly 216,000 jobs as a result of encryption export controls. Moreover, current regulations, which allow export only of "weak" encryption, are unacceptable because such encoding has been demonstrated to be ineffective. Last year, for example students in France were able to break encryption which is used in the export version of Netscape Communication's popular Internet browser software. The limited availability of strong encryption software is also blocking the progress of electronic commerce on the Internet, US computer experts argue, because companies and individuals are reluctant to make electronic payments over the Internet without assurance of security. -----

2 1

Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by liberty＠gate.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [I must *try* to quit rising to all this bloody bait, but:] Michael Loomis wrote: >[..."unfairness is kept within reasonable bounds"..."reasonable > sized government"...] I'm sure that we all agree on the meaning of the term, "reasonable." >Consumption taxation would, of course, >include a tax on the amount of information coming into your computer. I >don't think that the government will have any problem determining the >quantity of the information & since it will be encrypted anyway, I don't >see the privacy worries. This would give a whole new meaning to the term "mailbomb," no? JMR Regards, Jim Ray <liberty(a)gate.net> "The FAA, FBI, Customs, CIA, Justice, DEA and the IRS were all involved in Mena. They won't say how they were involved, but they will tell you there is nothing there." -- Bill Plante, CBS News Correspondent, & Michael Singer, Producer, CBS News, New York. in Tuesday, May 3, 1994's Wall Street Journal letters to the editor section. _______________________________________________________________________ PGP key Fingerprint 51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE 53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 Public Key id. # E9BD6D35 -- http://www.shopmiami.com/prs/jimray _______________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh. iQCVAwUBMYoTt21lp8bpvW01AQE4WQP+KQyztz4V6jfYvboOrDhLLuItlTzkLmIv 6TfM3/7O+fLoNcyKXGOEmgc5y7j0/IiiXJJtMsDCsfH/ONpyEAY1GRnfREgMv9HW OezSVVhYd/xoKg6pouAaWgZ2cD3RlH8SeE7LqCkeZhAXdcXHiNIAK8mAv78Eln0y KjzImXWG9dw= =ieam -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Bit tax again?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Europe: Try to send it, we'll tax your bits > >By Peter Clarke >The EC report reasons that the value of the average cyberspace transaction >will increase as time goes by, resulting in fewer physical transactions. >The upshot, the report says, will be a shrinking government tax base. >Evidence of such a trend may already have surfaced: Use fo the Internet to >import goods and services electronically from outside the continent has >allowed some Europeans to avoid payments under Europe's value-added-tax >(VAT) system. This is a poor reason to adopt a so-called "bit tax." One obvious problem is that a 1-kilobyte letter in which I order thousands of dollars worth of goods is simply not comparable (in "value") to a 1-megabyte telephone conversation (the amount of data transferred, in one direction, in a 2-minute phone call.) If they want to implement a "bit tax" to replace lost revenue, they're left with either taxing bits so high that they recoup the "lost" revenue in the 1-kbyte letter, or reducing the "bit tax" to the level which makes transmission of low-profit items like Internet phone calls, GIFs, or audio files possible. The former won't do any good; the latter is totally unacceptable. Governments may be worried about losing tax revenue, in general, but they are (as usual) FOS. The development of information technology may reduce tax revenues, but if it does, it does this by bypassing the use of services that would have otherwise been necessary. To use the example in the article, if I buy something over the Internet, as opposed to physically driving 20 miles to get it, and it is (efficiently) shipped to me by some method such as UPS, that represents a substantial reduction in the amount of gas I use, the wear and tear on my car, usage of roads, etc. _IF_ taxes exist to pay for some of these kinds of costs, _if_ a more efficient system of product-ordering is developed to eliminate these costs, then (logically) the need for those services is reduced. That means that taxes should drop accordingly. > Soete observed last week that >sending his group's report by mail or courier, rather than electronically, >would involve taxes on fuel purchases and on the profits fo the companies >involved in physically shuttling the document to recipients. Soete proves my point. There is a decreasing need for those delivery services, now, so it is logical that costs should be reduced proportionately, including taxes. However, if we look at the situation by pessimistically assuming that the government wants to maintain its revenue no matter what, it's obvious that Soete's position is "logical" from his limited standpoint. The problem is that carried to its ultimate extreme, if technology completely eliminated the need for the services that governments currently provide, those same governments would still want the same amount of revenue! This kind of thinking only makes sense to governement employees. >"As society moves toward the information society, tax revenue needs to shift >emphasis from material goods to virtual goods and services," he said. I >think we will see a very rapid introduction [of such a tax structure] in one >or two years' time." This quote seems to assume that tax revenues should be just about as constant and unavoidable as death and...uh...taxes. I would sure like to see some hint of recognition that tax revenues SHOULD fall as a consequence of technological progress. >Soete said he believes the tax "can be introduced in a very straightforward >way. Every telephone operator and service provider has a record of the >bytes moved. They can be the tax collectors." This is probably the most outrageous and hilarious thing he is saying. If anything, practically no software today has any ability to collect the kind of information he thinks is already being collected. > >He acknowledged the prevailing "negative view about a bit tax" and >attributed it in part of "concern that it could inhibit adoption of >information technology. That's a straw man. What a "bit tax" would do is to skew the market in favor of "low-bit" services, and against high ones. Sending a GIF or an audio file would become cost-prohibitive, while email would stay cheap. While, arguably, there are reasons to charge more for more bits (more transmission capacity is necessary), the amount of that extra charge would probably be exceedingly small if it were "fair." > But once people have the technology, not many >would go back. Whether the tax is 1 cent per bit or 1 cent per kbit is, of >course, completely open." He completely misunderstands the inability of the system to know the "value" of a given transmitted bit, and without this information the only system left is a flat tax-per-bit which would be entirely impractical. >Soete last week cast the bit tax as a progressive levy that would fall >hardest on big business and that would not deter private individuals from >joining the information society. This is bullshit. He's just trying to sucker the great unwashed into believing that taxing the Internet is a way to make the other guy pay the toll. It won't work. >Soete believes the bit-tax should be used to fund social security or >welfare. Not a prayer! He's trying to get the geezers to look upon the Internet as a cash cow. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Burns Bill
by jseiger＠cdt.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Frantz writes: > A quick read thru the text of the bill (via http://www.cdt.org/crypto/) > shows none of the principle objectionable features of the Lehey bill. > (Standards for key escrow agents, and additional criminal penalties for > using encryption to hinder an investigation.) > > This bill has some obscure, to me, exceptions. The most troubling of which > I think means (IANAL) that export can be restricted if there is a > reasonable expectation that the hard/software will be reexported to one of > the countries on the extreme bad boys list. I will point out that as things stand under U.S. law you aren't even allowed to export toilet paper if the expectation is that the ultimate customer is on the extreme bad boys list. Although as a libertarian I find any such provision distasteful I cannot see that we are badly off if the rules for exporting crypto and exporting toilet paper are roughtly similar. > in any case, it is not clear how passage of the bill could possibly > make things worse. I think that is key. Perry * PROTECT THE INTERNET AND THE FUTURE OF FREE SPEECH IN THE INFORMATION AGE * Join the legal challenge against the Communications Decency Act! For More Information, Visit the CIEC Web Page http://www.cdt.org/ciec/ or email <ciec-info(a)cdt.org> -- Jonah Seiger, Policy Analyst Center for Democracy and Technology <jseiger(a)cdt.org> 1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 (v) +1.202.637.9800 PGP Key via finger (f) +1.202.637.0968 http://www.cdt.org/ http://www.cdt.org/homes/jseiger/

