December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Bypassing the Digicash Patents
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Someone, whose reputation is bigger than God, in the hope of sparing me public humiliation from the error of my ways (the very paradigm of a lost cause :-)), wrote to me offline on this topic. I'm posting it here, because frequently people reply to me with stuff which is extremely relevant to the argument at hand, and which should be heard in public. The main consideration I use is that none of the information in the reply can be used to identify the person who sent it, or mess up whatever plans they're laying, something you can clearly see in the following... At 4:48 pm -0400 on 5/3/97, somebody wrote: you write: > > I further claim that the most efficient digital bearer certificate is an > > anonymous one. > > Hal's point is this. There are two types of "anonymity": one where > the bank says "I swear I won't keep any records based on the name > you gave me" (the benign bank), and the other where we use Chaumian > blinding so the bank never even sees the identity information (the > untrusted bank). Right. Let's call the first one the Microsoft model, because I feel especially vicious this evening, and the second one the "Real" Chaum model. > Now, it seems to me that the "benign bank" sort of anonymity can't > cost any more (and in fact will even cost less) than the "untrusted > bank" Chaumian anonymity. Not true. With Chaumian anonymity, all the underwriter does is keep a database of spent digital bearer certificates, which they keep down by expiring certificate issues and the keys which generate them periodically. When someone double-spends a certificate, the underwriter has enough information to reveal their public key, but only when someone double spends and not before. With the Microsoft model, the underwriter knows who's buying your certificates, *and* the shared secret which makes the cash valid, *and* what time the certificate was issued, *and* what your shoe sizes, and the name of your sister's first date, and, and, and,... Anyway, I claim that the very Chaumian inability to *ever* know who bought the certificates you underwrite keeps you from ever *trying* to keep track of any other data, which, of course, is inherently cheaper. > Yet your arguments for anonymity apply > equally to both situations. No they don't. There's a qualitative difference between a system where you can't ever know who some one is, but you can still trust them, and a system where you always know who someone is and they have to trust *you*. :-). I say that one of the additional virtues of the former system is significantly reduced transaction costs, and finally, that that happy side effect will eventually result in a shift away from the latter kind of system, if it ever is useful to begin with. By the way, an additional cost of the system, which is obviously more in line with the privacy concerns of cypherpunks, and possibly less germaine to the transaction cost issue we're discussing, is the cost of the risk of breaking the confidentiality of systems like the Microsoft idea. I have a hunch that all it takes is one big information leak, and such systems will be dropped as a form of digital cash underwriting, but I'm going pretty far out on a limb to make that particular assertion. Should we call this the "Clipper effect", just to rattle peoples' chains? > Therefore, I say your arguments, taken > to their logical conclusion, imply that we'll end up with "benign > bank" anonymity, rather than Chaumian "untrusted bank" anonymity. Again, I don't think so. However, what we really need is some actual estimates and analysis to prove it, barring the existence of any actual transaction cost data, of course. :-). Something I'm not qualified to do, though I bet there are people here who can get those answers. > But "benign bank" anonymity is a very very weak form of anonymity > indeed -- it's not what most cypherpunks (or cryptographers) mean > when they talk about anonymous digital cash. Amen. Only people mired in the book-entry way of looking at things think otherwise. I believe the economics of the marketplace will soon teach them the serious errors of their ways... > "Benign bank" anonymity > is the sort of thing that Cybercash or other traditional systems > provide; "untrusted bank" security is what Digicash provides. And, again, I assert that the paradox of all this is that the cheapest form of commerce is a form where you don't trust anyone, or, better, trust, but verify, everyone. That's the beauty of the blind signature algorithm, it allows you to do all that, and not keep books, which cost money. > So, if I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that > we'll inevitably end up with some weak form of anonymity, but it > will be far weaker than what most cypherpunks want. I hope you can see by now, after I've taken another shot at explaining it better, what I was getting at. > That sounds more like a cause for a call to arms than a reason to > sit around reassuring ourselves that everything will turn out fine > without us! Nah. I don't do calls to arms. It's much better to change the world by making money. An especially important focus to have when you're building transaction systems. :-). I strongly beleive that you can easily knock three, maybe four, decimal places off the cost of any transaction you can care to mention just by using strong financial cryptography and anonymous digital bearer certificates on a ubiquitous geodesic network. That remains to be seen, however. I will say that I'm working as hard as someone with my limited skillset can to prove that hypothesis. :-). Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA Lesley Stahl: "You mean *anyone* can set up a web site and compete with the New York Times?" Andrew Kantor: "Yes." Stahl: "Isn't that dangerous?" The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

