December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Dorothy and the four Horseman
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Douglas Barnes wrote: > > Aldrich Ames is actually a great example of why Key Escrow is > NOT a good idea. Any measure that concentrates keys in one or > several locations creates a tempting target for spies, > criminals and corporate espionage types. How much better do the > GAK proponents plan to protect keys than, say, the names of all > our agents in the former Soviet Union? > > Doug

1 0

Re: "why privacy" revisited
by Jonathan Gaw 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

when i talk to people like the Direct Marketer's Assn., they honestly don't understand what the fuss is about. Their attitude is, quite literally, "What's the harm being done here?" what do you think the community interested in privacy protection can do to best illustrate to the general public the "harm" in the collection of personal information? Jonathan Gaw At 09:28 AM 3/22/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: > >Much as I agree with the point that privacy is desirable, I find the >"market efficiency" arguments unpersuasive, at least as presented below: > >At 1:01 PM +0000 3/22/97, Adam Back wrote: > >>You requested an argument couched market economic terms as to why >>reduced privacy might be a bad idea for the market efficiency. >>Consider: >> >>Less privacy is a bad thing in market economics terms, because as >>privacy takes a downwards spiral, which leads to ever increasing >>government intervention, increasing sizes of governments, fascism, >>etc. the free market economy will go to hell. Poverty, and food >>shortages will result, a la the former USSR, which is slowly >>recovering from the decline caused by statist, facist policies. We on >>the other hand, absent pressure from outside government, law >>enforcement and secret services circles are collectively headed into >>that fascist driven downward spiral.in economics. > >Or, since we all understand perfectly well that *credit cards* and *checks* >and other forms of *electronic payment* are not private in the way cash is, >Adam's argument could read as follows: > >"Using credit cards and checks is a bad thing in market economics terms, >because as privacy takes a downwards spiral, which leads to ever increasing >government intervention, increasing sizes of governments, fascism, etc. the >free market economy will go to hell. Poverty, and food shortages will >result, a la the former USSR, which is slowly recovering from the decline >caused by statist, facist policies. We on the other hand, absent pressure >from outside government, law enforcement and secret services circles are >collectively headed into that fascist driven downward spiral.in economics." > >In other words, I submit the fallacy of this comment, that traceable >payment schemes such as credit cards and checks have _not_ destroyed the >U.S. and Western economies as evidence that Adam's thesis is incorrect. > >(One might point to the correlation between increased credit and check >instruments over the past 50 years and the rise of government spending, but >such a correlation would not, in any reasonable view, be causative. I'll >elaborate on this if there's real interest.) > > >--Tim May > >(I'm not arguing against privacy. I just don't see the validity of some of >the attempts to "prove" that privacy enhances markets (whatever that means) >and that non-privacy undermines markets. Such arguments are mostly >unpersuasive and depend strongly on assumptions and interpretations and >selective admission of facts.) > >Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" >We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. >---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- >Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, >tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero >W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, >Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. >"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." > > > > > ****************************************************** Jonathan Gaw The Star Tribune Minneapolis, Minnesota jonathan(a)gaw.net *********Wasting Digital Bandwidth Since 1986*********

3 2

Cypherpunks Bottleneck [was Cypherpunks & Ecash]
by camcc＠abraxis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 05:04 PM 3/21/97 -0800, you wrote: |[Hmmmhhhh...after noticing that a message I sent off this morning at 9 had |not gone out as of late this afternoon, I looked to see if other messages |I've sent off have gone out. I found that a message I sent out last night, |23 hours ago, has not arrived at my site, nor have I seen any followups by |others to it. So I am sending it again. I will go back through my messages |and look for other such non-sends. I suggest others do the same. I don't |know what the problem is, but it's worse in this respect than the problems |with toad.com.] | Tim: Last Thursday night I got word of Perry's shut down from the PGP Users List; I had not seen it posted during the day so I forwarded it to the cypherpunks list. It showed up at my location 5 minutes ago. I have the consolation of knowing mine was not the only one delayed. I seem to have noticed messages being repeated this afternoon. Alec -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMzNAMiKJGkNBIH7lAQFDEQQAj1RSJBtJ+vNv/iwPFTTcs6RNBpqq93tN H0j3toYnuFwuAThR5uI4qyuCto0dVhygl17cgZpLjo85CXDLe3SswN05fTZvhKCB 5E2Doq5OHo01S9cOzUigr6Q5oRR/ZEqGUTZSJmKzw1l0NzA+hDLvs+/zK4wb8yiX Zb//53oBjIg= =INC3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Market Failures, Monocultures, and Dead Kids (Oh My!)
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

BELIEVE the children! Vulis wrote: > Out in the hobbsian wild, if the parents abuse their offsprings (kill them, > fail to train them), then the offsprings won't reproduce and the parent's > genes won't perpetuate. Do we really need a more coersive system of > punishing "child abuse"? We don't (yet) live in the "hobbsian wild". Children do what they are taught. If the are taught to react to the slightest provocation with violence, then they will, when they grow up (notice I didn't say mature), react similarly. If we wish to live in a society of reasonable people, our children need to be raised respond reasonably to provocation. This means get violent when, and only when necessary. So, yes. I would say we need a fairly coersive system for punishing child abuse. We also need a clear defination of what child abuse really is. BELIEVE the children!

