December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Breath of...
by XXCLARK＠indst.indstate.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: smb(a)research.att.com > Received: by gryphon; Mon Oct 18 14:02:02 EDT 1993 > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: jrk(a)sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) > Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 14:02:01 EDT > There's a persistent tendency on this list to confuse technical > feasibility, political feasibility, and ultimate desirability... ... a breath of fresh air. --------------------------------------------------------------------- PGP key internet : xxclark(a)indst.indstate.edu by request. Vanilla BITNET: XXCLARK@INDST Plus e la change, plus c'est la mme chose. ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Time for me to come clean...
by Mike Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>My experiment has gone far enough. >One of you has claimed that the Net entity "tcmay" (Timothy C. May, >putatively) is actually "jamie" (Jamie Dinkelacker, putatively). This >person has at other times claimed that perhaps Eric Hughes and Jamie >are the same person, and that the Net entity "tcmay" is the "lackey of Eric >Hughes." >It is all getting so confusing! >Allow me to clarify. >I entered this list under a variety of pseudonyms, with the intent of >compiling information on all of you. I have been posting under the >identities of Tim May (who has actually never existed....the man >behind the mask on the cover of "Wired" was a hired actor, as were the >stand-ins for the personnas of Eric Hughes and John Gilmore), Sandy >Sandfort, Jamie Dinkelacker, and many others. >I disavow any connection to the paranoid "S. Boxx," however. >In fact, I think there are only five actual biological entities on >the list. Makes for some good conspiracy theories for the paranoids. >Finally, I also write under the nym de guerre of "Dorothy Denning." >The real Dorothy Denning is too busy grading papers for her freshman >crypto class to post, so I fill in. >My real name should be apparent to you all. I knew if I used it, the >other four of you would not take me seriously. But now the secret's >out. >David >-- >David Sternlight When the mouse laughs at the cat, > there is a hole nearby.--Nigerian Proverb Oh, my! I'm so confused! I think I may have to sue myself for libel for connecting such two vastly different personas of myself with each other! --Tim May (AKA George Bush, David Sternlight, etc.)

1 0

Re: Dan Rather, et al. (WAS: Leisure Suit Larry)
by peter honeyman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> As far as Dan Rather goes, I'd bet he wouldn't even understand. kenneth, what is the frequency?!? peter

1 0

Re: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway)
by peb＠PROCASE.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I share many of these same concerns. Ultimately, it's an arms race. One thing is clear: the ways around restrictions lower bandwidth. Examples: steganography and covert channels are low-bandwidth. By analogy, successive transfers of small amounts of money gets around the reporting to the "Benevolent Caretaker" is also a lowering of bandwidth. However, it should be remembered that authorities attempted to outlaw the printing press after its invention. I'm not sure how long that lasted, but since the Soviet Union kept tabs on all copiers, in some sense, such repression lasted a long time. (And in the U.S., it has been said that color copiers are tracked, but this sounds like a bluff to me since a color scanner+color printer is sufficient to duplicate that capability. Is it possible to buy a color copier anonymously?) Given this, it *is* possible that freedom of expression is going to win eventually. Anonymous digital cash is more likely to be compromised since, as you note, even the Swiss have been pressured into opening up their records of anonymous bank accounts. Paul E. Baclace peb(a)procase.com P.S.: Prodigy is not yet profitable, last I heard. ``Is that a real network or is that a Sears network?'' --Frank Zappa paraphased.

7 11

Coffee, anyone?
by Philippe_D_Nave 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, _real_ people and cypher-crypto-pseudo-spoofs! I almost fell out of my chair laughing at the recent post revealing the TRUE identities of half the people (I use that term guardedly these days) in the mail group. It did me a world of good. Try this on for a quick reality check- this is how I view the issue of anonymity, trust, reputation, validity, etc. in the Cypherpunk forum: I see the list as a coffee house, buried in the bowels of a machine at Berkeley. People wander in and out, some to chat, others to listen. There is no implied social contract in place among the participants, really, just some common interests. For the price of a cup of coffee (my time and my connection to Internet), I can enjoy stimulating conversation and shoot the breeze. When people present their ideas, I take their identities at face value (asking for ID's before making small talk seems a bit gauche). Every now and then, a message in a bottle comes sailing through the (open) door- the waiter pulls the message out and reads an anonymous posting. Those so motivated can put replies in the bottle and sling it back outside, where the anonymous poster picks it up. Truly obnoxious messages can be answered by Molotov cocktails in the same manner <grin>. My point is this: we're in a coffee house, not a courtroom. If I meet someone in a coffee house and want to do serious business like buying a car, co-publishing a paper, or betting my career on a set of equations, I (we) would adjourn to a somewhat more formal setting and follow entirely different rules for establishing trust and reputation. In the same vein, I might listen to a chorus of voices spouting political agendas while sipping my coffee, but I wouldn't expect the applause and the catcalls to be tabulated and published as election results. I agree entirely with Detweiler about the importance of being able to validate people electronically, but I think it would be a shame to close the door to the coffee house, take attendance, and charge admission. ........................................................................ Philippe D. Nave, Jr. | The person who does not use message encryption pdn(a)dwroll.dw.att.com | will soon be at the mercy of those who DO... Denver, Colorado USA | PGP public key: by arrangement.