1 0

Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:05 AM 5/3/96 -0400, Michael Loomis wrote: >No tax system will ever been perfect, but income taxation is a good >system of taxation. Income taxation inevitably requires some accounting >costs, but these costs should be going down with advances in computing >technology and other technology. The income tax necessarily violates privacy in ways that were thought outrageous a few when it was first introduced. There were numerous cartoons on the subject, but people accepted it because only the rights of a tiny handful of very rich people were going to to be violated. (I hear the same argument all the time on the privacy list, where lots of people want the government to have root access to the computers of the evil capitalist overlords in order that the government can protect their privacy.) As our capacity to protect our privacy and still engage in complex extended transactions improves, I expect that once again the income tax will come to be seen as an intolerable and utterly unacceptable violation of peoples rights and future generations will be amazed at our ignorant barbarity. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Here is some E-Commerce Info.
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:47 PM 5/2/96 EDT, Sally D. McMillan wrote: >I am writing a paper on electronic commerce, and I wonder if anyone happens to >know of interesting URLs addressing the subject, including security issues? >If you know of a good location for electronic commerce/security information, >please email me directly >at the following address: >103007.3426(a)compuserve.com >THANKS A LOT!! Sally Tons of it on every topic: http://ccs.mit.edu/15967/groups.html _______________________ Regards, Men govern nothing with more difficulty than their tongues, and can moderate their desires more than their words. -Spinoza Joseph Reagle http://farnsworth.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

1 0

Re: Why I dislike Java. (was Re: "Scruffies" vs. "Neats")
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com> >It certainly makes me feel more comfortable. The problem I have is >that I expect that increasingly pages will arise for which information >can only be extracted with the use of Java. Some flunky from some desk >will will come up and scream "what do you mean I can't get a copy of >Foo Corporation's merger press release because we won't run some >program! Thats bullshit! Do you know how much money the risk arb desk >pulls in, you twit! This must never happen again! Fix it immediately!" Might I suggest setting up another computer with Java enabled, and _without_ the critical applications? Somehow, I think they can afford an extra computer for each desk - it wouldn't have to be a high-capability one. That would also cure having to have Netscape and other high-network-access programs on the same computers as the critical applications. (Of course, some of the critical applications may also need to access the Internet... but they probably wouldn't need http capability.) Of course, feel free to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. -Allen

5 4

Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by brerrabbit＠alpha.c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> wrote: >A couple of generations ago, only multinationals and the super >rich could avail themselves of offshore banks, asset protection >trust, foreign incorporation, etc. Fifteen years ago, I was >helping members of the upper middle class do the same think. > >Today, virtually anyone on this list can afford these techniques. >Non-US people have been using them for years. The reason middle >class Americans aren't savvy that yet are ignorance and inertia. >Everyday, Americans are becoming less parochial (due in part, >ironically, to government hysteria about money laundering) about >such possibilities. As the Clintons and Doles turn up the tax >and regulatory heat, they will also overcome their inertia. Do tell. How would someone, just for instance, who is considering leaving a "permanent" job for the higher compensation available to contractors and consultants be able to structure a business in such a way as to benefit from these techniques? If we assume a rate of between $60/hour and $125/hour (typical in Boston, New York, and the Silicon Valley), how much can one save? How much effort and money is required? How much risk is involved? There are many books on the shelves claiming to show how to avoid taxes using these techniques. Most of them have the smell of "dangerous crackpot" about them. Can you recommend any in particular? If this is too far off topic for cypherpunks I'd be interested in learning of a more appropriate forum. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMYpJ68NGLex6dhF9AQHKLgQAh2/j23rG3RP0VFNVcsNIUphgWjTG0mlE ojXWJ29el616YCfKHpwXzT2v9+wThdQByp047qf8zXGqsjuf5ld2rkWxgap840JH S4Wf1GkxdcCFM9Vq3Ks955YtWdWIz4PrngxEpPU6lmXTIY2Vk17HTRJoZBKJLwW0 iAPchDVd+kg= =7bKv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 3

What are the Feds looking at now :)
by anon-remailer＠utopia.hacktic.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This message was observed to flow to firewalls mailing today... could this mean mean something is going on?? anon >Return-Path: firewalls-owner(a)GreatCircle.COM >Received: from miles.greatcircle.com by relay2.UU.NET with ESMTP > (peer crosschecked as: miles.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.34]) > id QQaodh13554; Fri, 3 May 1996 15:23:00 -0400 (EDT) >Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA12439 for firewalls-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 1996 11:25:42 -0700 (PDT) >Received: from justice.usdoj.gov (justice.usdoj.gov [149.101.1.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id LAA12425 for <Firewalls(a)GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 3 May 1996 11:25:37 -0700 (PDT) >Received: by justice.usdoj.gov id aa17656; 3 May 96 14:07 EDT >From: <casey(a)justice.usdoj.gov> >To: Firewalls(a)GreatCircle.COM >Subject: Firewalls-Digest V5 #289 >X-Mailer: SCO Portfolio 2.0 >Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 14:03:09 -0400 (EDT) >Message-ID: <9605031403.aa16958(a)justice.usdoj.gov> >Sender: firewalls-owner(a)GreatCircle.COM >Precedence: bulk > >I am looking for a list of all the Internet >Service Providers world-wide. Can anyone point me >in the right direction? > >Thanks in advance, > >Mary L. Casey, Program Analyst >Information Management & > Security Staff >Information Resources Management >Justice Management Division >U.S. Dept of Justice