1 0

Ready for PrimeTime: FUD! The Newsletter of Fear Uncertainty and Doubt
by geeman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

See this new exciting venture. Cards and Letters Welcome; use "FUD" in the subject header. www.best.com/~geeman

1 0

Re: Firewalls
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy Mayo the self-admitted child molester possesses a rudimentary dick less than one inch long, half the size of his mother's clitoris, that barely makes a fistful. Thereby hangs the root of this Jew-hating sissy's sick fixation on little boys and Usenet forgeries. \|||/ (o o) -ooO-(_)-Ooo- Timmy Mayo

2 1

YOU ARE APPROVED!
by YES!＠netcom.es 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

$4000 MAJOR CREDIT CARD... GUARANTEED!! EVERYONE QUALIFIES...UNSECURTED CREDIT CARD!!! * NO Credit Checks! * NO SSN Number Required! * Major Credit Card $4000 Limit, UNSECURED!! * 4.95% Interest Rate Per Annum! * LINE OF CREDIT...$15,000 UNSECURED, 5.95% Interest Rate Per Annum! * Offshore For Complete Financial Privacy! * WORLDWIDE Acceptance At More Than 8 MILLION Locations! * INSTANT CASH ADVANCES At More Than 350,000 Banks & ATM's!! * MLM With $25.00 Fast Start Bonus! * 3X6 Forced Matrix... With High Demand, You'll Fill It Within 30 Days!! ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEED!!!!! For complete information AND application go to: FAX ON DEMAND: 415-273-6168 Doc# 1 ************************************************************* *IMPORTANT* In order for your application to processed properly, please use sponsor id# 542 ************************************************************* ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEED!!!!!

1 0

No Subject
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Quoting: http://www.msnbc.com/onair/nbc/mtp/default.asp Tune in to Meet the Press with Tim Russert on Sunday... check local listings for details. Sunday: Meet the Press will look at crime, terrorism, national security, and foreign campaign contributions. Moderator Tim Russert will speak with FBI Director Louis Freeh. This week's panelist will be NBC's Pete Williams, and the roundtable guest will be Elizabeth Drew, author of Whatever it Takes. Meet the Press transcripts are usually available three hours after the show airs.

