December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: The Utility of Privacy
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Hal Finney You suggest that the main motivation which someone might have for protecting privacy is that they are engaged in some illicit activities: page 45: "Why should I really care if someone sees this? I have nothing to hide." ..................................................... This statement from David Brin impressed me with the consistency of a certain way of thinking that some people have: "I think that having a minimum standard of living is good, therefore everyone should be coerced to contribute to the general welfare." On the other hand, "I myself have nothing to hide, therefore no one should be concerned (read: permitted) to do so." The issue for them in regard of what everyone should/should not do, is whether anything is logical as far as they themselves can see - and the logic revolves around what they themselves think is right; the extent of their own vision is considered sufficient to determine the parameters of everyone else's life & actions, and therefore sufficient cause to have their measures imposed over all. But this letter of Hal's brought up an important point: that even if a person has nothing to hide, it is not the openness or closedness of information which is of concern, but the *responses of others* to that information. When an individual wants to live a free & open life, they expose themselves to dangers. In order to be free to roam, they must have a way to protect themselve from all manner of destructive influences - the weather, predatory animals, vicious strangers, etc. There must be a way to protect what is one's own in order to preserve it. If it was easier for everyone to defend themselves against attacks on their person or reputation, maybe there would not be as much concern about privacy. Perhaps if a person could "get away" from others, could continue to have a normal life without too much disruption, once some exciting bit of info was out in public, if they could maintain command over the effects upon their life despite living in a fishbowl, then no one would worry quite as much (although the principle of personal control over one's property remains the same). But in the meantime, we have but few ways to protect ourselves under the centralized arrangement for protection (police, defense agencies). Anyone in a government position is aware of how their public expressions can result in public outcries against them; the secret agencies protect their information files because of what "the enemy" would *do* if they found out about these - even if the agency itself does not consider its activities immoral. If Information is like munition, privacy is like defense - it is a form of self defense. .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Members of Parliament Problem
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:39 PM 11/17/1996, Simon Spero wrote: >On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Rich Graves wrote: >>Peter Hendrickson wrote: >>> There are times when one wishes to speak anonymously, yet speak >>> as a member of a group. >> You either need to trust a shared server to know and then blind your >> identity, or trust the people with whom you share a secret key not to >> give that key to non-group members. > Why not use blinding for obtaining the certificate? > Create a number up public/private key pairs, blind them, then do the > cut-and-choose thing with the security officer. He signs the blinded key, > then returns it. Unblind the remaining pubic key, and you've got a public > key with the appropriate signature on it. Okay, this would work. But, it requires that all (or at least many) of the Members of Parliament cooperate. If not, then the security officer will be able to make very good guesses about who is speaking. Parliamentarians may not cooperate for a variety of reasons. They may not wish to be attacked by terrorists for the words of others. They may believe that cowardice is not to be encouraged. They may not believe in anonymity. It might be too hard for them. What I would like to see is a method which relies only on published public keys and no other cooperation from the people who are (more or less) being used as shields. This may be impossible. (A number of people have posted references to other ways of doing this. I have yet to track down the references they gave so I don't know if any of them fit the bill.) Peter

3 2

Re: Computer CPU chips with built-in crypto?
by Hal Finney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Martin Minow <minow(a)apple.com> > I'm not sure if I can answer this but, at last week's SF cypherpunks > meeting, an Intel engineer asked whether there might be any interest > in a computer chip with some sort of encryption mechanism built > into the chip. As I understand it, this chip would process an > encrypted instruction stream. I.e., it could not execute a program > unless the "key" for that program was first loaded into the chip. > > An interesting idea: does anyone have more information? This sounds like something which might be used in a set-top-box or "information appliance" application where pay-per-use programs would be loaded from a CDROM or network connection. People have been dreaming about pay per use software for many years. It is a similar idea to the "mini application" concept which would replace the monolithic super-apps, the Microsoft Words and the giant do-everything web-browsers/newsreaders/mail-clients, with small, single function utilities. This is part of the idea behind Apple's OpenDoc and Microsoft's OLE. In the same way, instead of buying a big program for hundreds of dollars, you'd just download and use the functionality you needed for a small fee. Yet in practice it is not clear whether either of these trends will have any market success. Monolithic applications seem to be doing very well, with more integration being the trend, not less. And the whole idea of introducing metering to a market which is used to paying just once for access is one which is bound to meet resistance. Look at AOL which is going to single-charge unlimited access to the net. So in both cases the trend looks to be going in the opposite direction. Another possible application for the built in encryption is software piracy protection. You'd unlock software for your CPU but it would not run on anybody else's without a different key code. Here again there is not much benefit to the end user, unless software prices come down dramatically when this device is used. But otherwise the computer manufacturers are selling computers which have features which will limit the powers of the buyers, and having to sell them more expensively to boot because of the special chip. In these days of razor thin profit margins in the PC business it is hard to see how this will sell. Hal