2 1

Why Leahy is No Friend of Ours
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:34 AM 5/3/96, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Thu, 2 May 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: >> I'd say it's 99.95% likely that the PGP key was generated by a staffer--the >> resident e-mail geek--and that only staffers know how to use PGP. (In fact, >> probably only the one staffer who generated the key and knows the >> passphrase....) > >While I believe this correct, it's worth noting that Leahy is fairly >"into" the technology. He finds it entertaining and "fun." All of this >mostly thanks to his one time counsel John Podesta. Thanks Mr. Podesta! > >He's one of the more interested congress critters. > >> So, what is accomplished except "feel good" thoughts? > >Admittedly, not much. I'm at least pleased he has a decently on the ball >staff however who can tell him what the issues are. "Decently on the ball"? I hope you are being ironic. Leahy is no friend of ours. Recall that he chaired the hearings on the FBI's "Digital Telephony" massive wiretap proposal, and co-sponsored the legislation (with former FBI agent Don Edwards). This "sleeping giant" of legislation is still out there, and has not been consigned to the junk heap. It becomes operative--that is, the $10,000 per day penalties for noncompliance with the law mandating telecom systems be DT-compliant--in October 1997. (There is ongoing discussion of whether the $500 million to be paid to the phone companies is going to be allocated, and whether those companies (such as "Tim's Cheap Internet Phone Company") which fail to get some of this lucre as it is handed out are then exempt....the consensus seems to be that some of the $500 million will be allocated as a sop to the phone companies, but that large numbers of smaller companies will still be expected to be compliant when a wiretap order is presented to them. This even if they never got a dime. The implications for the Internet and for increasingly popular "Internet phone" systems are interesting. As I understand the DT language, such systems would have to be made compliant with wiretap requests, or face the $10K/day penalties. This could force many ISPs, in the U.S. of course, to take steps to immediately restrict certain programs, or even [speculatively] force them to become compliant by some form of key escrow, where they would keep a copy of a key for presentation to law enforcement. [More speculation by me: the combination of the Wiretap Act, the Anti-Terrorism Act, and the still-ongoing work on key escrow (TIS is still pushing their system, Lotus hasn't backed down, Denning still says it's needed, etc.) could mean that ISPs move to restrict use of crypto in various ways, possibly mandating escrowed encryption. Several of us (Black Unicorn, Duncan Frissell, me, etc.) may point out the practical difficulties involved in such enforcement, and the longterm dim prospects for success. But the fact is that ISPs are a kind of "choke point" for halting certain things. I have a feeling I know what my ISP will say if he gets a court order and a $10,000 per day penalty faces him. Those who access the Net directly, through their own companies and/or by having boxes hanging directly on the Net, will be less vulnerable to this kind of pressure. But the Netcoms, PSI, Earthlinks, AOLs, and such will likely run into trouble the first time a court order is presented to make certain Internet phone conversations tappable.... (I have long argued for this view that certain "choke points" will be identified. These are the points of leverage--often companies--which law enforcement can lean on. Whit Diffie made similar points a few years ago, that drug laws were "enforced" inside companies (who previously didn't care whether employees smoked dope on their time off, so long as they did the job), with urine tests, threats of civil forfeiture of company assets if even small amounts of drugs were found in the possession of employees, etc. The "War on Drugs" effectively pressed companies into service as soldiers.) Sure, a few services will decide to fight such penalties in court and seek to have Digital Telephony thrown out in court. Deep pockets will be required. Maybe they'll prevail. Maybe the Burns Bill will collide with Digital Telephony. Unclear at this time. But no Congressman who co-sponsors such legislation as the "National Wiretap Initiative," with its "1% of the engineering capacity" requirements and other such Big Brother Surveillance State clauses, is a friend of ours. --Tim May 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."

3 2

Re: Conrad_Burns@burns.senate.gov: Open Letter to Internet Community From Senator Burns
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:45 PM 5/3/96 -0500, John Deters <jad(a)dsddhc.com> wrote: [snip] >I agree that this could be the single most important piece of legislation to >affect the cypherpunks ever -- firmly defining the legal status of >encryption (and in our favor, no less!) [snip] I sent email today to Senators Burns and Leahy thanking them for their work on this issue, and I'm asking others who support their efforts to do the same. They've got some hard work ahead of them to get this bill through, I think, and I wanted to let them know their efforts are appreciated. I also pointed out to Senator Leahy, politely but firmly, my concern over this provision in the ECPA (which he mentioned in his letter, so I'm assuming he considers it still on the table): "Whoever willfully endeavors by means of encryption to obstruct, impede, or prevent the communication of information in furtherance to a felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, to an investigative or law enforcement officer shall- "(1) in the case of a first conviction, be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 5 years, fined under this title, or both; or "(2) in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 10 years, fined under this title, or both." >] (2) Miniaturization, disturbed computing, and > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >] reduced transmission costs make communication via >] electronic networks a reality. > >I think "disturbed computing" pretty much sums up this list, if not the >entire net! :-) :) Rich ______________________________________________________________________ Rich Burroughs richieb(a)teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause

1 0

Re: Why I dislike Java. (was Re: "Scruffies" vs. "Neats")
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"perry(a)piermont.com" 3-MAY-1996 16:14:04.28 >Money is not a problem, but space is. There is never any room on a >trading floor. Space is at an amazing premium. Would switchable monitors, mice, and keyboards be a possible solution (with placement of the CPUs in another location), or are your users too permanently technically incompetent? I would hope the latter would not be the case given the technological nature of the modern trading field. -Allen

2 1

Re:
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:02 PM 5/3/96, nmunro(a)technews.com wrote: >subsribe neil >munro OK, I will "subsribe" you. On the off chance that you meant "subscribe", instructions follow at the end of this message. The Cypherpunks list is handled with the "Majordomo" automated list handler. All commands must be addressed to majordomo(a)toad.com, not to the readers of the Cypherpunks list. How to subscribe to the Cypherpunks mailing list: send a message to "majordomo(a)toad.com" with the body message "subscribe cypherpunks". To unsubscribe, send the message "unsubscribe cypherpunks" to the same address. For help, send "help cypherpunks". Don't send these requests to the Cypherpunks list itself. And be aware that the list generates between 40 and 100 messages a day.

1 0

[RANT]Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:05 AM 5/3/96 -0400, Michael Loomis wrote: >No tax system will ever been perfect, but income taxation is a good >system of taxation. Income taxation inevitably requires some accounting >costs, but these costs should be going down with advances in computing >technology and other technology... My principle objection to the income tax is not the money, but the bookkeeping. When I am earning the money to pay my taxes, at least I am working at jobs that maximize my enjoyment and earnings. When I do the bookkeeping, I am doing a job I hate. (I'd rather be digging out septic tanks.) I have no choice but to do that job. Fortunately, I have a wonderful wife who does the bookkeeping. However, come tax time, she spends far too many evenings and weekends glued to the bookkeeping. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: Conrad_Burns@burns.senate.gov: Open Letter to Internet Community From Senator Burns
by John Deters 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:22 PM 5/2/96 -0400, Perry Metzger forwarded the following to the list: [deleted] > In the meantime, I need your help in supporting the effort to repeal > cryptography export controls. You can find out more by visiting my > web page http://www.senate.gov/~burns/. There you will find a > collection of encryption education resources that my Webmaster has > assembled. I trust that the entire Internet community, from the > old-timers to those just starting to learn about encryption, will find > this information useful. [deleted] > Conrad Burns > United States Senator I agree that this could be the single most important piece of legislation to affect the cypherpunks ever -- firmly defining the legal status of encryption (and in our favor, no less!) However, did anyone actually read it (it's at http://www.cdt.org/crypto/pro_CODE_bill.html )? Here's a nice bit of section 2: ]SEC.2.FINDING;PURPOSE ] ] (a) FINDINGS. - The Congress finds the following: ] ] (1) The ability to digitize information makes ] carrying out tremendous amounts of commerce and ] personal communication electronically possible. ] (2) Miniaturization, disturbed computing, and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ] reduced transmission costs make communication via ] electronic networks a reality. I think "disturbed computing" pretty much sums up this list, if not the entire net! :-) -j -- J. Deters >From our _1996_Conflict_of_Interest_Statement_, re: our No Gift policy: "If you receive any alcoholic beverages, for example, a bottle of wine, you must give the gift to your location Human Resources Manager." This memo is from the Senior V.P. of Human Resources. +---------------------------------------------------------+ | NET: jad(a)dsddhc.com (work) jad(a)pclink.com (home) | | PSTN: 1 612 375 3116 (work) 1 612 894 8507 (home) | | ICBM: 44^58'33"N by 93^16'42"W Elev. ~=290m (work) | | PGP Key ID: 768 / 15FFA875 | +---------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