1 0

Full Strength Stronghold 2.0 Released Worldwide
by sameer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For Release May 5, 1997 C2Net Software: Douglas Barnes +1 510 986 8770 UK Web: Dave Williams +44 113 222 0046 Full-Strength Stronghold 2.0 Released Worldwide C2Net President Sameer Parekh Rejects Weak Keys, Back Doors Oakland, CA - C2Net Software, Inc. annouced today the worldwide availability of Stronghold 2.0, a major upgrade to their secure web server based on Apache. With this release, Stronghold has added more functionality than ever, including uncompromised security, web-based configuration, and new protocol support. "The Stronghold web server -- like all C2Net products -- supports full-sized keys, and will never support government back doors," said C2Net president Sameer Parekh. "We have development teams around the globe working on our products, free from US export control policy. Even if some of these countries cave in to US demands, we'll still be able to produce first-rate, uncompromised security products." Others Use Compromised Security In a recent announcement, Netscape Communications announced plans to include government back doors in their products. "By implementing this so-called 'key recovery', Netscape is getting a small increase in key length in exchange for putting your keys in the hands of the government," said Parekh. "This the same government that hired Aldrich Ames, the same goverment that has IRS employees surfing taxpayer databases at will. What do you think is going to happen to your keys?" According to cryptography expert Bruce Schneier, "There is absolutely no business case for key recovery. Any benefit you get from longer key lengths is offset by the enormous security risk of concentrating keys in a few hands." Current "export" versions of Netscape and Microsoft web servers use a weak 40-bit cipher that can be broken in hours by any bored systems administrator or college student with access to a few hundred idle machines. By comparison, all C2Net software can use at least 128-bit keys. To understand this difference, imagine that the hundreds of computers needed to crack a 40 bit key in a few hours were compressed into a cube an inch on a side, and you built a computer the size of the Earth out of these cubes, it would still take this computer more than four times as long to crack a 128 bit key. It's easy to find a few hundred computers idle at any medium-sized business or university; Earth-sized computers are still relatively uncommon. Stronghold Gaining Market Share In several recent surveys, Stronghold has emerged as a leading contender in the web server market. An O'Reilly and Associates/Netcraft survey of secure web servers in use on the Internet found that Stronghold was second only to Netscape. The monthly Netcraft survey of all web servers on the Internet has indicated for some time that Stronghold is also the second most popular commercial web server for the Unix platform. "We've been steadily gaining market share," indicated Parekh, "and to a great extent it's due to our firm stand that we won't sell deliberately weakened security products to our customers." Features in Stronghold 2.0 "We've redesigned the security interfaces and built on the new Apache 1.2 code base," commented Mark Cox, Stronghold product manager at UK Web. "Stronghold has had many productivity and performance enhancements and it is now fully compliant with the new HTTP/1.1 standard." The HTTP/1.1 standard is a significant update to HTTP/1.0, the protocol that governs how web browsers and web servers communicate. HTTP/1.1 brings many new features to the table, including improved content and language negotiation, improved persistent connections, and better recovery from interrupted transfers. (For more information on HTTP/1.1, see http://www.apacheweek.com/features/http11) Stronghold 2.0 also includes a web-based configuration manager, allowing web administrators to securely administer their sites from the web browser of their choice. "We've had a lot of requests for this feature as Stronghold has grown in popularity," said Douglas Barnes, C2Net Vice President. On the security front, the new release includes support for Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) version 3, which provides stronger security and more flexibility in choosing ciphers. Background UK Web Limited is a leading Internet services company specialising in server technology, Internet security, business solutions and effective site design. C2Net is the leading worldwide provider of uncompromised network security software. Netscape Navigator and Netscape Enterprise are trademarks of Netscape Communications Corporation. Microsoft Internet Explorer and Microsoft Internet Information Server are trademarks of Microsoft Corporation. Stronghold and SafePassage are trademarks of C2Net Software, Inc. Portions of Stronghold were developed by the Apache Group, and were taken with permission from the Apache Server http://www.apache.org/. Stronghold also includes software developed by Eric Young (eay(a)cryptsoft.com)

4 3

Ebonics: The Finale
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Oakland school officials drop ebonics references Associated Press OAKLAND, Calif.-The Oakland public schools African American Task Force has dropped all references to ebonies in a final report about improving education for black students. The district caused a national controversy four months ago when it suggested that ebonies, or black English, was a second language that is "genetically based." The final report, obtained by The Oakland Tribune, still emphasizes improving black students' language skills, but it makes no reference to ebonies. There is also no reference to black students speaking a separate language. And provisions suggesting the district pursue federal bilingual funding for black students, as it does for children who speak Spanish or Chinese at home, have been deleted. The U S. Department of Education quickly dismissed the latter idea when it was raised in December. Instead, the 17-page report calls for better language and reading programs, additional tests to measure the language skills of students who speak black English, and expansion of the Standard English Proficiency program. The task force says the district should aggressively recruit black teachers and offer help to black teachers who have not passed the state teaching exam. The task force also recommends hiring a coordinator specifically to improve the education of black students and a budget of nearly $2 million over five years to achieve the goals. The task force's work is an attempt to improve the dismal record of Oakland's black students. Black students, who represent 53 percent of the district, make up 71 percent of special education classes, 37 percent of gifted classes and 80 percent of suspensions. --end PGP encrypted mail PREFERRED (See MIT/BAL servers for my PK) PGP Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Schear (N7ZEZ) | Internet: azur(a)netcom.com 7075 West Gowan Road | Voice: 1-702-658-2654 Suite 2148 | Fax: 1-702-658-2673 Las Vegas, NV 89129 | --------------------------------------------------------------------- God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; The courage to change the things I can; The weapons that make the difference; And the wisdom to hide the bodies of the people that got in my way;-) "Surveilence is ultimately just another form of media, and thus, potential entertainment." --G. Beato "Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind." -General William Westmoreland

