December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

WTO_tap
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Three newspapers have pieces today on the new WTO telecom agreement. A Page 1 NYP report examines the administration's favoring of the once-moribund WTO over the UN as a principal means for "exporting US free-market values through global commercial agreements." The telecom agreement, for the first time, allows the WTO to go inside the signatory countries and check compliance, and if warranted, impose sanctions, a role once reserved to the UN. While encryption is not mentioned, it's worth watching the WTO globally unite its privacy-invasive predecessors: the national tele-tappers. The spin is that now all governments can have access to the global (wiretap) network under guise of enhanced commercial competition. (And that's why Commerce was given EI for CCL.) ----- WTO_tap ---------- For related background, there's informative discussion on the encryption switchover from State to Commerce in the Defense Trade News, archived at the Dept of State Web site. We've put the five issues in which the shift of encryption items from the USML to the CCL is formulated by the Technical Working Group at: January/April 1993: http://jya.com/dtn0193.htm (76K) January 1994: http://jya.com/dtn0194.htm (99K) April 1994: http://jya.com/dtn0494.htm (66K) July/October, 1994: http://jya.com/dtn0794.htm (67K) October 1995: http://jya.com/dtn1095.htm (35K)

1 0

Re: (fwd) DES challenge organisation
by Tim Newsome 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Adam Back wrote: > > 5. The prize money will be split equally between Gutenberg and EFF. > > There is a possibility of using part of it for stickers or > > something similar, but don't count on it. > Not a good idea. > How can this be enforced? The RSADSI DES challenge is open to all Unless people modify the client, we will know about it before they do. Yes, people might cheat. Main point is we don't want to turn this into a race for money. (Also, that way we can't use university machines etc.) This topic has been discussed too often also. Read the archives for more debate. Tim Tim Newsome. Programmer for Megasoft. Student at CMU. Cynic in life. Intel sucks. Motorola forever! If it's not PGP signed, it didn't come from me. Always look on the bright side of life. I think I think therefore I think I am. drz(a)froody.bloke.com http://www.local.com/~tnewsom/ PGP key: 2048/C32F01A5 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv Comment: In God we trust. Everybody else we verify using PGP! iQEVAwUBMwh34PKkXTDDLwGlAQE/KggAmWk9rL86fknnXWy9ASPWQokH6J0vEzW+ qhrBklXwv0Lz5HGNV92OM0qh9KI+bqFct9aNY0B15g6APspSUNYr7RaXI2/LaSYb 0gG7YpPe2kHFdSWsodhYyu7DTzYvdDI1AJOmEnSUKHQPKiLwU/RgVZiLEttuvIcS GCjDEGEW7C0YIrQKTkLoYKkSHz6HHXQ+/hr66yCBMD7AIS1C/p9yN2ticmQ3hLnd DYSpVQb9NudLcU0bGZC1U31o70hSVmyETTt9VcuJCOXseiggWTZsZuNK/D+f5TfA WBEcIAWToBHfrWSokuF9nunAarmcddQyPu/93hzRkgODVTWgmnpOGA== =IuAs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives?
by Mark M. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Bill Campbell wrote: > However, I'm very confused on just what to do at this > point, my news server doesn't see alt.cypherpunks > yet and if it did would probably lose about 75% of > the posts if past performance is to be any indicator. > (Or more accurately, would never get them, we seem > to be a bottom feeder here in South Florida as far > as the newsgroups go.) > > Has anyone composed a concise summary of just > what the options are? Time is running out, I guess. Here's my understanding of the situation: - Newsgroups alt.cypherpunks, alt.cypherpunks.announce, alt.cypherpunks.social, alt.cypherpunks.technical have been created. - The distributed list is still forming and so far consists of cypherpunks(a)algebra.com, cypherpunks(a)ssz.com, and others of which I do not know the location. A mail<->news gateway is planned, but not yet in place, between the distributed list and the newsgroup(s). cypherpunks(a)algebra.com is receiving messages from cypherpunks-unedited. I assume this means that the other hosts part of the distributed list are also receiving cypherpunks-unedited messages. - Lance Cottrell is running another list (cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net) that is not yet part of the distributed list. It is also receiving feed from toad.com. If you don't want to miss any messages, then you should subscribe to both cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net and one of the distributed list nodes. Since both are receiving cypherpunks-unedited, you can safely unsubscribe from cypherpunks-unedited, -flames, or the "main" list. Since these lists have overlapping content, you should delete duplicates. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMwif+CzIPc7jvyFpAQEBJwf/T3y22R0W30Sp26Ub4ntH3miJRUBlv9nO GLZqRzT5JI4Ux9Ml6by0aAKxKiOH/mTGuu5ELogsC6hv50F/GKtmQv9kdqTukoJq 19j7WuGCDflve2IPWo9/vSvcJpLBAcGwBnVIOiS8wBR9tz42GxpM/y+/eZgYfYWS OnQHqOA+fDWrKmdNj+3EHuMWXHLoGTILVpX2UGBpFDGZEgoZNM56Oj9CWU5NU3cn 4De/fS5M5L3AO/SGRNQ6CSTqYsixdniapamBdHWeURasvy2iD7Xyxq7li4DzL1VE LB+1qo6AHrmRlS3+4cv3xA+9hsNpFoW0FsicN8sVUP0pGl0ADEVXKA== =HKTe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Bad Headers Added to John Young postings via owner-cypherpunks@sirius.infonex.com
