December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Private property rights on cypherpunks
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces. I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain." "De facto public domain" is an idea that deserves to die. Now. -Declan On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Jim Choate wrote: > > Forwarded message: > > > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:46:03 -0800 > > From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> > > Subject: List for discussing many majordomos > > > Yes, this is a good idea. One of the proponents of the "many majordomos" > > project apparently has plans to impose his own ideas about intellectual > > property on the project, and this seems like a pretty serious thing for a > > setup that's allegedly going to prevent censorship. We need a place to > > discuss this. > > Please explain how making submissions de facto public domain censors > anyone? > > > Jim Choate > CyberTects > ravage(a)ssz.com > > >

1 0

Re: NSA Rainbow Series.
by Moroni 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Zip,NAda,Nothing. And they have more too. They were backlogged so some people haven't gotten their mail since I last posted about. I called yesterday about my videos and posters and lo and behold I received my two tech manuals today. The people who answer the lines are friendly and usually pretty industrious in getting things out or done. By the way there is supposed to be a department split in the near future so I don't know if manuals will be in one department and posters in another or what. On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Tobin Fricke wrote: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:03:35 -0800 > From: Tobin Fricke <tobin(a)edm.net> > To: Moroni <moroni(a)scranton.com>, Genocide <gen2600(a)aracnet.com> > Cc: Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> > Subject: Re: NSA Rainbow Series. > > > 1-800-688-6115 press 0 or just wait for the operator. My second > > order consisting of posters and video has not arrived either. It has been > > about 6 weeks. The Rainbow order was only 2 weeks. Be prepared that when > > you order the Rainbow series you will be getting a large box.Their are > > something like 30+ booklets in the series. > > There is a set of security posters that include a Santa > > poster.And there is also a video with two films on it (Acess Ins and outs > > adb Acess Control). > > How much does all this stuff from the NSA cost? > > Tobin Fricke > (please reply privately, tobin(a)mail.edm.net) > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x No success can compensate for failure in the home. x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1 0

Re: NSA Rainbow Series.
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:53 PM -0500 2/12/97, Moroni wrote: > Zip,NAda,Nothing. And they have more too. They were backlogged so >some people haven't gotten their mail since I last posted about. I called >yesterday about my videos and posters and lo and behold I received my two >tech manuals today. > The people who answer the lines are friendly and usually pretty >industrious in getting things out or done. > By the way there is supposed to be a department split in the near >future so I don't know if manuals will be in one department and posters in >another or what. By the way, I say "FORGET IT" to the NSA Rainbow manuals. A worthless pile of crap. I subscribed to them several years ago, got the Big Box of Manuals, and then got new editions every few months for several years. None of them were ever useful to me in even the slightest way. They are written in "bureaucratese," so they're not even fun reading. If they're not on the Web by now it just shows what a sicko government agency the NSA and NCSA is, and if they _are_ on the Web, you'll see what I mean quickly enough. Even for "novelty value" ("Hey, Tim, the mail guy just delivered a package from the National Security Agency!") the books are worth very little. Do a tree a favor and just say No to the Rainbow series. --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."

1 0

Newgroup -- distributed mailing list on the way?
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted as well. It appears that the distributed mailing-list effort is well underway. Experiments by Igor Chudov and Jim Choate are progressing. The next few weeks should iron out the kinks.(over-optimism?) Lance Cottrell (mixmaster author) has also agreed to host the list, the entire list if need-be. Although his posts on the cypherpunks list indicate that he favors the distributed list approach. Lance is also in the unique position of having the computing resources to feed the list to and from alt.cypherpunks. Furthermore, Lance seems to be favorable to this idea as well. However, he needs help in getting up to speed on just how to create and run this news-to-mail/mail-to-news gateway. What this means is that the same list will be propagated through multiple sources, making the destruction or loss of any one source non-catastrophic. It is also the classic net approach of routing around censorship channels. Furthermore, users who cannot access the alt.* hierarchy or easily read newsgroups have the option of subscribing to mailing lists and receiving the same uncensored feed. This also means that users will have a maximum amount of resources at their disposal to better experience the list and eliminate the net's inevitable spam and noise. Users who have access to or prefer powerful newsreaders and NoCeM's can use them at will. Users who have procmail, Pegasus Mail, Eudora Mail and other email-filtering schemes can use those powerful tools. It is likely that the cypherpunks list/group will remain a target of spammers and disruptors. The controversial topics are bound to generate noise. The entrance of unitiated individuals via Usenet is bound to create some interesting and sometimes aggravating discussions as well as the inevitable re-hashing of some old issues. The unfiltered, uncensored, and multi-homed list/group leaves the responsibility where it belongs, in the lap of end-user. Ignore the noise and the noisemakers. Defeat the disruptors by avoiding them. Accept your responsiblity and contribute Signal whenever you can. "Arise! You have nothing to lose but your barbed-wire fences." git along 'lil doggies