2 1

[STEGO] One-time pads
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy C. Mayonnaise sexually molests little children, farm animals, and inanimate objects. < > < > V )_.._( V Timmy C. Mayonnaise \\ <____> // ~ <______> ~ > /~\______/~\ // /~\_____/~\ /_\ /~\____/~\ /_\ /~\___/\~\ _/_\/ \___/\__/__\/ \___/__\/

2 1

Thanks for signing up!
by The Dilbert Trivia Game 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi from Yoyodyne! This message is to let you know that you're signed up for The Dilbert Trivia Game. Welcome! You'll get questions e-mailed to you on Tuesdays, your answers are due back by 11 p.m. Eastern Time on Sundays, and you'll get your scoring messages on Mondays. It's that simple. When your questions come, you'll be asked to send your answers to dogbert(a)yoyo.com in this format: * Make sure your Player ID -- which looks like this (123456di) -- is on the Subject line of the message you send back with your answers. * Each answer must be preceded by one of these symbols # and each answer must be on its own line. * Each answer must be the letter of the multiple choice answer you like best. Let's repeat. The answer is the letter of the multiple choice selection you like best. It works like this: If one of the questions asks for the name of the evil human resources director, we'll say: "What is the name of the evil human resources director?" Then we'll list these choices: A -- Catbert B -- Ratbert C -- Dogbert You know that Catbert is the evil human resources director, so you'll send back e-mail with your Player ID in the Subject line, and a multiple choice selection in the body of the message that look like this: # A That's pretty much all there is to it. For all the fine print on how to play, the schedule, etc., e-mail these addresses for the autoreply of your choice: How to Play -- dogberthow(a)yoyo.com Official Rules -- dogbertrules(a)yoyo.com FAQ -- dogbertfaq(a)yoyo.com Talk to you soon! P.S. We promised you an answer to this sample question when you signed up: * * * Dilbert is worried that if head count is reduced by 50 percent, all the smart people will leave The boss says: A -- Would that be a bad thing? B -- If only half the people go, how could that be all the smart people? C -- Could you organize a goodbye potluck lunch for them The correct answer is #C. --- Yoyodyne Entertainment "Where the future begins...tomorrow." win(a)yoyo.com