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970216:1241 Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> said: +Hi! The following headers are from a posting by John Young that looks +like it was sent to cypherpunks(a)toad.com, +forwarded to cypherpunks(a)sirius.infonex.com and/or +cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net, and has the Reply-To: header +set to reply to cypherpunks(a)toad.com instead of to John Young.... It +looks like the obvious implementation of cypherpunks-style mail header +patching, but isn't quite right..... Leads to people sending their +John Young mailbot requests to cypherpunks(a)toad.com instead, as some +well-known cypherpunks have mistakenly done recently :-) this is what Lance said he would do... until toad.com shuts down, you address all messages to cypherpunks(a)toad.com to avoid overlap. toad.com was never set up to show cypherpunks(a)road.com in the "Reply-To: " field, but it should have been. mailing lists then have the "From: " field from the original sender, and the "Reply-To: " to the list. Now, there are reasons some list operators do not change the reply field --usually in the hope any responders will not notice the list is not being copied....in just turns into private mail. for the almost 20 years I been playing with mail lists of various sorts starting with simple inbound scoop and explode to list, Lance's convention has been the norm. attila gone... ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "A man owns an ass; he can vote. The ass dies; he cannot vote. Who owns the vote?" --Benjamin Franklin _______________________________________________________________________ "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMwgLQb04kQrCC2kFAQGUuwP9HGqFFjxWRkTnkN9+Y2AnCErsRtTwYJpL RpKfsz3fJ89xr5qt18EXqt768ZvFclw2ipsdy50FIUSmHqPx+SkZykcTqn/yspX1 B9+HdKE3fYhZNPqwVftX+AEX6ZLYJNlZ1rfak1qaL1ROw164JZR86J4Ik7TiUJZV FBWxiJ85b6A= =gBiw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Constitution and a Right to Privacy
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:22 PM -0600 2/17/97, snow wrote: >Mr. May wrote: >> Some legal scholars are claiming that there is no provision in the >> Constitution guaranteeing anonymity of purchases, and, indeed, a growing >> number of purchases can no longer be anonymous--guns, explosives, chemicals >> of various sorts, etc. How long before _all_ transactions must be recorded, >> True Names revealed, etc.? > > This is where I often get a little confused. > > Correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that the >constitutuion was _not_ a document that explicitly spelled out what writes >_I_ had, but rather spelled out fairly precisely what the _government_ was >allowed to do. > > In otherwords, the Constitution does not restrict _me_ rather it >restricts the _feds_ (and the Feds alone). > > My rights are WHATEVER ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION, and the government >can only, ONLY do what the constitution says it can. > > ??? But why do you not object that the "right to free speech," "the right to keep and bear arms," and so on, are specifically enumeratedin the Bill of Rights? The privacy issue is that there is no such enumeration of a right to privacy in the Bill of Rights, though many think it to be implicit in some of the other enumerated rights, e.g,, the Fourth, and even in the First. Constitutional issues are not easily discussed in short messages like this. Suffice it to say the issue of whether a "right to privacy" exists has been long discussed, most recently by Bork, Posner, and others (I skimmed the latest Posner book a while back, and liked his style). The issue hit when abortion advocates argued that a "woman's right to privacy" allowed abortions. However, none of the enumerated rights made this obvious. Bork has opined that no right to privacy can be inferred from the Constitution. (And I always thought the "woman's right to privacy" argument for abortion was flaky. Accepting such an argument, wouldn't infanticide be equally protected by a woman's right to privacy?) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: The Science Generations, II
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mr. May wrote: > Some legal scholars are claiming that there is no provision in the > Constitution guaranteeing anonymity of purchases, and, indeed, a growing > number of purchases can no longer be anonymous--guns, explosives, chemicals > of various sorts, etc. How long before _all_ transactions must be recorded, > True Names revealed, etc.? This is where I often get a little confused. Correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that the constitutuion was _not_ a document that explicitly spelled out what writes _I_ had, but rather spelled out fairly precisely what the _government_ was allowed to do. In otherwords, the Constitution does not restrict _me_ rather it restricts the _feds_ (and the Feds alone). My rights are WHATEVER ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION, and the government can only, ONLY do what the constitution says it can. ???