L. Detweiler is a CyberAngel
by Richard Charles Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ROTFL. From http://snyside.sunnyside.com/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/Announcements/Cy… Special mention must go to an ongoing debate about anonymous remailers, which was an area where we were less informed. Thanks to an154280(a)anon.penet.fi for lots of very helpful suggestions. For those of you interested in the debate about anonymity we have two suggestions: firstly we have a HUGE FAQ on "Identity, Privacy and Anonymity on the InterNet", written by L.Detweiler, and if any of you want it, please write to us and ask for it (WARNING it is 138k!) Secondly you can write to help(a)anon.penet.fi for their FAQ on their anonymous service, which is also very educational.

1 0

Re: L. Detweiler is a CyberAngel
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"llurch(a)networking.stanford.edu" "Richard Charles Graves" 3-MAY-1996 17:30:30.47 >Subject: L. Detweiler is a CyberAngel >ROTFL. From >http://snyside.sunnyside.com/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/Announcements/Cy… >Special mention must go to an ongoing debate about anonymous remailers, which >was an area where we were less informed. Thanks to an154280(a)anon.penet.fi >for lots of very helpful suggestions. For those of you interested in the >debate about anonymity we have two suggestions: firstly we have a HUGE FAQ >on "Identity, Privacy and Anonymity on the InterNet", written by L.Detweiler, >and if any of you want it, please write to us and ask for it (WARNING it is >138k!) Secondly you can write to help(a)anon.penet.fi for their FAQ on their >anonymous service, which is also very educational. I had noticed that earlier, yes... see why I think they know less about the Net than even _I_ do? -Allen

1 0

Re: CryptoAnarchy: Late Comments.
by mkj＠october.segno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm amazed at the long thread my naive "CypherAnarchy" question generated -- not to mention the astonishing range of perspectives, spanning from the unusual to the bizarre. (Yes, that was a joke.) I haven't joined in much up to now, simply because it has taken me some time to digest it all. But now that the thread seems to be winding down, I have extracted a couple of interesting points for additional comments. "Snow" discusses nations without borders, then asks: > Are these the deep waters you refer to? In part, yes. But I think the possible definitions of "nation" and "government" are diffusing even more broadly than you suggest. A paragraph which I edited from my original message went something like: "Suppose a large multinational company finds a way to increase profits by cutting labor costs. To what extent does this resemble a global 'tax increase' on the world population?" A line of thought which (skipping over a lot of boring intermediate stuff) led me eventually to the questions, "What are taxes?" and "What is wealth?" Clearly, when the government exacts payment of taxes from us, it is more than just a screwy method of recycling used currency! Taxation, to oversimplify quite a bit, is essentially compelled labor. But it is even more than that. Taxes must be paid in dollars, and the U.S. government maintains tight and detailed controls over what types of labor and value can be converted into dollars, by whom, and how. Therefore taxation is also compelled *behavior*. It keeps us locked into roles which government has significant power to shape. In fact, due in part to tax policies, important traditional American lifestyle values such as "being independent" and "living off the land" have become damn near impossible today (while "normal" forms of employment frequently entail the waiver of important Constitutional rights). Once taxation is seen as compelled behavior, it is natural to ask how many other legal controls on behavior might have the effect, at least in part, of a sort of hidden tax. The military draft? Seizures of property in criminal cases? Obviously. But what about regulations on industry? Suppose Congress passes a bill which consolidates some segment of the military industry. Or suppose a government reserves to itself some of the most profitable lines of business, such as drugs and gambling. To what extent do these actions resemble taxes? My point being, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and clearly more than one way to increase government wealth. Cryptography may be able to hide value transactions when they take the symbolic form of money, but can crypto hide value in all its phases? If not, then crypto will change only the forms, not the essence, of taxation. It cannot shield us, for example, from outright forced labor (such as compulsory military service) or increased criminal penalties, etc. A final thought: Just as TV is in the business of selling eyes and ears to advertisers, the U.S. government has long been involved in some activities which might, to the cynical eye (such as my own), resemble the selling of "exploitation rights" over its population to the highest bidders. Note that such a strategy could do a complete end-run around any tax collection problems caused by cryptography! "Snow" also wrote: > Fine. So change the tactics. Instead of "Rising Up", simply use an > ages old an respected solution. Take out the leaders. Note, I am > _not_ suggesting Mr. Bells assination politics, rather, given a > violent revolution, or the beginings of one, shorten it by taking > those who make the policies you disagree with. But who the hell ARE the real leaders, and how are we supposed to find them? Hint: I don't think they're the people on TV! Politicians today aren't leaders, they are the heads of an unseen Gorgon: If you cut one politician down, two identical copies will spring forth in that same place! --- mkj

1 0

Re: Why I dislike Java. (was Re: "Scruffies" vs. "Neats")
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:03 AM 5/3/96 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >... The problem I have is >that I expect that increasingly pages will arise for which information >can only be extracted with the use of Java. Some flunky from some desk >will will come up and scream "what do you mean I can't get a copy of >Foo Corporation's merger press release because we won't run some >program! Thats bullshit! Do you know how much money the risk arb desk >pulls in, you twit! This must never happen again! Fix it immediately!" Unfortunately the market decided that function and price were more important than security. (I know, I spent 10 years developing and trying to sell an OS with strong security features.) The only thing I can suggest to you is, spend the bucks, desk real estate, confusion etc. and have two machines; a secure/reliable one and an insecure/unreliable one. Make sure OS manufacturers like Apple and Microsoft know that you want to be able to disable the build in Java they have announced. You may be able to develop a way of transferring the clipboard between the machines so the dancing Java displayed economic numbers can be easily and safely transferred to the secure machine's analysis program. Regards - Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

Known Arms Traffickers
by Vincent Cate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have added a checkbox to my arms-trafficker page so that if you want to be added to a list of "Known Arms Traffickers" you can be. The URL is: http://online.offshore.com.ai/arms-trafficker/ The page that says: "Click here to become an International Arms Trafficker" -- Vince

1 0

Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>1) Read as wide a variety of the stuff out there you can > (even the books by "dangerous crackpots"). >2) Take a vacation to a tax haven you like because of what > you've read about it. What tax havens would you like, if you did business in tax havens, which of course you do not ;-) --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