1 0

Re: "why privacy" revisited
by Wei Dai 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: > The best arguments are not those couched in terms of "benefits" to > society/markets, but in terms of "lowest common denominators." I favor the > "Schelling point" view, and have espoused it here often. > > In most Western systems, a reasonable Schelling point is that various > actors agree not to try to enter the "private spaces" of others. For > example, my neighbors and I agree not to enter each other's houses to pry > and inspect. > > (The Schelling point is that this "boundary" point is essentially agreed > upon even though my neighbors and I have never formally negotiated it...as > with animals and their "territories," certain equilibrium points are > reached.) > > In Western systems, it is recognized that the _costs_ of coercively > entering another's home and/or private space are too high, and so we > declare there to be a "right of privacy." In reality, what we mean is that > we accept a private domain as a Schelling point. I think you're answering the third meaning of "why privacy", "why DOES privacy exist?" This is a positive rather than a normative question (which is what I was asking). I agree with you that most likely privacy exist because in some sense it is an equilibrium in the game of life. But what I'm asking is whether it is a desirable equilibrium, and whether a new equilibrium involving more privacy is better than what we have now. > I reject the argument Wei Dai mentions, that market benefits could obtain > if society rejected privacy, for two reason. First, because in an important > sense rights are not the slaves of corporate or personal business > interests. (E.g., my interest in Alice's television viewing habits does not > trump her right to keep me out of her house.). Second, because so-called > "market efficiency" is largely an illusion anyway. Certainly no real market is perfectly efficient, but some markets are relativly more efficient than others, and most markets are more efficient than alternative forms of economic organization (e.g., socialism) so I don't see how you can call "market efficiency" an illusion. The inefficiencies I was talking about were relative to the case where both parties have the same information. Also, I don't quite understand your first argument. It seems to suggest that privacy should exist for no reason in particular. If this is the case then it doesn't make sense to argue about the costs/benefits of privacy. But it is my understanding that most cypherpunks believe more privacy benefits everyone, and therefore work to making more privacy for everyone. What I'm looking for are arguments that support this belief.

4 3

Re: Report from Supreme Court on CDA arguments
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May wrote: > Nothing I have seen in the interpretations of the CDA would "excuse" me > from saying "Fuck" (or worse) in a forum if I knew readers under 18 might > see it. (Some of the pro-CDA folks talk about possible exceptions for, say, > two 17-year-olds discussing sexual problems between themselves). > > This was the main reason I did "Tim's Vernacular Translation of the Bible" > as an alternate .sig. (Included below, by the way.) > -- > [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the U.S. Communications Decency > Act of 1996] > And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why > don't you boys just come on in and fuck them right here in my house - I'll > just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said: > "Dad's getting old. I say we should fuck him before he's too old to fuck." > So the two daughters got him drunk and screwed him all that night. Sure > enough, Dad got them pregnant, and had an incestuous bastard son....Onan > really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant > while his brother got all the credit, so he pulled out before he > came....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your > brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals, unless of course > God tells you to. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular > Translation, TCM, 1996] Perhaps this sig could be used in all replies to government agencies in regard to CDA and other censorship matters. Is it in the public domain? -- Toto "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html

1 0

Re: FBI Visits JPUNIX
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > > At 10:35 PM 3/20/97 -0500, John Perry wrote: > > Apparently some high-ranking > >official has been receiving anonymous email coming from my site that > >is of a threatening nature. This official has decided to call in the > >FBI as I was visited by said organization. I am shutting down remailer > >operations immediately. > I think you should name the "high-ranking official" involved. If there actually is one. > We (and you) might also point out that as far as you know, these threatening > notes could have been send by GOVERNMENT people, in an attempt to shut down > the system. Perhaps there was no threatening note. Perhaps there was no visit from the FBI. The attempt to destroy the cypherpunks list failed. The next logical target would be the remailers. Two remailers go down in the same week, both being tenacles of C2Net. Greg Broiles once again happens upon the scene of the accident, and predictably warns everyone of the grave dangers and liabilities facing remailer operators. How long until he publicly calls for the remailers to be "killed," as he did with the cypherpunks list? Instead of solutions to the problems facing small remailers, we have schills coming out of the woodwork to proclaim that remailers are only feasible for Big Business to operate. Corporate takeover of the list failed, now corporate takeover of the remailers seems to be the new agenda. I suggest that, instead of wasting time on a new battle, we simply resurrect all of the arguments over list control and re-post them as arguments over remailer control, simply substituting the word "remailer" everywhere that the word "list" occurs. Truthmonger Cindy ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