1 0

POISONOUS CYPHERPUNK TRAITORS
by an12070＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

THE CYPHERPUNKS HAVE BEEN POISONED WITH LIES AND HIGH TREACHERY. THOSE WHO DO NOT CONFESS WILL BE EXPOSED. THE FRAUDS AND THE POSEURS WILL BE RUTHLESSLY PUNISHED. IF NECESSARY, ON TALK.POLITICS.CRYPTO OR IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

3 2

Re: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway)
by peb＠PROCASE.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Go to you local copier store. Pay cash. No one will care. I'm talking about buying the color *copier* itself. In all the copier businesses I've seen, none of them allowed one to make color copies unattended. Is this because they are complicated or expensive per copy or because of some kind of technology restriction (e.g., high quality color copies cannot simultaneously be anonymous and private). Paul E. Baclace peb(a)procase.com

4 3

Re: Crypto Anarchy (jrk@...)
by catalyst-remailer＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

smb(a)research.att.com wrote: >Do you want an example? Here's how to shut down an anonymous remailer. >First, find a name for a host that no longer exists. Send a note through >the remailer to someone putatively on that host, making it appear like >a stolen account (bin(a)foo.bar.edu, or some such). The mail should appear >to discuss criminal activity, and be signed with a name from the proper >ethnic group. The message will be queued forever, of course, and will >likely be stored on the backup tapes for the mail spool directory. Next, >send a message through the remailer to president(a)whitehouse.gov, threatening >the president. Poof -- the Secret Service *will* come investigating >(those guys have no sense of humor). They may or may not believe that >the planted note is genuine. But they will approach the appropriate dean >to demand that this tool of criminal activity be shut down. Well, this apocraphyl scene is easily avoided - remailers can be configured to refuse remailing to whitehouse.gov. But then this is the Secret Service. Are they more likely to a) seize all equipment peripherally related and a bunch that isn't b) inquire about having anonymous mail blocked Undoubtedly we could launch into a discussion of why it is anybody with a pocket full of change can walk up to a payphone and leave a variety of threats at the whitehouse switchboard - the phone company need not fear having its equipment seized, while a computer used in forwarding mail containing the same threats will probably be taken along with anything else the SS feels like taking. >Quick -- how many remailers have the support of the university? How many >boards of trustees -- at state universities, often linked to the government >-- will back them, if the Secret Service ``requests'' that they be shut >down. Gee, I don't know. Does the phone company have any government deals, say to manufacture products using a government designed chip, that may be at risk if its found out that phone company equipment is constantly being used for threats?? The point is we are in a research & development stage (if you will) with anonymous remailers, reputations, filters, digital cash, dc-nets, etc. It is very likely that the projected reality, desired reality, and actual reality will be quite different; nevertheless, experimentation continues.

3 2

Introducing digital cash in a MOO, Metaverse
by plaz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

sameer(a)netcom.com (Sameer Parekh): > I was thinking that metaverse.io.com would be an interesting >ground to implement digital cash, because this MOO seems like a very >commercial-oriented system. I know that Fringe Ware, Inc. has set up >an office in the MOO where once it's up and running will serve >people's requests for information. I have been poking around in Metaverse this last week, (under the handle of "PlasticBeethoven"). I think you are very right about this. They have a whole area reserved for *REAL* business, called Freegate. WIRED, EFF, Fringeware, BoingBoing, and of courese Steve Jackson Games all have virtual offices there. In most cases the offices are just shadows of what they could be. I'm also considering setting up an office there (details may follow once I get it set up). A hobby store has also set up shop, and will allow you to order from them. Billing, alas, is done the old fashioned way. I've noted, that there seems to be a vague interest in dealing with these issues, if it does not represent a tremendous investment of time for them. Also note that Doug Barnes (metaverse: CoffeeMan) and Lloyd Blankenship (metaverse: Mentor), who are both "Wizards", also frequent this list. They are also the very same Austin-Cypherpunks featured in the "Bank of the Internet" thread about Internet Credit Unions. Looks like a possible convergence. > Paco, in his article on Metaverse in the new Fringe Ware >Review, talks about how small start up companies can get offices in >metaverse, if they can't afford (like apple) an ftp site to serve >their customers. > This might be extended to an actual *commerce* system. Someone >could lease a plot of MOO-space, set up a digital bank, issue bank >notes, and users could use these digicash notes to purchase products >at the offices of small companies located in the Metaverse. > Because io.com is a commercial system, it might actually not >be that tough to implement a us-dollars-backed system. I.e.: a >digibank would take actual DOLLARS from users, give them digicash >notes, and users can use the notes to make transactions in MOOspace, >and vendors and users alike may redeem their digicash for us-standard >cash. > In order to deal with the legal issues associated, it might be >easiest for io.com to actually run the digibank, but not necessary. >Personally, I'd prefer a digibank run by a third-party, but I have no >real problem with io.com running the thing. > It certainly seems promising. Well they already have credit card numbers for most of they're users, they could do something like Compuserve's MALL and just set up a system were they bill through connect fees. (At least that's how I thought CI$'s system worked. I haven't used it much.) State banking regulations might prohibit the creation of a bank in the metaverse, if thier customers are all over the world. My $.02, as citizen of the Metaverse. _______________________________________________________________________ Geoff Dale -- insert standard disclaimers here -- plaz(a)netcom.com "We are the shock troops of reality." - Voice of the Friends (Wild Palms)