2 1

[NOISE] Want to know about this "aga" character? Read the Grubor FAQ!
by Alan Bostick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In case you aren't clued in enough to know, "aga(a)dhp.com" is none other than John Grubor, well-known Usenet Kook Of The Month winner for November, 1995. He *cannot* be reasoned with. Don't even try. He makes Dimitri Vulis appear sane, calm, and rational. Read the Grubor FAQ, http://kendaco.telebyte.com/dharland/Grubor.FAQ.html for more details. Alan "pseudonum of the LYING FORGER PETER VOROBIEFF!!!!1!" Bostick -- Alan Bostick | You know those chemicals women have in them, | when they've got PMS? Well, men have those very mailto:abostick@netcom.com | same chemicals in them *all the time*. news:alt.grelb | Margaret Atwood, THE ROBBER BRIDE http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick

3 2

Re: Censor John Gilmore -- EFF is a disgrace!
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Multiple CC's trimmed, I don't think anyone at msn.com cares...] > #From Phrack 49, file p49-09 published this month: ... > File 09 of 16 > by Dr.Dimitri Vulis (KOTM) > A Content-Blind Cancelbot for Usenet (CBCB) ... > And what follows, is Dr. Dimitri, defender of freedom of expression, > champion of the anti-censors on the net, posting code to the world to > engage in exactly those activities that everyone has been ranting about > as being so utterly "horrifying (forged cancellations etc)" as it > were. You call yourself on cypherpunks, and you blithely assume that a Phrack author actually signs his real name? Either I thought you guys were *real* hackers and you aren't, or this is a very funny troll. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet "Better to be safe than to be sorry" is a remark of value only when these are the actual alternatives.

3 2

Re: Does John Gilmore...
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> The free market will ever be the only real path to free speech, because, > in essence, it is free speech. > Free speech does not, however, require that all speech be universally > broadcast to each and every citizen on the planet free of charge. That's > "subsidized speech." Given that the free market rule is "he who has the money makes the rules", please explain how anything less than "subsidized speech" (as you put it) is anything close to free speech? [For those who's assumptions rule their perception: I am *not* arguing that all speech should be subsidized. I am merely pointing out that the organization that is spending the money to broadcast is controlling the speech, hence it is *not* free speech in terms of freedom or cost.] ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet If you want to get rid of somebody, just tell them something for their own good.

2 1

You ought to REALLY look at this...
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ladies and Gentlemen, I hereby quote a rather remarkable letter, which I pass on to whom it may concern. I consider it an _honour_ to have received such a letter, even though the material expressed in the letter is a serious assault on the entire Western Value System, and possibly Civilisation itself, no joke. At first I did not believe such a *terrorist* letter could have EVER been written. And I could never believe myself to be the recipient of it either. But now I strongly recommend you read it carefully and think about it... For your OWN benefit, I believe more than mine... With thanks for your attention George A. Stathis P.S. If you take a deep breath, see my (amusing?) comments in the end. :) >Hops: 0 >Posted-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 20:13:15 -0200 (GMT) >X-Sender: tcmay(a)mail.got.net >Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 10:18:36 -0800 >To: "George A. Stathis" <hyperlex(a)hol.gr> >From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> >Subject: Stathis on "Don't Hire" List >Content-Length: 1426 > >At 9:00 AM -0200 11/17/96, George A. Stathis wrote: > >>It is not ethical to send such strong negative _injunctions_ to masses >>of people and also to strangers (the 1900-strong members of the cyberphunks >>list for instance). Because, you may or may not have strong reasons for >>believing you are justified in such invalidation, but more than a 1000 >>people are now _told_ by (self-appointed) "experts" such as yourself what >>and whom to ignore or to believe. (Like sheep led to the slaughter)... > >"Not ethical"? > >But we will do it anyway. Moreover, some of us maintain lists of "Do Not >Hire" persons. Few high tech or Silicon Valley software companies will hire >such folks. > >Congratulations, Stathis, as you are now on such a list. > > > >"The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos,.."We warned IBM >that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology." >[NYT, 1996-10-02] >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: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. >"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." Comments? (1) Well, first of all, Tim May is doing a disservice to the companies who use his services. They will end up hiring only morons and controllable relics of human creativity; Which is why there a WORLD-SHORTAGE of SUPER- PROGRAMMERS at the moment, as reported e.g. by Byte-magazine. (2) If I were a _clever_ American employer, I'd use Tim's 'black list', in order to HIRE precisely those people whom he considers 'unemployable'... (3) Now I don't want to boast about who I am, but it's strangely ironical that I _am_ one such "Super-Programmer" (fluent in PROLOG. Assembly, 'C' and also... English -a computer-lingo as it happens). In the eighties I was also a painter (of pictures, not walls), and other things... As a 'New Age' kind of person, I used to admire America for rewarding and promoting human _talent_, as opposed to human mediocrity, subservience (the "Yes-Man" attitude), and Evil in the Soul. (as often happened in old-whore Europe; especially in Greece)... :-) Nowadays, however, when 'people' like Tim May, are able to dictate to your admirable High-Technology firms, *what* kind of people to hire and what not to hire, I can see... very gloomy prospects for American Research, _if_ this type of monstrocity (as his letter) is prevails for too long... :-) Originally, lists of "unemployable" people, which I had heard of, crossed my mind as 'probably justified'. As an EMPLOYER MYSELF, with a small but strong software-house, here in Athens, with at least one important Market Success, I do have some experience, you know, of what kind of people *are* and what kind of people are *not* 'employable'. I once knew a very good but very egotistic Assembly Language programmer. When he stopped working with me he stole large sections of my source-code. As a result, I find it hard to trust 'employees' ever since... (4) I would therefore request a list of 'unemployable' people in order to choose possible collaborators, in my work. They should be highly proficient in PROLOG code, as well as ASSEMBLY and 'C', and should also be sociable, witty and independent-minded. Clashing with personalities like Tim May's may be considered an added advantage. (5) Just for the record, I spoke on the phone with an important partner, told him what happened, and was told by him that Tim May's letter is the kind of scum-fascism no serious European Company would ever give credit to... However, Tim's letter appears not so much to address me personally, as much as the hordes of gullible, insecure, employment-hungry young Americans, who are often _terrorised_ into complete SILENCE, since the _slightest_ amount of free speech in their own natural (or Net-) surroundings, causes Fascist PUnk-Thugs like TIm May to threaten them with unemployability. Although Tim May's letter in itself constitutes terroristic harrasment, threat to libery (via threat of unemployability), and so on, I consider these labels to be irrelevant in this case, and legal arguments highly irrelevant. When Nazi Germany deported Einstein it took much less elaborate procedures than flawed 'unemployability lists'. Perhaps hiring Mafia men to finish us off would be a much more efficient tactic in this respect. :-) With Dismay, but also... Inspiration :-) Geore A. Stathis P.S. I also cross-posted this DELIBERATELY, this time to the cypherpunks list, in order to give more COURAGE to those poor list-members whose standard of living suffers the terror and threat of Unemployment, just in case they know who is responsible for their future sufferings.