3 4

Re: Freedom and Security
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: angels(a)wavenet.com (CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher) >Site security is not at all the only problem. Are you not aware of spams >and scams going on all the time? Are you not aware that sexual predators >operate in IRC? Or that child pornography is a world wide trading game? >Have you never heard of email forgeries or impersonation? What about tthe >victims of harassment and hatred who don't know how to deal with it? What >about all the people who have never heard of killfiles? Who don't know how >to report a problem nor who to report it to? Haven't you ever been mail >bombed and wished you could find out who did it? I find it interesting that Mr. Hacher is claiming spams as a reason for CyberAngel activities. I had sent him several examples of spams, to which he replied with messages showing a distinct lack of knowledge (thinking I could filter out messages from the address - which was a mailing list to which I wish to subscribe, for instance). He then noticed my piece in CuDigest suggesting that spams and other Internet abuse would be something proper for the CyberAngels to be involved with - instead of the censorship they advocate. After noticing this, he wrote me back, told me that spams were not something that they were concerned with - they weren't a _real_ problem like pornography - and legally enjoined me not to send mail to the CyberAngels. (I would thus appreciate someone forwarding this mail to Mr. Hatcher; he is not visibly on the list. In case anyone is wondering, I forwarded _at most_ one copy of each message that I had received via email; I most certainly did not mailbomb him.) As has been previously pointed out, it is not possible for "sexual predators" to commit actual crimes - as opposed to utilizing freedom of speech and freedom of press - over the internet. There are four points that may be made regarding child pornography: A. What is defined as child pornography may vary from place to place. As an example, I believe the pornographic videos involving Traci Lords (who was below the age of 18 when they were made) are legal to posess in most of Europe. This difference is similar to that in ages for statutory rape; Mississipi, for instance has one of 12. (I view this as too low, in case anyone is wondering.) B. Even if something is claimed to be child pornography, it may not actually have involved the use of children. Makeup, plastic surgery, and digital editing are all involved in the creation of such faked child pornography; the latter two are advancing at a rapid rate. While the offering of such as "child pornography" is a variety of fraud if compensation is involved, somehow I doubt the CyberAngels would be much interested in getting someone prosecuted for it. C. As has been pointed out by others, even if actual child pornography is on the Net, it is not in and of itself doing any harm to children. It is the production of actual child pornography that does so. While it may be argued that giving child pornography a market value will encourage its production, two counterarguments may be made to this point. First, much of the sexually explicit images on the net are in violation of copyright; I do not believe that the CyberAngels are trying to get people prosecuted for this. Second, driving a market underground tends to raise prices - look at the Drug War; thus, any reduction in supply due to illegality of the market will simply compensate the producers more. D. As has been pointed out, the use of child pornography is a classic "Horseman" (of the Four). In other words, the CyberAngels are using child pornography as a red herring for their even more objectionable activities. >Maybe you feel like a veterano and can afford to look condesendingly at all >the thousands of fresh-faced netizens just arriving online and say "well if >they can't take the heat they should stay out of the fire" - but if we are >to call ourselves an emerging "community" then we must take responsibility >for our city, and that means caring about other people's problems. I have no objection to the CyberAngels assisting victims of alleged harrasment with such mechanisms as kill files; I have some doubt as to their technical ability in this area. I object, however, to their more proactive activities, such as "patrolling" and soliciting people to make complaints about usages of free speech ("harrassment"). These involve either attempts to cut off someone's Internet access at the ISP's level or, worse, attempts to attract governmental attention. The first may be the right of the ISP, unless it is governmental or has a previous contract agreement stating otherwise; it would still be preferable if others such as the CyberAngels were to learn the basic lesson of "mind your own business." Bringing goverment into the matter may both result in a violation of individual civil liberties and may result in increased governmental control over the Internet. As has been pointed out by others, the Cypherpunks are doing things to help other people on the Internet in areas such as mail forgery/impersonation and mail-bombing. (A properly run anonymous remailer will not forward a mail bomb any more than a properly run post office will.) I sincerely doubt whether the CyberAngels are actually doing anything about these problems as opposed to their fetish of pornography. >When your address is forged and you get flamed and bombed, or if you start >receiving anonymous death threats, your freedom is under threat. It's not >enough to say "Well I just turn off my monitor" >The Internet is a city - it needs 911 services and it needs Neighborhood >Watches. And neither professional law enforcement nor neighborhood watch >are by definition a threat to anyone's freedom. Freedom within the context >of Community does not and never has meant the freedom to kill your >neighbor, or rob someone, or rape someone, or harm someone. In the context >of the internet Community too, freedom is not the individual's right to do >whatever he or she likes - because then the Community is no longer free. By definition? Probably not... although it depends on the definition. Some implementations of such activities - such as the CyberAngels and their current and proposed activities - are such. Freedom is the right to do what will not trespass on another's freedom; I defy you to show how having pornography available, including "obscene" material, trespasses on the freedoms of others. I also defy you to show how having fully anonymous remailers available is a violation of anyone's liberties. >Freedom is under threat from two directions - from selfish individuals who >care little for the Community, and from the over zealousness of governments >who seek greater and greater control over individual thought and action. >The first step is to acknowledge that we have a problem within the Internet >Community - because if we don't address it responsibly then we have only >ourselves to blame when the governments try to take it over. We can face >our problems or we can deny that they exist. And how, pray tell, will bringing such alleged problems to the attention of government - as has been an activity of the CyberAngels - avoid increased governmental intervention? >By asking me the question: "What crime?" you are indicating to me that you >prefer denial. No. We have a disagreement about what is crime - what is an exercise of individual civil liberties, and what is a violation of them. >"Two people may disagree, but >that does not mean that one of them is evil" That depends on what they disagree. I believe we disagree in ways that include enough fundamental freedoms that calling you evil is proper from my viewpoint. -Allen

2 1

PICS & CyberAngels
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In view of the discussion of the possibility of PICS being required by law, plus that about the CyberAngels, I thought people might find it interesting that the CyberAngels home page has on it as one of their "responsibilities" making sure that all pages with sexual content - that pornography fetish again - have PICS or other (such as Safesurf...) ratings that would permit censorship of them. If parents want to keep their children from seeing sexual material, that's the problem of the parents - it shouldn't be the problem of anyone else. If something I put out offends someone (e.g., some political speech I've made), that's the problem of the person it offends. Sexual material is no different. -Allen

3 2

An interesting front end for the replay remailer
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

These folks' politics don't make much sense to me (but I gather that they really, really don't like Jehova's Witnesses); it's their setting up an "alternative" front end for the replay remailer that caught my interest. http://www.nano.no/~telemark/anon.html One could say that this makes a case for PGP-signing web pages, but on the other hand, the remailers don't and shouldn't care about content, so who cares if someone "misappropriates" a remailer. What are they "taking" anyway? -rich

