December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dave Hayes wrote: > > Ok. I'll "put up". > > If the cypherpunks will have me, -I'll- run the cypherpunks > list. Those that know me know that I will *not* censor, moderate, or > otherwise alter the content (other than the stuff majordomo does with > "resend") of any messages to the list. I think that it is a great idea. If you want to contribute to the effort to keep the list, this is great. You could join the network of other cypherpunks mailing lists. There is a small list for discussing these networking issues, cypherpunks-hosts(a)algebra.com. It is not for crypto-discussions per se, but rather for discussing how we proceed with these lists. You can subscribe to it through majordomo(a)algebra.com. - Igor.

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks afraid of spam?
by Cynthia H. Brown 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 aaron(a)herringn.com wrote: <explanation of anti-spam e-mail addresses snipped> > 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. <evil grin> That's *much* better than the mundane c.y.n.t.h.b(a)i.o.s.p.h.e.r.e.dot.n.e.t =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng. E-mail: cynthb(a)iosphere.net | PGP Key: See Home Page Home Page: http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/ Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. Klein bottle for rent; enquire within.

1 0

Re: Good Bye Cypherpunks!
by Vin McLellan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May asked: >And was my article the kind of "sludge of spam" and "contentless >name-calling" you thought the Moderation experiment was all about? No. It definitely was not. >And what of the four or five of my posts a week ago which never made it to >either the Main list or the Flames list? The contained no "sludge of spam" >nor "contentless name-calling." What they dealt with was a claim (like this >one) that some posts were not being passed on to either of the two lists, >and that perhaps a conflict of interest was developing. > >Does this still match your "understanding of Sandy's effort"? Sadly, no. _Vin

1 0

Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd)
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate allegedly said: > > > Forwarded message: > > > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 02:08:21 -0800 > > From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> > > Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) > [...] > > What I really find interesting is that in the 3 years SSZ has been up and > the 8 mailing lists (with about 300 subscribers total) nobody has ever > complained about the public domain policy and nobody has ever put a > copyright header on their messages. All these lists are technical and > several of them are directly involved with technical development of > projects, some for commercial apps. > > > Jim Choate > CyberTects > ravage(a)ssz.com > > Jim, if I put "Copyright (c) 1997 by Kent Crispin. All Rights Reserved." in my .sig, would that constitute a "fair-use header"? In general, I rather like your policy. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F

1 0

EuroGAK
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An EU insider writes (paraphrased): As you say, an EU policy on cryptography requires the utmost care. We have been following US initiatives closely. The USG's latest proposal attempts to balance the need for security with the need to tackle crime. Some EU Member States have begun work possibly leading to Government access to keys (where legally authorised). Various conventions and laws set out rights for the citizen and these will be respected. It is not suggested that access should include signature keys, only those for message confidentiality (as with police search powers). comment: The term "Government access to keys" is used. No mention of mandatory GAK, or the (in)effectiveness of GAK against crime. He refers to "message confidentiality ... police search powers" by which he perhaps means wiretap, rather than search. Or perhaps he means storage as well as messages. His "signature keys" does not specify the plan for a dual-purpose key, but my guess is they would wish to obtain a dual-purpose key if interested in its cyphertext.

1 0

Cypherpunks afraid of spam?
by aaron＠herringn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Fairly prominent Cypherpunk I'll decline to name- I don't mean to ridicule him personally, just his (distressingly common) attitude] >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 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...)

3 2

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

17 Dec '03

Mike sheds more heat than light on the issue. Gilmore does not always represent the EFF; not every action of his is an EFF action. As for the "rift," may observers said at the time that DT was a Jerry Berman "appeasement and capitulation" scheme. Note Berman no longer works at EFF. Note EFF is no lnoger in DC. And yes, I've read Tim May's essay on his EFF membership. I probably would have had the same reaction. -Declan On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Mike Duvos wrote: > John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> writes: > > [Fluffy Gilmore apologia by Declan expunged] > > Two small points. > > 1. The rift between Gilmore/EFF and Cypherpunks is hardly > of recent origin, and dates back to when the EFF first > demonstrated to horrified Cypherpunks that its policy > would be one of appeasement and capitulation towards > clearly unacceptable legislation. This is all in the > archives, including Tim May's essay on why he chose not > to renew his EFF membership. > > 2. The article fails to mention Gilmore's new nickname. :) > > -- > Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ > mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $ > > >

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

> The only other alternative I can see would be to limit membership -- > but not limit what members might write. The notion that there are "members" in some kind of formal fashion is inherently un-cypherpunk in my book and would most likely be rejected. > Having been "on" the net for over 15 years -- and with experience in > both ends of the censorship/moderation problem (I'm probably the > only Cypherpunks member to have had a book "banned in Boston"), I'm > sorry that a handful of sociopaths managed to destroy this > experiment in anarchy, but I suspect that this was inevitable. In your 15 years on-line you should KNOW that it's an inevitable cycle inherent to anarchic forums like cypherpunks. But the notion that cypherpunks is dead and destroyed is silly. Cypherpunks will (and already are) reform and renew as is, I believe, necessary. Whether or not the name cypherpunks is used and embraced is irrelevant. Those interested in cryptography as a tool of personal privacy and freedom will inevitable congregate in the self-organizing fashion that "cypherpunks" have always recognized. The "human judgement" you are referring to is leadership. Leadership is not necessarily anathema to cypherpunks. Leadership is provided by those who try to post signal and ignore the noise. Those who continue to push the discussion forward. People inevitably tire of robust forums such as this. The sociopaths and the leaders come and go in waves. Let the forum mutate in whatever way it chooses. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <mailto:omegam@cmq.com>|"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:"to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1980 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: crypto restrictions
by Vin McLellan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anand Abhyankar <anand(a)querisoft.com> asked: >1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) outside the US >which uses > 40 bit size session keys and then import that s/w inside of >the US. > >anand.... Hi Anand, Nope! Unless there are export controls in India, your wizards in Bombay or Dehli (pardon, I forget) can offer their US customers the full and unrestricted product of their creativity and genius in algorithms, crypto implementations, and/or crypto protocols. There are no restrictions on encryption software being _imported_ into the US, nor are there (at the moment <sigh>) any legal (as opposed to patent or copyright) restrictions on any encryption software of any strength being _used_ in the US. For that matter, there are no restrictions on encrypted data being transmitted across the US border. And (while it may require a license, apparently an exemption for the product, as opposed to a sales-by-sale license) there are seemingly no -- or at least less -- restrictions on the use of specialized encryption products (within the US) which can generate a "self-decrypting" secure packet which can be transmitted (cross-border, outside the US) and opened, anywhere, by a recipient who has been provided with a password/key out of band. That is how RSA's SecurPC has been able to offer full 128-bit RC4 encryption to secure US-to-Anywhere international file transfers. (As with DES, the US Govt is apparently trying to control the export of a full implementation package -- not the international distribution of a widely-known algorithm, per se. As I understand it, the self-decrypting PCSecure packet does not contain the user interface which allows automatic encryption, the interface can only decrypt. The RC4 algorithm, of course, has to be included in the transmission, and it is inherently reversible -- only the user interface is "crippled" to restrict its use to encrypt. Corrections welcome, if I don't have this exactly right.) The international traffic in self-decrypting "128-bit" products is separate and distinct from the issues involved in the recent modifications of the US export regs, which allow vendors to get approval to export a 56-bit secret-key encryption product (eg. RC4, RC5, or DES) only if the vendor submits a concrete plan, and schedule of implementation, to redesign their (export) product to require key-escrow or trusted-party key-recovery/storage. (In addition whatever recovery key is required by corporate backup policies, this is also, obviously, a mechanism for GAK, "government access to keys" --under US law, hopefully with a court warrant -- and/or whatever backup/key-recovery/GAK-access mechanism might be required various other nations in which those products will be imported, used, or transhipped from.) And with those GAK-adapted implementations, the US govt. will then approve, for the first time, general export of robust 128-bit secret-key products... as they reportedly have for Open Market's SSL, and TIS and Digital crypto products. I hope this is helpful, Suerte, _Vin

1 0

Re: Good Bye Cypherpunks!
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vin McLellan wrote: > > It's always interesting to see how another person, particularly a > writer, filters and reshapes an experience you shared with them . > Differences in the telling are inevitable -- but I perceived the recent > experience of the C'punks List quite differently than what Declan described > and implied in his column. > > My understanding of Sandy's effort, for instance, was that he was to > filter out the sludge of spam and contentless name-calling with which some > idiots were flooding the list. My impression was that he was passing along > any posts with content (ideas, pro or con, on almost anything) but filtering > out the empty obscene name-calling and slurs (many of which seemed anon or > forged, with varied and misleading titles, to duck my kill-file filters.) May I ask you, what is the basis of "your understanding"? Did you form your impression upon reading only the materials from the list that was filtered by Sandy? Or you also read the flames and unedited lists? In the latter case, you have no basis for any claims regarding Sandy's policy. I do have a list of subscribers to the unedited list, and you were not on it. > I, for one, was appreciative. > By the logic of Tim and others, a clever and dedicated crusade > against Cypherpunks by any minimally-organized group, bir or small -- your > local coven, CoS, RC bishops, FBI, Romanian Govt, , whomever! -- could have > destroyed the List at any time in the past. But of course. > I'm glad they never realized > how vulnerable we were; I've enjoyed this Community greatly in its current > manifestation. Maybe they realized it and were not really bothered by this list because of this lameness. What if all these anti-government rants were just feeding the illusion of grandeur. > I also hate to think of how gleeful the sociopaths who mail-bombed > us into the choice of submission or suicide must be today. I think it is a > particularly henious crime to destroy a virtual community; something akin to > book-burning, but maybe more like arson -- like burning village schools. It is because you wanted to take everything from them. > There was a willful attempt to destroy C'punks, an attack of depth and > volume which led many of us (even those who had ignored at least three > earlier efforts to offer filtered subsets to the List) to welcome the > Moderation Experiment. Unfortunately, the attempt at moderation just twisted > our own energies against ourselves. We were, perhaps predictably, quite > easy to manipulate. It is a question of what you think is manipulation. > If I have any criticism of John et al, it is that our List-Owner (a > statement of function, rather than property) never gave the List Community > an overt option to vote for minimal moderation. A tactical error. That > that allowed the anarchists, nihlists, and others pure of heart to focus > their ire on toad.com and Sandy -- rather than on those of us who (when John > finally acted) might have gladly re-subscribed to another version of the > List in order to obtain minimal spam and slur filtration. Yes, if moderation created a new place in cyberspace, it would have been less controversial. - Igor.

1 0