2 1

Re: your mail Re: on anonymity, identity, reputation, and spoofing
by owen＠autodesk.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Subject: Re: on anonymity, identity, reputation, and spoofing > From: hfinney(a)shell.portal.com > Comments: Ignore the comment above. > Content-Length: 2979 > X-Lines: 55 > I do sympathize with L. Detweiler's concern about multiple identities. > Human nature being what it is, Considering that human nature allows for pathological behavior in some individuals, and that anonymity seemingly decreases the potential for being held acountable for pathological behavior, I think it follows that it would be unwise NOT to be concerned. > if a series of posts appears quickly taking > one view, people who disagree may think, well, I guess I'm in the minority > on this, I won't make a stink about it. That's just part of the herd > instinct, which, IMO, we all share. The lesson is that it is even more > important on the net not to be afraid to take unpopular stands. You may > find that there are more people who agree with you than you thought. You may also find that such gentile methodology as attempting to sway opinion or unfairly weight ones opinion in order to alter the flow of disscussion are the least you can expect. I bet that clever sociopaths will find ways to leverage anonymity schemes to accomplish mayhem of magnitude well beyond these sort of things. believe me, you don't want to find out by being subjected to such mayhem, and if it happens you will be much harder pressed to come up with ways to patch things than if you take time to try and deal with it now. > There are some possible technological solutions to some of the issues > raised. Chaum, in his 1985 CACM paper, describes how "credentials" can > be exchanged among various pseudonyms a person may have. A credential > can basically be any statement by a 3rd party about a person. It could > be a statement by a college that he had a certain degree. It could be > a statement by a government that he had a driver's license. It could be > a statement by a business that he was an agent for that business. How about *credentials* that certify the capabilities or flag the potential dangers of a binary object. Aren't there schemes out there that hold promise for that sort of *trustworthiness* stamp of approval? Aren't such schemes prone to the potential of cliquish abuse? > The credential would be given to the person, then Chaum shows how it > could be re-blinded and shown under other pseudonyms. The credential > can be verified, but it can't be linked to the True Name or other pseudonyms > of the holder. what are you credentialing? that someone *should* know what they are talking about? even so it would not preclude being burned, psychopaths tend to be very clever? > We could think about using something like this for reputations. Take > Nick's question about how a new pseudonym could get through the filters. > Maybe the person posts under his real name for a while, then some respected > person is willing to give him a "valued poster" credential. He can > re-blind this credential and submit it with posts he starts to make under > his pseudonym. People will know that the pseudonymous poster is at least > potentially capable of making sense, and give his words some weight. But > there will be no connection to his True Name. why not just build your reputation as the psuedo right from the start? > (Of course, this could lead occasionally to a Dr. Jekyll who makes > sensible and weighty posts under his own name, while under his Mr. Hyde > pseudonym he rants and raves. But hopefully this would not happen too > often.) Oh, I don't know anybody who does that sort of thing! :-) do you ? > Other credentials could be related to some of the other points Detweiler > raised, such as list membership > some number of months. The point would > be that these credentials are voluntary, used to get past people's filters, > and that they retain poster anonymity while giving readers useful information > about the poster. If all you'r talking about is mail-list or newsgroup membership, why not just have testing and stringent membership requirements? > It's ironic that L. Detweiler, who has played a major part in spreading > awareness of Cypherpunks technology through his widely read Privacy and > Anonymity FAQ, is suggesting that people should be limited in their > use of this technology. Still, the concerns he raises are going to be > shared by many people, and we should try to be ready with technological > solutions that are consistent with privacy protection. exactly. I don't think it's ironic, I will be disapointed if the cypher-head community doesn't pay attention to the disphoric aspects of the technology it wields. Would you like to be the Edward Teller of cypher ? I don't think so. I want privacy too, and I want as much free-wheeling as possible in the matrix. Personally I think that accountability is going to be required as the price for reasonably secure encryption, reasonably open access, and reasonably secure privacy of data. IMNSHO, it is unreasonable to expect an anarcho-libertarian outcome to these issues. If you can prove me wrong I will be thrilled. The other thing that I am a bit surprized about is the relatively tight focus in this group regarding text. It seems to me that multimedia extensions have an *unfolding of the lotus* like effect upon the issues involved. I also see very little regarding potential for breaking the mind machine link, or biologic interfaces? core technologies are important, but an eye on the future is just as important. LUX ./. owen

4 3