4 3

Re: LA Times article on crypto anarchy
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hal Finney wrote: > "'Activity in cyberspace ultimately forecasts the end of national > control,' said David Post, visiting associate professor of law at > Georgetown University." > The article goes on to mention digital cash, crypto policy debates, > problems with the CDA, Germany's attempt to block access to Radikal > magazine and anti holocast info on the net, and other topics which we > have discussed at length. It is good to see these ideas beginning to > enter the mainstream. > This is what this list and this movement is capable of. A lot of > these ideas would not have received their prominence if it were not > for the cypherpunks. And of course there are powerful forces arranged > in opposition. Of course, those who attempt to point toward those powerful forces will be be subjected to ridicule as paranoid conspiracy theorists. And when they point out the facts concerning the underlying alliances and motivations behind various actors on the list, then they will be met with rebuttals that so-and-so had a beer with them, once, and they seemed like a nice person. Big news flash! Nazi's attend the opera and kiss babies. Money buys people (even those who deny it to themselves). I wish I had a dime for every post I've seen on this list that denigrates those that suggest that the list is both followed by, and subjected to interference by, clandestine agencies and agents. "What? Our 'How to build a Nuclear bomb' list is being subjected to surveillance? How silly!" Buy a clue, dudes and dudettes. Cryptography is the new Nuclear technology of the Information Age. Big Brother is paying attention. > How easy they find it to distract us, to fill the list > with irrelevant discussions! When I see so many posts which are purely > flame bait, or which seem to go out of their way to explore trivia as > though it were of interest, I believe that in at least some cases they > are intentionally designed to thwart our efforts. Most people who recognize this still fail to see the 'thwarting' that takes place by those whose sole purpose is to spread disinformation while seeming to agree with the consensus opinion on the list. The subtle slants which are a constant undercurrent in their posts are seldom seen as an attempt to undermine the issues they appear to be supporting. > I'm not calling for censorship, but I'd like people to be aware of what > is going on. Before responding to an off-topic or flaming post, consider > the motivations of the creators of the thread. Is it possible that this > is purely an attempt to fill the list with noise, to drown out discussion > on more important and relevant topics? In some cases, undoubtedly, but anyone who thinks that the flames and off-topic posts are the enemy on this list are _not_ aware of what is going on. Noise will deflect idiots and lightweights from following the crucial issues surrounding cryptography, but this in no great loss. The true loss to the list is when the supposedly intelligent members lose the capacity to distinguish critical points raised on the list because they have allowed themselves to fall into the same personality based mode of censorship as was forcefully imposed on the list. Look at the number of people on the list who _boast_ about their killfiles. They are idiots. Even those who profess to use their filters as an information tool seem to base their filtering on personality, to a large degree. The result? They are filtering _into_ view those the disinformation artists who will lick their dick in order to lead them away from areas they don't want to receive too much attention. The result of the sheep mentality of cliques who killfile each other is that if a list member wants to raise an issue outside of his or her own _clan_ on the list, then they must make NOISE sufficient to draw in the members of other clans, whose other members will read their replies. Your post might waken a few of the converted to remind them that it takes an effort to stay on track, but if you had found a way to work the word "cocksucker" into the list, you would have reached a wider audience, and perhaps done some good where it will be more effective. (Or, better yet, badmouth the list Icons.) The fact of the matter is, spotting spooks and schills on this list is a minor matter of the simplest of traffic analysis, given the fact that so many list members are content to focus their attention only on the _visible_ enemies that those who use deceit and deception have to make little effort to cover their tracks. > Simply being aware of the attack will, I suggest, go a long way towards > reducing its impact. I think that all list members would be well-advised to read your post and give it serious thought. I think, however, that they should also make an attempt to broaden the concepts you deal with, in their own mind, in order to adjust their view as to the true nature of the traffic on this list really is. TruthMonger