1 0

WhoWhere is a Fucked-Up Operation
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:29 PM 5/3/96, Patrick May wrote: >Rich Graves writes: > > For a good demonstration of why WhoWhere? is not necessarily the greatest > > thing since spice racks, look up "Louis Freeh," "Fuck You," "Asshole," > > "System Privileged User," and "Stephen Hawking." I keep telling them that > > they'd better remove this last, but they don't consider it a priority. > > If you want further evidence of their technical skills, look up >my name. I'm responsible for the corp(a)spe.com account. WhoWhere has >therefore decided that I am responsible for every "corp" account in >their database and has attached my name to each and every one. I >informed them of this several weeks ago but they are evidently not >interested in cleaning up their service. > > Being both socially and technically challenged, perhaps they want >your Fucking Statist input on obtaining a government grant for a >clue-free business. I agree with my namesake that WhoWhere is one incredibly fucked-up operation. I tried to add an entry for myself, and my entry has (after several days) not made it. (I tried to be truthful, including such things as "felon" for what I do...perhasp their Thought Police considered my entry a joke, suggesting that they must be applying their own judgment to entries.) I then figured that some of their "automatically generated" entries for "Timothy C. May" needed correction. Not suprisingly, the system asked for a password, so I was unable to correct their defective entries for me. Fuck em. Then burn the body. --Tim May 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: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C'punks, At 11:31 AM 5/3/96 -0700, brerrabbit(a)alpha.c2.org wrote: >Do tell. How would someone, just for instance, who is considering >leaving a "permanent" job for the higher compensation available to >contractors and consultants be able to structure a business in such a >way as to benefit from these techniques? If we assume a rate of >between $60/hour and $125/hour (typical in Boston, New York, and the >Silicon Valley), how much can one save? How much effort and money is >required? How much risk is involved? > >There are many books on the shelves claiming to show how to avoid >taxes using these techniques. Most of them have the smell of >"dangerous crackpot" about them. Can you recommend any in particular? 1) Read as wide a variety of the stuff out there you can (even the books by "dangerous crackpots"). 2) Take a vacation to a tax haven you like because of what you've read about it. 3) Open a bank account with an established bank. 4) Ask your banker to recommend a trustworthy lawyer. 5) Tell the lawyer what you want to accomplish and do what he or she says, if it makes sense to you. 6) DON'T talk to anyone else--especially in your home country--about what you have done, are doing or are planning to do. 7) As your resources increase, repeat steps 2-5 in other tax havens. Don't put all your eggs in one basket if you have enough to spread around. 8) Send me $1000. If you follow my steps 1-7, you will save many times that amount. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 2

Re: The Decense Project
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"rjc(a)clark.net" "Ray Cromwell" 10-FEB-1996 23:32:12.32 >The first piece of the Decense software is designed to provide "penet" like >double-blind anonymous transactions for the http protocol. It is written >as a cgi-bin script which provides a seamless mapping between anonymous >ids and remote web servers. Servers running Decense can be chained like >anonymous remailers to increase site level security. [...] >http://<decense.server.host>/<cgi-bin-dir>/decense/<anonid>/<relative url> I had one idea that you might want to keep in mind. Most web robots (e.g., Altavista's) try to avoid cgi scripts. Since I would assume that one would wish these to be indexed (information being available doesn't do much good if nobody can find it), this could be a problem. Setting up as to fool the web robots (especially making sure that the Decense urls aren't in the site's robots.txt file) into thinking this is a normal page with an appropriate link would appear to be a good idea. Now, of course the site running Decense would probably not like too much traffic (the reason for most sites not running anonymizing proxies, which should be combined with Decense), I would suggest that the system be set up to receive ecash from the web sites linked (or from the user, although that would remove the web robot access unless you could verify that it was a known indexing robot.) The MarkTwain pickiness on merchants may be a problem on this, depending on what links are available. One idea on getting around this would be to go through the European bank offering ecash; I don't know if their setup is compatible with the MarkTwain ecash, however. Lucky Green? Indeed, setting this up in a European country with good anti-censorship laws would be preferable in any event; the Scandinavian countries might work well. The greater tolerance for some such material in Europe is why I would think that the European bank might be more flexible. (I would be curious if a U.S. business could get a merchant agreement with the European bank; Lucky Green?). -Allen

1 0

Re: PGP API & PGP 3.0
by mccoy＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Derek Atkins (warlord(a)mit.edu) writes: > The PGP Library is currently under development. I have a draft API > document, but it is not complete (I still need to finish documenting > the key management functions). I'd like to get it to a state where I > can "publically" release it soon -- then again I've been saying that > for a while. Yeah... I was thinking a few months ago that it would be fun to set up an idea-futures claim regarding which would appear in a usable fashion first (if ever): PGP 3.0 and it's library or the GNU Hurd... jim

1 0

Re: Why Leahy is No Friend of Ours
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:31 PM 5/3/96, Black Unicorn wrote: >> "Decently on the ball"? I hope you are being ironic. > >Not at all. (Did you mean sarcastic?) His staff are some of the most "irony n. 1. the expression of one's meaning by language of the opposite or a different tendency, e.g., adoption of a laudatory tone for the purpose of ridicule." --Oxford I was actually being facetious (one of the several sub-classes of irony) when I asked if you were being ironic, to make a point. On your other points, we mostly agree. I was just emphasizing the Senator Patrick Leahy pushed the bill that make the Surveillance State a reality. This should _never_ be forgotten. --Tim May 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."

2 1

Re: Why Leahy is No Friend of Ours
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 3-MAY-1996 19:48:00.78 >Leahy is no friend of ours. Recall that he chaired the hearings on the >FBI's "Digital Telephony" massive wiretap proposal, and co-sponsored the >legislation (with former FBI agent Don Edwards). Fascinating. I'd still say to use PGP when sending mail when possible in order to give the NSA more to worry about in traffic analysis. However, it does look like Leahy isn't exactly a governmental type to whom I wish to send an encouraging message. This may explain the problems with his initial bill on cryptography export. >The implications for the Internet and for increasingly popular "Internet >phone" systems are interesting. As I understand the DT language, such >systems would have to be made compliant with wiretap requests, or face the >$10K/day penalties. This could force many ISPs, in the U.S. of course, to >take steps to immediately restrict certain programs, or even >[speculatively] force them to become compliant by some form of key escrow, >where they would keep a copy of a key for presentation to law enforcement. >[More speculation by me: the combination of the Wiretap Act, the >Anti-Terrorism Act, and the still-ongoing work on key escrow (TIS is still >pushing their system, Lotus hasn't backed down, Denning still says it's >needed, etc.) could mean that ISPs move to restrict use of crypto in >various ways, possibly mandating escrowed encryption. Why do you think I enquired about encryption in the Internet Phone software in Netscape? Deployment of such as soon as possible - with the encrypted version being the default, or even automatic - would be a decided help. >Several of us (Black Unicorn, Duncan Frissell, me, etc.) may point out the >practical difficulties involved in such enforcement, and the longterm dim >prospects for success. But the fact is that ISPs are a kind of "choke >point" for halting certain things. I have a feeling I know what my ISP will >say if he gets a court order and a $10,000 per day penalty faces him. Those >who access the Net directly, through their own companies and/or by having >boxes hanging directly on the Net, will be less vulnerable to this kind of >pressure. But the Netcoms, PSI, Earthlinks, AOLs, and such will likely run >into trouble the first time a court order is presented to make certain >Internet phone conversations tappable.... One question is whether the ISP will be able to detect whether someone is violating such a law. -Allen