1 0

Re: Giving Kill Files a Workout...
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri Vulis writes about unwanted noise: > They feel compelled to silence it altogether. They claim altruistically > that they don't want the noise to bother anyone else, such as the clueless > newbies who keep subscribing to this mailing list and don't know how to > use mail filters. (Sandy Sanford's concern for them was soooo touching...) Misplaced altruism is one of the primary causes of social injustice, authoritarian regimes, and security measures. It is not possible to be "altruistic" until one realizes that one doesn't know what true "altruism" is. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Don't follow in the footsteps of the ancients, seek what they sought.

1 0

Cpunks Frog Forwards discontinuation
by Damaged Justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I will be discontinuing my "Cpunks Frog Forwards" filtering service within one week of the announcement of Perry Metzger's new crypto list, and possibly sooner if my patience runs out, because 1) I have too many other things to take care of in my life, 2) there really isn't as great a need for it anymore due to the number and variety of other filtering services, and 3) my sanity is being stretched to its limits having to wade through the mountains of bullshit that now infest my inbox, even with procmail's kindly assistance. Perry was right: Cypherpunks has become a sewer. As Robert Anton Wilson said, "Only a sewer accepts everything." Here is a list of the other filtering services I am currently aware of: o Alan Clegg runs an UNMODERATED cypherpunks digest, which only reduces the the volume of separate messages. Subscribe by mailing to majordomo(a)gateway.com (Standard majordomo list -- send "help" in the body for information.) o Eric Blossom runs a commercial "Cypherpunks Lite" for a modest fee, approximately 20.00US/year. Mail eb(a)comsec.com for more info. For a sample, read the archive at ftp://ftp.crl.com/users/co/comsec/cp-lite o Ray Arachelian runs a free filtering service, sticking mostly to news and technical stuff with a few other tidbits thrown in. Mail sunder(a)dorsai.dorsai.org for more info, or to be added. See you all on the other side. "Cypherpunks write code." -- I let go of the law, and people become honest / I let go of economics, and people become prosperous / I let go of religion, and people become serene / I let go of all desire for the common good, and the good becomes common as grass. .oOo. [Tao Te Ching, Chapter 57, Stephen Mitchell translation]

3 3

Emergency powers
by Charles Platt 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Of course, Michael Froomkin is right in everything he says about presidential emergency powers. But an unconstitutional abuse of power is surely not acceptable merely because it has become a routine method for accomplishing everyday legislative tasks. First, it allows significant possibility for future abuse; and second, if the Constitution is routinely circumvented, this diminishes its general power (as any law loses its power when it is routinely flouted). The situation is all the more troubling because it receives so little publicity, outside of militant "extremist" groups (i.e. those that are crazy enough to believe that presidential power should be limited in accordance with the law of the land). When a president can take almost action under the excuse that it's a "national emergency" (when in fact there is no emergency), and he doesn't have to answer questions till later, and most citizens are unaware of this, we have a potentially dangerous situation. They key word here is "potentially." Michael Froomkin seems relatively sanguine because the potential for great harm has not been realized. I am not so easily reassured. --Charles Platt

2 1