2 1

Re: Cypherpunks & Ecash in WSJ, Chaum,and Amazing Revelation by NSA
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hal Finney <hal(a)rain.org> writes: ... > In my travels around the web, I find that First Virtual is being > relatively successful for small amounts like shareware fees. It is > easy to get started with FV; you fill out their web page and make a call > to their 800 number with your credit card info. You're ready to go in > a few minutes. I'm sure there are a lot more people buying things with > FV than with Digicash. ... I just had an idea for an interesting demo project. Perhaps someone wants to take it up and to put a spin on it to promote privacy/cryptography. Most (perhaps all) states' motor vehicle departments allow you to connect to their computer (usually via a modem) and map licence plate numbers into names/addresses. Typically you must first set up an account and pay, e.g., $200, and then something like $4 is deducted from the account for each query. Obviously, only someone who performs a lot of queries (like a p.i. or a lawyer) would set up an account. It occurred to me that it might be "interesting" for someone to set up accounts with all the states that have this service; and to establish a Web site that would do quantity 1 queries for a reasonable fee, like $FV10. I recall that someone got hold of the Washington State database and operated such a service for free for a few days as a demo. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: More disinfo from Cocksucker John Gilmore
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk writes: > > >no longer trusted Gilmore to > >host the list. > > > > On the planet I live on, the list moved because Gilmore was no longer > > willing to host the list > > On the other hand the majority of the list members, including myself, > would say that the reason the list moved was because of the > censorship imposed by statist cocksucker Gilmore. > > The list rapidly disentigrated into infighting and flame wars as soon > as the censorship was announced, several people suggested new list > solutions before Gilmore anounced he was closing the list, I remember > talking in private email with Igor and several others about the > distributed mailing list solution immediately the censorship was > announced. > > > Question: > > > > Is this true dissinformation or does this scumbag Russian sociopath > > believe his own lies? > > Question: > > 1. Is this bot generated or does "Casey Iverson" really exist? - I > would say he is a real person due to the level of context sesitivity and > quoting in his posts, however, it is beyond my comprehension that > anyone could be this inane... Unfortunately, New York City is the home to several people who in a more restrictive society would have been committed - Case Iverson, Ray Arachelian, the lying crackpot Charles Platt from alt.torture... > 2. If "Casey" does exist does he suck John Gilmore`s cock or is he > more of a Sandfort man? Neither Gilmore nor Sandfart have cocks long enough to reach from California... But Iverson may be sucking Arachelian's cock. > 3. Could the level of stupidity in his posts be easily emulated by a perl > script or would this require more complicated code including inducing > gramatical errors, anti Russian rants and turns of phrase that simply > fail to scan right in the context in which they are generated? With difficulty. A program's output would likely sound more intelligent. > 4. Is there a low bandwidth stego channel hidden in his rants, with > the data transmitted as integers giving the apparent IQ of the writer > for each message? Yes, but it's a very low bandwidth channel capable of transmitting single digits only. > 5. If he does exist and is sentient is he an NSA schill wasting our > time and effort to stop us doing crypto? A very good point, Paul. You may have noticed that Cocksucker John Gilmore spreads lies and disinformation, he makes up hard numbers which can be proven to be false - but it would require an effort that could be used more productively e.g. on setting up more remailers. Consider several of Cocksucker John Gilmore's recent claims made through his subservient mouthpiece Rich Graves. In article <5gl63i$4eu(a)quixote.stanford.edu> Cocksucker John Gilmore wrote: >comparing me to Vulis doesn't work, I don't think. He'd have >mailbombed the list subscribers at the drop of a hat; and in >the case of cypherpunks, he and GruBoursy did, to such an >extent that the list had to move from toad.com to cyberpass.net. >I'm sure I've disappointed some people by doing nothing of the >kind. Doesn't stop Seth from saying I'm obsessed, of course. This is a lie. I haven't mailbombed cypherpunks. There were several mail loops during the list's existance on toad.com, none of which were caused by me. The list moved because of Gilmore's censorship, which Graves forgets to mention at all. list. In article <5gkfag$36o(a)quixote.stanford.edu> Cocksucker John Gilmore/Graves further wrote: >>In any case, I personally would not ever absolutely reject posts >>arbitrarily from someone if I was moderating a list, even if 99.9% of >>their posts were absolute junk. (I've been in such situations---try >>moderating an biological evolution newsgroup and fend of all the >>creationists.) > >You've never met Dr. Vulis, then. Imagine 50 messages a day like this: > >http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/dir.archive-96.10.24-96.10.30/ > >|Timmy May has tons of dandruff (and dried up semen) in his beard. >|Is he Jewish??? >| >|--- >| >|Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM >|Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps The cypherpunks mailing list is archived at several sites. As I pointed out, it's possible to search the archives and to verify that in the several years that I've been on this list, there was not a single day when I posted 50 articles; not a single day when I posted even 15 articles; and probably less than 10 days when I posted more than 5 articles. Cocksucker John Gilmore is lying again. In the same article Gilmore/Graves wrote: >Vulis also posted megabytes of Serdar Argic screeds, just to be annoying, >and with the stated intention of disrupting the list. That's called a >denial of service attack. More lies. I have repeatedly stated that it is NOT my intention to disrupt the mailing list. The total size of the Serdar Argic material is under 200K. I'd be surprised if the total size of my contributions to cypherpunks over the years adds up to more than a couple of megabytes. But of course we know that Cocksucker John Gilmore is a pathological liar, so we can do something more useful than digging through the archives. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

2 1