1 0

No Subject
by nmunro＠technews.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

subsribe neil munro

1 0

Re: Freedom and security
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"liberty(a)gate.net" 1-MAY-1996 10:34:38.08 To: IN%"angels(a)wavenet.com" CC: IN%"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" Subj: RE: Freedom and security Received: from toad.com by mbcl.rutgers.edu (PMDF #12194) id <01I46RO3HOSG8WWQG0(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu>; Wed, 1 May 1996 10:09 EDT Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id EAA25573 for cypherpunks-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 04:56:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osceola.gate.net (root(a)osceola.gate.net [199.227.0.18]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA25568 for <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>; Wed, 1 May 1996 04:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from miafl2-7.gate.net (miafl2-7.gate.net [199.227.2.134]) by osceola.gate.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA41660; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:55:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 07:55:25 -0400 From: liberty(a)gate.net (Jim Ray) Subject: RE: Freedom and security Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com To: angels(a)wavenet.com (CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher) Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Message-id: <199605011155.HAA41660(a)osceola.gate.net> X-Envelope-to: eallensmith Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: liberty(a)pop.gate.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- CyberAngels Director Colin Gabriel Hatcher wrote: <snips> >>...Freedom does not increase through more laws. > >Nor does freedom increase through less laws or no laws. You have gotta be kidding me, but let's start by differentiating among laws. I'm a crypto-minarchist, not a crypto-anarchist, so I still have hope for some (MUCH less) government. I think laws against murder are good, and lead to more safety for those not in jail. I think laws against "consensual crimes" are bad, and lead to government/police corruption extending all the way to the top [see sigfile]. When I have to say, "where's the victim?" it's a shitty law. Many laws fail my test. > Freedom increases >as respect and care for one another increases. This is what I called flowery rhetoric in the last post. > Meanwhile, since we do not >live in utopia, all societies at a certain level of economic development >and of a certain size of population require law and law enforcement to >protect citizens from predators. This is what astounds me, the advocates of more government always focus on crimes WITH obvious victims during debates. Once power is achieved, the victimless crime laws get written. I have said I do want murderers, and even some (not all) pedophiles, in jail. If a child pornographer chooses to visit my page and commits a thoughtcrime involving my babypictures, I say leave him alone. If he commits a real crime with an unwilling victim I say punish him even more than the present government punishes him. Libertarians, when we achieve political power, will find ourselves with abundent jail cells left over from the tax-and-spend drugwar to put real criminals (the ones who have an individual victim) in. >[...flowery rhetoric] Does anyone really doubt the extent of State >control and power across the Net? There are certainly enough statists who feel a need to increase it. > > >.... laws only breed more laws, which always lead to >>less freedom. > >I disagree with this statement. I do not believe that laws breed more laws >nor that laws lead to less freedom. I believe bad laws compromise freedom >(eg CDA) while good laws protect freedom. I am heartened by your opposition to the CDA (though I did not notice a Cyberangels voice in the debate/protest leading up to this abominable law...) but I must point out that you offer no good test, like my "where's the victim?" test, to differentiate good laws from bad ones. As to more laws leading to less freedom I stand by my words. Go down to any law library and have a look at the Code of Federal Regulations. As wordy, poorly-written laws proliferate, we all become "criminals," subject to the arbitrary power of the state's prosectors. When the state prosecutors are a partisan Democrat followed by a partisan Republican, and the "criminals" are high-ranking Democrats and Republicans, you end up with a lesser respect for all laws, even the good ones. Again, see my sigfile. Now imagine the Libertarian party was doing the same drug-smuggling...Would the feds [let alone the media] be so silent? I doubt it. >Cryptography enhances and protects privacy, which does not inevitably lead >to greater security. Security for the sender, yes, in that no one else can >read the message, but security for the Community? I find it worrisome that you capitalize the word, despite my rant involving Director Freeh. I repeat: The community is made up of individuals. > Doesnt that depend what >the message said? The technology itself is neutral. Therefore, I guess, the "Community" must forcibly take my key to make sure that last PGPmessage wasn't child porn, right? It is important to make sure I don't commit thoughtcrime. > Child pornographers >encrypt their hard drives so that law enforcement cannot gather crime >evidence - that is certainly a state of greater security for the >pornographer, but it does not improve our Community, and as child >pornography increases, the law is by definition broken more and more, and >so the Community becomes less free than before. And that's not the tyranny >of government but the tryanny of criminals. Look. I don't care if some old man beats off to the tune of baby pictures. There is no victim. If he finds a victim, toss him in the slammer, or kill him. Right now, the tax-and-spend drugwar is creating a revolving-door justice system when it comes to victim crimes, and the people (naturally) disrespect the law. Respect for ALL law, good and bad, is poisoned by this foolishness and when combined with a disrespect for the historical power of juries to nullify shitty laws, and ignorance of history. >I do in fact support cryptography for personal security, not least because >I can ensure that my messages are authenticated. CyberAngels PGP public >key will be up on our new website opening very soon. I've had enough of >people forging my email. <sarcasm on> Oh, why bother with this self-help, vigilante solution to the need for authentication. Why not just pass another law? PGP is a pain-in-the-ass to install and learn. I'm sure the Congress and President Clinton (who has also experienced e-mail forgery) would support it, and then you won't have to bother learning PGP or reading that awful PGPdoc1 & PGPdoc2. </sarcasm> >"Two people may disagree, but >that does not mean that one of them is evil" >I think it should be legal for me to sell my body for sex, or put >any substance into it I choose, because _I_ own my body. An excellent example to use with regards to the CyberAngels, given that the Guardian Angels are very definitely pro-drug-war. This is informative about the CyberAngels, especially considering their association with SafeSurf. Their parental-censorship system includes the ability to filter out many articles disagreeing with their position on the Drug War - namely those citing that certain presently illegal substances (e.g., marijuana) are much less dangerous than the government wishes people to believe. While I do not approve of minors using addictive drugs (including nicotine), enabling their parents to cut off political speech of which the parent and the CyberAngels disapprove is hardly an increase in the real freedom of anyone. -Allen

