December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Crypto Anarchy, the Government, and the National InformationInfrastructure
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, Mike Godwin and I have argued about NII/Data Highway before, and we see things differently. When I read the main position papers, and look to the "big picture," the future being envisioned, I get a differenct sense of it than Mike gets. The NII papers (ftp.ntia.doc.gov, in /pub as "agenda.asc") and the CPSR docs (distributed on this list) are clearly not leading to an anarchic net. For example, what will be the NII management's response to a "No blacks allowed" area? To a "women need not apply" on-line consulting situation? To a cyberspatial version of the "old boy's network" that Gloria Allred and her feminista compadres are constantly filing lawsuits against? (I go to a health club/gym that has a "women only" facility. There are no longer any "men only" gyms anywhere in California, but "women only" facilities are flourishing.) Please understand that I'm not proposing a "no blacks allowed" service, only arguing that freedom of association is a basic principle I support, and one on which free societies are based. Yes, I support the right of a store owner to hang a sign out that says "No straights allowed," or "No ragheads allowed." Of course, the general population would probably find this fairly offensive and the store owner would reconsider or go out of business. Sounds fair to me. (Sorry for a digresssion into Libertarianism 101.) Somehow I think the "fair access" and "nondiscriminatory environment" language used in many of these proposals is a clue about what's coming. >For what it's worth, I don't think this interpretation can be read into >EFF's Open Platform paper. EFF doesn't care about making money off the >Data Highway, nor does it think the debate should be about the number of >channels cable offers. > >Instead, EFF wants an infrastructure in which Tim May's anarchic vision >can flourish along with the visions of anarchophobes. On an Open Platform, >a hundred flowers can and will bloom, and a thousand schools of >thought will contend. EFF indeed has a more libertarian view than does, say, the CPSR (I almost typed CPUSA). Mitch Kapor, Mike Godwin, Stanton McClandish, and others certainly understand the dangers of a surveillance state. I've heard it argued by some of them (sorry for forgetting exactly who said what) that some form of data superhighway will be built regardless of our objections, so we might as well get involved and be helpful. The better to ensure our vision. Well, I take the more radical view that to get involved with them is to run the risk of getting co-opted by them, to be manouvered into accepting their views. I support the Open Platform ideas about ending the current local monopoly on cable and phone provision, but that's as far as I go. >Anarchists like Jack Kerouac and Neal Cassidy could find >individualistic redemption on the (government-built) road. >EFF thinks private-enterprise roads are better, but we also think >its promise is unfulfilled if it doesn't allow net.kerouacs and >net.cassidys to create there. Oh, to be sure, _literary anarchists_ like Cassidy and Kerouac will be tolerated. They're no threat, they're covered by artistic license standards (notwithstanding Mapplethorpe and his censors), and they're even a very useful social pressure releaf valve. I'm more concerned about the regulation of business transactions on the Net of the future, on the ease with which access to the Data Highway can be denied to anyone who fails to have the proper business license, the properly approved encryption algorithms, the "tax stamp" on data packets, and the wrong views about taxation and black markets. As commerce moves onto the Nets in an even large way, there is every reason to believe government and special interest groups will seek to use the state monopoly or regulation to control the types of transactions. Wonder how long the newsgroups on child porn will last when the Net is "the data interstate" instead of a loose anarchic collection? How about the White Aryan Resistance Net, featuring the latest in anonymous communication systems? We don't need no steenking data superhighway! --Tim May -- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: by arrangement Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.

1 0

RE: CRYPTOANARCHIST INFILTRATION ALERT
by dheck＠odo.cc.uakron.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

who appointed this guy Netcop status? If I wanted to receive info appropriate to alt.whistleblowing, I'd read Usenet...These self-appointed, self-important, self-inflated egos really get under my skin...take me off this list...the signal-to-noise ratio is getting a little out of hand. (By the way, my real name is Heck...) David