2 1

Re: The Offending Stronghold posts...
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:02 PM -0500 2/17/97, John Young wrote: >Return-Path: cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com >X-Sender: jya(a)pop.pipeline.com >Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 13:17:32 -0500 >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >From: John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> >Subject: Who's Censoring Who? >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >Sandy's e-mailed several of us who've sent messages about Vulis's >ploy to put Sandy in a conflict-of-interest bind -- a well-known attack >on moderators of all kinds, not just on the net. Interestingly, I don't recall getting any e-mail from Sandy telling me he was not passing on my messages to either the Main or the Flames list...my messages were simply dropped on the floor. (Others, including John, have said they sometimes got nice Sandygrams explaining why their items were deemed unsuitable for either of the lists. Sandy may have considered it pointless to send me an explanation....) >It's probably worth saving accusations of censorship for the real thing, >after trial usage here for what is truly nasty high-stakes global info-war >gaming. As John likes literary references, recall William Burroughs' warning about "the policeman inside." I can't share John's belief that we should ignore censorship on the CP list (especially messages going to neither of the two specified lists, without notice). Waiting "for the real thing" is not a clear-cut issue, as explicit censorship of political views is not likely to happen in our lifetimes in the U.S. However, "self-censorship," a la the V-chip, the mandatory voluntary labeling of CDs, etc., is becoming the favored route. And the use of the legal system, or threats to use the legal system (a la threats made to Vulis, Against Moderation, etc.) is part of the bullying pulpit (this pun inspired by John's flights of rhetorical fancy). >[Note: Thorn, "cuckoo" and TCM responded to this; none were forwarded >to the cp-edited list, AFIK.] One of the interesting, and utterly predictable, consequences of "silent suppression" of some messages is that those on the unedited list, who see all traffic (for the nonce), get to engage in conversations which are subsequently suppressed so that several of us are having a conversation the main list (and the flames list) are oblivious to! This has had the fascinating effect of having people outside the conversation (as an example, Blanc Weber) gradually figuring out from "approved" messages that something is going on behind the scenes...they they send us messages (as Blanc did) asking what the hell is going on, what we're obliquely referring to. When the excised material is forwarded to them (as I did with Blanc), the reaction is often "Wow! I didn't know." As conversational threads are often so tangled, and become so much more tangled with time, the job of the censor gets more difficult as time passes. Not only must he excise all mention of banned topics, he must also be alert to later discussions making mention of the act of banning, or of the topics. This is territory well-covered by Orwell, of course. The rewriting of history is a full-time job. --Winston Smith 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."