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> writes: > > Hi, > > We have established the first link between cypherpunks(a)ssz.com and > cypherpunks(a)algebra.com. Testing will continue for about 24 hours and we > hope to have the link going two-way within a couple of days. > > If testing proceeds at the current pace we should be ready to go for a 3-way > link if anyone will be ready this weekend. If we can get a 3-way going we > should be ready for prime time. Jim, I suggest getting in touch with Lance Cottrell (loki(a)Cyberpass.net) ASAP and coordinating with him as he has the facilities to host the entire list, but desires the distributed approach. He is currently gating Cypherpunks-unedited(a)toad.com to subscribers of cypherpunks(a)Cyberpass.net. He would make an excellent third link in the chain and seems to be willing. Furthermore, he has also indicated that he is eventually interested in gating back and forth to the newly created and already-active alt.cypherpunks. He needs help and information on just how to do that, though. This would complete the circle, syncing all the available routes to cypherpunks. All will benefit by having the choice of mail-filters and/or newsreading facilities to experience the unfiltered/unedited/unstoppable list. Hope the experiments prove sturdy and wish all best of luck. me -- _______________________________________________________________ Omegaman <mailto:omegam@cmq.com> PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key _______________________________________________________________

1 0

Re: Network of majordomos (fwd)
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bryan, What you did may be the ideal way to go actually. It would be great to have several NNTP servers with these (or similarly named) groups open to the world. I believe that it is possible to set them up such that they feed each other. say, the following groups may be good: cypherpunks.crypto cypherpunks.politics cypherpunks.flames cypherpunks.products cypherpunks.pgp (sort of redundant with the pgp newsgroups) cypherpunks.groups cypherpunks.admin cypherpunks.kooks cypherpunks.remailers cypherpunks.paranoia (or cypherpunks.tla) cypherpunks.politics.assassination cypherpunks.censorship (the following part is more questionable as some people would argue in favor of nocems) cypherpunks.moderated.sandy-sandfort cypherpunks.moderated.ray-arachelian cypherpunks.moderated.tim-may cypherpunks.moderated.... whoever else wants ... igor Bryan Reece wrote: > > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:33:03 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> > > Yes, I installed INN and ran a few hundred test messages through it last > night. My machine will be on the net full-time Thursday or Friday. Will yours > be ready then, too? > > We've got INN here. I created a cpunks.general group (as well as > alt.cypherpunks) on taz.nceye.net and made both world-accessible. Our > feed hasn't got alt.cypherpunks yet; is someone who has got it willing > to feed it? (also, is there a consensus on what group names to use: > new top-level hierarchy? cpunks or cypherpunks? or just the alt group, > with the usual propagation and spam problems?) > - Igor.

1 0

Re :Re?
by Mark Krell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>X-Sender: camcc(a)smtp1.abraxis.com >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:36:16 -0500 >To: Mark Krell <markk(a)randomc.com> >From: camcc(a)abraxis.com (Alec) >Subject: Re :Re? >Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >At 10:02 PM 2/12/97 -0500, you nastily wrote in the form of : >: >:Attachment Converted: "c:\remove1.txt" >: >How, do you imagine, did you get on this God-forsaken list? Anger abounds. > >Is this Kismet that you are here now at this crucial moment of the list's evolution? > >Perhaps you have something to offer of which you are not aware. > >Avail yourself of our hospitality as we implode. Flee not. > >There is meaning to this. So our savants have told us. > >Speak the words to Majordomo(a)toad.com in the message panel (no quotes): > >"unsubscribe cypherpunks" > >Speak only thus. > >Bother us no more at our moment of transfiguration. > >Hail and farewell, Bro. > > > > >