1 0

Re: Cryptosplit 2.0
by hfinney＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: m5(a)vail.tivoli.com (Mike McNally) > On UNIX systems, where keystroke timing can be problematic, couldn't a > collection of various system metrics be used to provide a bunch of > reasonable pseudo-random bits? Things like: > > * Disk space in / > * Network activity (in/out packet counts) > * load average > * swap space available > * time of day (duhh) These can play a role in seeding a RNG, but there is probably not as much randomness there as you might expect. Knowledge of the approximate time of day the program was run, plus some general information about the characteristics of your system in terms of usage, can probably pin most of those values down to within a factor of 5 or so. I think multiple MD5 hashes of the total contents of /tmp (or, better, /swap, if you can access that) would have more bits of randomness. In any case, Shamir sharing requires a LOT of random bits ("k" times the size of the file) so at best these sources of randomness could seed a RNG, which would then "amplify" the randomness (in a cryptographic sense) to produce the random bits needed for the sharing algorithm. I believe the RIPEM public key package by Mark Riordan has a fairly wide repertoire of techniques for searching for randomness, including some of the above ideas. This code might be worth adapting to a general-purpose entropy-seeking algorithm. The problem is that these kinds of things are highly system dependent. If you have an audio port, for example, listening to an unconnected microphone can produce a steady stream of noise. Or if you have a high-speed timer it can be used to get perhaps a couple dozen bits of randomness at program-startup time, or to get many bits per keystroke. So you have to have customization for each target system to be useful. I do think the RIPEM code would be a good starting point, though. I once proposed a DOS TSR (a "background" program) which would monitor your keystrokes all day long and condense the timing data into a file full of random bits. Then you'd use up the bits when you needed to do cryptography. I haven't learned enough about DOS to write such a thing, though. Hal Finney hfinney(a)shell.portal.com

4 5

HUMOR: Timothy C. May is the CONSPIRACY!
by pat＠tstc.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In the grand style of the infamous L. Detweiler, here is proof that Timothy C. May is the real culprit behind all this. From: tcmay(a)netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Message-Id: <199311280747.XAA15002(a)mail.netcom.com> Subject: Re: Banning any subscriber Date: Sat, 27 Nov 93 23:47:54 PST --Tim May, who generally finds it faster to hit "D" than to filter (and, ironically, I keep all of the Detweiler/Pervert/S. Boxx/etc. posts, both for archival value and because it's stuff I'll want to reread in future years and perhaps use in a book I may write). From: bart(a)netcom.com (Harry Bartholomew) Message-Id: <199311271042.CAA28624(a)mail.netcom.com> Subject: The other side of LD Date: Sat, 27 Nov 93 2:42:08 PST I never thought I be caught dead forward an LD post, but here it is since I may be the only 'punk on the NEW-LIST announcements. Here we see the other side. I am beginning to get a funny feeling about all this. Consider: 1. The book published for profit by editing the submissions to rec.humor.funny. 2. The recent "compilation copyright" filed by Keith Peterson on the material contained in the Simtel archive. 3. The default apparent public domain into which all our postings seem to fall. Is LD, the prolific author that he obviously is, merely baiting the creative minds of the cypherpunks to gather material for his forthcoming novel(s)? Bart Tim's penchant for creating boiling cauldrons has "caught" him in this case. He states that he keeps all the messages for archival purposes to create a book at a later time. Notice that another Cypherpunk subscriber from the same site points out that LD is merely baiting the Cypherpunks and the world into situations for book material. Tim obviously urged Harry into sending the second message above. From: tcmay(a)netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Message-Id: <199311280835.AAA20462(a)mail.netcom.com> Subject: "Pretty Good Paranoia" and "Dining Detweilers Net" Date: Sun, 28 Nov 93 0:35:44 PST "My tortured and WRACKED soul is becoming INCREASINGLY MADDENED AND DISGUSTED by the unspeakable actions of the leading SickoPunks in beaming RADIO SIGNALS into my cranial cavities while I dream of slaying Miss Medusa and her TENTACLES of depravity and cyberspatial indifference." --Klaus! von Future Prime (My nom de humor on the Extropians list.) This is the final proof. I do not believe that Tim actually creates the text that apparently comes from LD. It is Tim's cat! This is why the link between LD and Tim has not come to light sooner. Tim has conspired with his cat to create this "uproar" for material for his upcoming book. Since Tim and his cat are two seperate entities their message text does not correlate, however the inclusion of a piece of "Detweiler Text" inside of one of Tim's messages proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Tim must somehow be responsible for LD's posts. I submit to you that it is Timothy C. May is actually L. Detweiler and he has fooled us all! I just hope it makes a good book! -- Pat Hykkonen ** N5NPL ** pat(a)tstc.edu ** CNSA -- (817) 867-4831 Disclaimer: This product may cause irritability in some users. In cases of allergic reaction, delete and consult a physician immediately. All of life is a comedy, don't let it upset you. - P. Hykkonen