1 0

Edited Edupage, 25 April 1996
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"educom(a)elanor.oit.unc.edu" 25-APR-1996 21:40:28.52 >FCC BOOSTS PROSPECT FOR SUPERNETS >The Federal Communications Commission may reserve a band of radio >frequencies to allow free and unlicensed transmissions at 25 megabit speeds >of large volumes of data within a group of buildings. These so-called >"supernet" wireless services, which would operate at no more than one watt >of power in order to avoid interfering with neighboring supernets, could >then be connected by high-speed phone lines to the Internet, thus largely >bypassing local phone companies to get Net access. (New York Times 25 Apr >96 C1) If these are not covered by the regulations against encryption in the use of packet radio, this would seem to be an opening for such. Indeed, encryption of radio messages would appear to be rather critical for security. >HARDWARE SOLUTION TO E-COMMERCE SECURITY >VLSI Technology and Tandem Computer's Atalla are developing chip-level >security products to protect electronic transactions over the Internet and >intranets. The products will incorporate DES, RSA and other encryption >technology, and the companies hope their joint venture will establish a >hardware-based security standard for electronic commerce. (Information Week >15 Apr 96 p34) >INTERNET PHONE FACES REGULATORY FIGHT >The Canadian communications regulatory agency says companies offering online >phone services must pay a fee to local phone companies to help keep local >phone rates low. ShadowTel, the small Ontario company which recently >announced it planned to offer telephone service on the Internet, appears >headed toward a fight with federal regulators over whether it must pay a >special fee to Canada's phone companies. (Toronto Globe & Mail 25 Apr 96 B10) The usual egalitarian excuse to limit markets from doing what is right. -Allen >Edupage ... is what you've just finished reading. To subscribe to Edupage: >send mail to: listproc(a)educom.unc.edu with the message: subscribe edupage >Pierre Boulle (if your name is Pierre Boulle; otherwise, substitute your >own name). ... To cancel, send a message to: listproc(a)educom.unc.edu with >the message: unsubscribe edupage. (If you have subscription problems, send >mail to educom(a)educom.unc.edu.)

1 0

Re: proposed anti-pseudospoofing law in Georgia
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:00 PM 5/3/96, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >> "anti-psuedospoofing". > >pardon me, I thought that was the correct term. I saw someone >like Hal Finney or TCM (PM? EH?) use it here as I recall. >it's hard to remember. if there is a more correct term I will >be happy to use that in the future. Larry, as you certainly know, I am also known as "Nick Szabo" and "Robert Hettinga," Hal Finney is just another name for "Eric Hughes" and "Sandy Sandfort," and "Perry Metzger" actually a pseudonym shared by both me and John Gilmore. On occasion we meet to do a Vulcan mind-meld and adopt new identities. --Medusa

2 1

Re: "Bit Tax" proposed by satan@hell.gov
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:13 PM 5/3/96, Steve Reid wrote: >The problem with a tax on data is that it would be *extremely* unfair. Chill out, it's not a real proposal. >It would be like a tax on atoms. With a tax on atoms, the tax on a bag of >groceries would be hundreds of times greater than the tax on a diamond >ring, because there are more atoms in a bag of groceries > >Bits are the digital equivalent of atoms. With a tax on bits, the tax on >the download of an up-to-date virus scanner would be hundreds of times >greater than the tax on an emailed business contract. > >If this bit tax thing were attempted, the amount of time people spend >online would be determined entirely by their income; if you can't afford "Yeah, my tax guy really saved me a lot last year...he knows some really great data compression algorithms." --Tim May 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

No Subject
by anon-remailer＠utopia.hacktic.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

what is currently the best remailer-in-a-box out there?

1 0

Re: Freedom and Security
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Again, I would appreciate it if someone would forward this message to Mr. Hatcher. From: IN%"angels(a)wavenet.com" 1-MAY-1996 09:47:03.01 >Every society has a social contract whereby the freedom of the individual >is defined within the context of the society. Freedom means your freedom >to be who you want to be, think how you want to think, say what you want to >say, hold whatever beliefs you wish, balanced against the Community's need >for stability. You may demand the freedom to kill those who disagree with >you but no community will grant you that freedom. But no one living in a >community where murder is outlawed can serious claim that their freedom has >been taken away by that particular law. You cannot be free to speak your >mind unless there are laws preventing others who disagree with you from >killing you. If it were permitted to kill those who disagreed with you, >then no one would be free to speak their mind at all, for fear of the >consequences. Quite simply, if freedom is defined by a social contract, then there would be no need for a Bill of Rights. Protected freedoms are there because even a democratically elected government - the closest thing to a determiner of the "social contract" in the real world - cannot be trusted. For instance, the current social contract in Germany would apper to say that some political speech - that of neo-Nazis - is not permitted, and that this is not a violation of freedoms. It is reasonably evident that this is not the case by any true definition of freedom. Certainly, if someone can murder you for speaking your mind, your freedom of speech may be restricted. But I again defy you to come up with how many of the activities you oppose are violations of anyone's freedoms, as opposed to violations of what most people happen to want. >I am not currently aware that either your right to encrypt nor your right >to use anon remailers is under threat, so why should I do anything? But >while encryption and anon remailing protect *you* from certain threats to >your freedom, they are also being used for example to make the >international trade in child pornography more effective and less easy to >prosecute. The technology itself is neutral and can be used or abused. >That is why the focus should be on individual actions rather on the >technology. It would appear that you are incorrect with regards to the right to encrypt and anonymous remailers; such regulations and laws as ITAR restrict this, as do some movements toward mandatory government-access-to-keys (the eventual intended result of Clipper, which has certainly not disappeared from the intentions of law enforcement and espionage agencies). I have previously pointed out the ways in which the child pornography argument does not work, and is only an excuse. >My concern is not so much with network sabotage or infiltration (there are >plenty enough organizations addressing that problem) but with personal >safety within the Internet community - that means you, not your hard drive. I am not physically attached to the Internet; it is not possible for my safety - as opposed to my hard drive's safety if I connected it - to be compromised by the Internet. -Allen

1 0

Re: Why I dislike Java. (was Re: "Scruffies" vs. "Neats")
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"perry(a)piermont.com" 3-MAY-1996 16:49:35.61 >The users can't afford not to have the numbers they are watching not >in front of them, even for brief periods. Its a real problem. Hmm.... has anyone ever created a specialized computer (or computer running a specialized program) that would put multiple screens on the same screen, perhaps with some GUI manipulation capabilities? If they're trying to read Netscape material while watching the other numbers, they're then in the exact same situation from their viewpoint. >And yes, this isn't a joke. They all eat lunch on the trading floor so >they don't have to leave their desks. They race back and forth to the >bathroom. The environment is tough. I should have remembered this from reading Liar's Poker; thank you. (One wonders if any of them will start using catheters...) -Allen

2 1

RE: Calling other code in Java applications and applets
by Blake Coverett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I don't have any hints, but I think people need to be aware up front > that calling native code from a Java applet disables > any security that might otherwise be enforced for the applet. This, of course, presumes that the native code in question is less robust/trust-worthy than that Java runtime and the browser. It's not obvious to me why this should be the case. regards, -Blake (who figures its all a reputation thing again)

2 1

Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by Jordan Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From unicorn(a)schloss.li Fri May 3 23:23:21 1996 Accounting costs as a result of a deduction based, multi-tiered, progressive, and supplimented system of income taxation are silly. By the way, the IRS (in spite of it's shortcomings) is (by far) the most efficient tax collecting organization among the major economic powers. It costs roughly $0.50 per $100 collected. Canada is second at about $1, Germany (for instance) is at about $7, mostly because they don't have payroll deductions. /jordan

2 1