1 0

Re: The Science Generations, II
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

drose(a)azstarnet.com wrote: > With regard to chemicals, may I suggest a perusal of the PGI and PML lists > (respectively, Pyrotechnics Guild Inc. and Pyrotechnics Mailing List)? These > are good resources; just about anything you might want is available. > However, they are serious; the KeWl BoMb stuff is on USENET (attn: C'Punk > Newsgroup folks-thanx Dimi--there *is* a difference). > Yea, (as D. Thorn might babble, if I understand the shards of his stuff > quoted in the posts of those who should know better) when I was a young > fellow, the guy at the local chemical supply co. asked my mom, "Lady, do you > have any idea what metallic sodium and red fuming nitric acid and Willy > Ley-strength Hydrogen Peroxide are all about?" Yea, tho' they kicked me out of school for stashing this stuff in my wall locker, does that make me a bad person, or stupid? Lots of patriots in the late 1700's blew themselves up trying to make explosives for the cause. One person's freedom fighter....

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks afraid of spam?
by Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 aaron(a)herringn.com wrote: > [Fairly prominent Cypherpunk I'll decline to name- I don't mean to ridicule > him personally, just his (distressingly common) attitude] Hey, I can take the heat. But I'm afraid you missed my perhaps too-terse point. > >Just for the record. I will not post to USENET given the spamming that > >seems to go to IDs that appear there. > > [chuckle] > > Just add an anti-spam segment to your email address. > > example: > > jsmith[at]foo.com > It's not that simple. Consider: 1) I stopped learning more about new computer tools than the minimum needed to do my work a long time ago, when I stopped programming and started lawyering. It wasn't an efficient use of my time. 2) Our system here has ONE email system: PINE. It defaults my "from" address. There is no obvious way to override it. I may have the necessary tools and permissions, I may not; I don't feel like taking whatever time it takes to figure it out. We use PINE for usenet and email, using the same config file. There are other usenet tools here, like tin, but I would have to learn them. Again, I have no idea if I have the permissions/tools/knowledge to alter my headers. I am certain that I could hack it with time enough and motivation enough. I have neither. 3) I do other things besides talk to you with this tool. I communicate with students, family and others. I want them to get my real headers. I don't want an elaborate switching mechanims every time I change the person I'm speaking to. > Most people worth talking to have enough of a clue to replace [at] with @. > > if your software requires an apparently valid email address, try > > jsmith(a)NOSPAM.foo.com > > I put a spam-busted address in my .sig and give root(a)127.0.0.1 as my email > in the from: header. Sure, somebody out there is going to be unhappy with > me, but if they have a clue they'll figure it out. Meantime, the SpamBots > are bouncing mail to the admin of the site instead of to me. > > That may not be enough if you're already in the spamming lists. Try > using 'positive' filtering- instead of filtering to eliminate unwanted > mail, filter email from regular correspondents into a 'approved' > directory, and leave the rest in the inbox to pick through later. > > It seems very strange that the denziens of this list, reputed to be gutsy > enough to take on the FBI, NSA, CIA, and White House, would be scared > away from a discussion forum (Usenet) by uninvited email. > > We'd better hope they never figure out Cypherpunks, Guardians of > Privacy and Defenders of Free Speech, are afraid of spam. > > (And supposedly the 'Moderation experiment' is over, so this won't get > kicked onto the -flames list, although it's more ridicule than flame...) > > > > == The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.52 voice recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.

1 0

Re: The Science Generations, II
by drose＠azstarnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

With regard to chemicals, may I suggest a perusal of the PGI and PML lists (respectively, Pyrotechnics Guild Inc. and Pyrotechnics Mailing List)? These are good resources; just about anything you might want is available. However, they are serious; the KeWl BoMb stuff is on USENET (attn: C'Punk Newsgroup folks-thanx Dimi--there *is* a difference). Yea, (as D. Thorn might babble, if I understand the shards of his stuff quoted in the posts of those who should know better) when I was a young fellow, the guy at the local chemical supply co. asked my mom, "Lady, do you have any idea what metallic sodium and red fuming nitric acid and Willy Ley-strength Hydrogen Peroxide are all about?" Me, personally? I'm glad to have traded the availability of interesting reagents for the "Oppa-tune-itee" of having freedom and justice. (Although nobody "axed" my opinion prior to there having been a reversal in the thrust of gummint regulations.)

2 1