1 0

http:--www.cnn.com-TECH-9705-04-web.libel.ap-
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CNN logo navigation Infoseek/Big Yellow Pathfinder/Warner Bros Tech banner Puzzled about doing real business on the Web? rule CAUTION: ANYTHING YOU POST MAY BE USED AGAINST YOU Libel May 4, 1997 Web posted at: 9:51 p.m. EDT (0151 GMT) In this story: * When slander becomes libel * Privacy issues * E-mail can make it a federal issue * The wrath of large corporations (AP) -- When the Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment protectingfreedom of the press, they never imagined millions of Americanswould someday have their own version of one sitting in their backrooms. But with the advent of the World Wide Web, that's exactly whathas happened. And from this revolution has emerged a new legalquandary: Just what standards are private individuals to be held towhen it comes to what they "publish" on the millions of Web pagesand other online forums that serve as the world's soapbox? To a great extent, the answer thus far is this: No one knows.With the Web revolution less than 3 years old, a body of case lawhasn't yet been built up. But lawyers who study online issues dohave some observations -- and advice. When slander becomes libel First off, they note, the line between slander, once the realmof individuals, and libel, the bane of publishers, has beenblurred. It used to be that spreading malicious gossip aboutsomeone down at the barbershop could lead to charges of slander.But slander, by definition spoken, was hard to prove and generallydidn't reach enough people to do any major harm. Post that same information where it can be read by millionsonline, however, and you've suddenly entered the realm of libel --governed by stricter laws originally written to cover printpublications. "Let's face it," says Mark Rasch, director of informationsecurity law and policy at the Center for Information Protection atScience Applications International Corp. in McLean, Virginia. "If I wereto print up a handbill saying bad things about my neighbor thatwere false, at most I could distribute a couple of hundred of them.With the Web, I can now damage his reputation worldwide." The law is clear: Libel consists of publishing a false anddefamatory statement about an identifiable person, causing injuryto the subject's reputation. Often tied to it is the legal notionof defamation, defined as that which exposes a person to hatred,ridicule or contempt, causing them to be shunned or injuring theirbusiness or calling. Truth is always a defense against libel, so if your Web pagesays someone has two heads and they do, you're fine. But saythey're a murderer and you can expect someone to come asking forsome proof -- and possibly a bill for damages if you don't have any. Privacy issues Then, there's invasion of privacy. It's one thing to pass alonga juicy bit of gossip to a friend. It's quite another to post it tothe Web. "Let's say, for instance, you disclose some private fact aboutsomebody -- say, their medical records. Or you snuck into theirhouse and took a nudie photo of them and put it up on the Net. Thatwould be a no-no under civil law and they could sue for damages,"says David Banisar, staff counsel for the Electronic PrivacyInformation Center in Washington, D.C. Although few of these cases have actually gone to court, lawyersoften are called in when things get ugly. "I know of a few cases where the ex-husband and ex-wife havegone after each other on the Net," Banisar says. "In oneinstance, the ex-wife put up a diatribe page on what a scumbag hewas and how he wasn't paying his child support -- and gave out hisphone number so suitably angry women could take it up with him." Remember, too, that the Internet's reach magnifies everything inthe eyes of the law. E-mail can make it a federal issue Shouting "You jerk, I'm gonna belt you one!" at a carelessdriver who runs over your mailbox won't get you into trouble. Butposting the threat on the Internet is dangerous. It's all aquestion of reach: Anything done over a telecommunications deviceis automatically an interstate communication. "This suddenly makes it a federal issue if you e-mail,"Banisar warns. State statutes vary, but when federal laws come into effect, anycommunication containing a threat to kidnap or injure a personcarries with it the possibility of imprisonment up to five years ora fine of up to $1,000. And an entirely different level of concern pops up when theobject of the threat is an elected official. Like the "no jokes"signs posted by airport metal detectors, the FBI has no sense ofhumor when it comes to threatening officeholders. "We can't forget all those idiots arrested for sending threatsto the president. So don't send threats to the president overe-mail. It's a federal crime," Banisar says. Fraud is another sticking point. It's illegal everywhere, ofcourse. But the Federal Trade Commission has taken an especiallyhard line against fraud on the Net. Send a snail-mail chain letterasking for money and you might get a call from postal authorities.Try it on the Web, however, and you'll be investigated by the FTCforces who track online scammers. The wrath of large corporations But in the end, the biggest vulnerability of any self-publisheron the Web is probably the wrath of large corporations. You can say their logos are ugly and their presidents are jerksand they don't flinch. But try using any variety of a heavilytrademarked name or image on your site and watch the injunctionsflow. Generally speaking, it's other businesses who get into trouble.But, once in a while, an individual will set out to make a point --and get a legally phrased e-mail in response. Several cases haveresulted in Web sites' being taken down, including individuals whoposted statements against Kmart and McDonald's. Overall, remember that putting words or pictures up on your Webpage is just like publishing them in the newspaper. Use Rasch's simple test: "What you should avoid putting on theWeb is the same stuff you'd avoid putting on leaflets and handingout on the street." Copyright 1997 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. rule Related sites and stories: * The Communications Decency Act: Related sites and stories - June 12, 1996 External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive. rule Watch these shows on CNN for more sci-tech stories: CNN Computer Connection | Future Watch | Science & Technology Week rule Message Boards Sound off on our message boards Tell us what you think! You said it... [INLINE] Puzzled about doing real business on the Web? rule To the top © 1997 Cable News Network, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you.

1 0