1 0

Re: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:25 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >Having said this, the flaw remains that "junk mail" is "free" to the >sender. This is a flaw in the ontology of e-mail, and needs to be fixed. >Digital postage is one approach. I decided long ago (okay, well, many months ago) that the "solution" is to invent a mechanism to allow spammers/advertisers to include a small amount of ecash as a gift with every spam. I figure that if USnail junk-mailers are willing to pay $0.32 for postage and probably $0.50 for production, printing, and labelling costs, all for no guarantees of results, they should even more happy to pay, say, 10 cents to each recipient. At that rate, an average person would probably receive enough "spam" to pay for his Internet account, quite analogous to the way advertiser-supported TV is presented to the public for no explicit charge. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: anonymity and e-cash
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:59 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Hal Finney wrote: >From: tcmay(a)got.net (Tim May) >> You missed a very good talk by Ian Goldberg of UC Berkeley at the Saturday >> Cypherpunks meeting at Stanford, where Ian talked for more than an hour on >> just this issue. (He also talked for an hour on his crack of the RSA >> challenge using 250 workstations...this was also a good talk.) > >I wish I could have heard that, it sounds good... > >A simple idea we have discussed for full anonymity uses the idea of >exchanging coins at the bank. You make an anonymous connection to >the bank, supply some ecash you have received along with some blinded >new ecash. The bank verifies that the ecash is good and signs your >blinded ecash, sending it back to you. You unblind it and have good, >fresh smelling ecash which you can keep, spend, or later deposit in >your account. > >If the merchant performs this exchange operation on-line as soon as >he receives ecash, then his anonynmity is protected. The customer is >protected too, by the blinding he used when he withdrew the ecash earlier. >So both sides remain anonymous. > >It sounds like Ian may have worked out details of a system where third >parties do these exchanges. Banks may be reluctant to allow them for >liability reasons, and the market, abhoring the vacuum, will supply >intermediaries who perform exchanges for a fee. > >Resolving the various forms of cheating is the hard part. When Lee asks >about a signed receipt, it is hard to understand what is the point if the >seller is fully anonymous! A signed receipt from a freshly-minted key >is not of much use to anyone. > >If the participants are using persistant pseudonyms then whatever >reputation capital they have can be put on the line when cheating happens, >although it still may be hard to tell who cheated whom. Did the customer >pass bad cash and claim it was good, or did the merchant deposit good >cash and claim it was bad? > >The same thing could happen every day at the supermarket, of course. >A customer insists they paid $20 but got change for a $10. If dozens of >customers say the same thing has happened to them, we start to mistrust >the market, while if several businesses say this particular customer >has made the same claim to them, we blame the customer. Here is another idea. The merchant and customer agree on a price, with the merchant knowing that the "bank" will take a cut for their services. The merchant and customer both LOG IN to the bank seperately, each type in their agreed upon price and cut & paste in the services rendered information. If they match, the bank makes the necessary transaction between the accounts, e-cash stash, etc. The bank also supplies both parties with a clear signed receipt. The bank can now no longer alter the receipt, as the merchant and customer both have a copy. And the customer and merchant can not alter the receipt, because then it would fail the test on the signature. If a receipt for a transaction number were used, then the only threat would be the same one that exists for remailer operators. This could be negated by daisy-chaining banks in a similair manner. If each bank took a cut of non-customers of $.0002 or .02% of the transaction, whichever was greater, then a suitable system could be set up. Another idea that has been festering. If we could get a CPA involved in this forum, I would be willing to have h[im/er] sign my key, (which is seldom used, mostly because this is the only place I use e-mail), for that reasonable fee that CPA's can charge. I know that it is not a standard, or even legally recognized, post for CPA's, but I think that enough people would trust them. This would take care of some of the "newly minted" key problems. Since getting someone who is trusted to sign your key is a recognized method of getting people to believe you are who you say you are. Just an idea. Actually two, one half thought out, one that has been bugging me.

1 0

Procmail during the transition, anyone?
by Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At various stages in the transition, we will be getting multiple copies of the same messages as the are re- cross- whatever-posted to lists, newsgroups and anything else handy. Anyone have a procmail script that will show me just ONE copy of messages, even if the headers are not identical (e.g. one looped, another was forwarded, etc.)? I have yet to find a good guide to procmail coding. My file is long, and inefficient, and a pain to maintain...and I'm too busy to learn it right. == 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