1 0

NEW: Cypherwonks (fwd)
by Arthur Chandler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone else seen this? I got it from another newsgroup, and thought that folks here might be interested in seeing this morph of one branch of the cypherpunk movement. I'm assuming, of course, that it's not a spoof. Comments? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 15:09:26 CET-1DST From: GoeRAN DAMBERG <DAT255(a)UTB.SHV.HB.SE> To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC <FUTUREC(a)UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU> Subject: NEW: Cypherwonks I got this in my mailbox today and thought that some of you might be interested. ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- cypherwonks(a)lists.eunet.fi The brand new cypherwonks list on Majordomo(a)Lists.EUnet.fi is for ambitious, energetic, can-do, hands-on individuals interested in general cutting-edge `cyberspatial development' projects such as in cryptography, digital cash, and `electronic democracy'. (A `wonk' is slang for a `meticulous detail person'.) The list is both an informal gathering place for the technically adept and also a focal point for branching off into serious project coordination. We place a premium on membership by technical professionals and try to hone our posts to accommodate the busy (who, according to the adage, are those who get all the serious work done). We are inspired by the Internet but don't see it as ideal yet and are particularly interested in cooperation, building prototypes, forging standards, and `long-term incremental evolution' in our designs and goals. We're also intensely interested in following and influencing the technological and political developments of the emerging `national cyberspatial infrastructure.' The list is *not* for political diatribes in the `radical libertarian' agenda, e.g. rants against all forms of government as oppressive, corrupt, or evil, or promoting the use of cryptographic technologies for subversive activities like tax evasion, black marketeering, or evading law enforcement. The list is *not* for discussions of how to manipulate the honest through the use of software technologies. The list is *not* for unconstructive negativism against other's proposals. Above all, we are interested in forging a `civilized cyberspace' out of the current `Internet wilderness'. Historical note: the list was formed as a less ornery, more moderate splinter group from the Cypherpunks by J.Helsingius (creator of the popular anon.penet.fi anonymizing service) and L.Detweiler (author of many FAQs including `Privacy & Anonymity on the Internet). To subscribe, send a message with the body subscribe cypherwonks to Majordomo(a)Lists.EUnet.fi. A more comprehensive charter is available with the command `info cypherwonks' in the message body. To post, send a message to cypherwonks(a)lists.eunet.fi.

1 0

Re: newsgroup v news-list
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>We are talking about limiting access to the list (for whatever reason), THAT >is cencorship. Nonsense. Spend a little time with Mr. Dictionary, and you should be able to adduce the meaning of the word "censorship". It isn't what you seem to think it is. On the other hand, if you truly feel the way you do, please let me have a copy of your house key and warn your Significant Other that I'll be dropping by for an extended snuggle. I'll also help myself to your stereo and VCR while I'm there. What? You don't _like_ that idea? You wouldn't want to _censor_ me, would you? >I personaly find the idea that a person has to 'earn' the right to make a >statement on a mail-list or newsgroup as counter-free speech. I oppose your >view. Read the First Amendment. Learn something about free speech. It would assist you in weaning yourself away from sounding like an uninformed fool. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

Re: Let's Talk About Solutions
by Mike Godwin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Philippe writes: > I subscribed to the Extropians list for a while and was quite impressed > with the list management software they were running. Commands could be > sent to the list processor like 'exclude <thread>', 'exclude <user>', etc > via regular e-mail messages; with this capability, anyone who can use > e-mail can personally manage the stream of postings headed for their > mailbox. In my opinion, this approach strikes a comfortable balance between > outright censorship and mass confusion. Any chance we can get such a thing implemented on the cypherpunks list? --Mike

1 0

Re: HUMOR: Timothy C. May is the CONSPIRACY!
by freeman＠MasPar.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> [...] It is Tim's cat! [...] I hate to add to the horror of it all, but ... Tim has <*gasp*> TWO cats! We're doomed ... -- Jay Freeman

2 1

Info on list
by lubetkin＠mgh.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Send info on subscribing to the list, please.

1 0

A study of National Cryptography Policy
by ssteele＠eff.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Mon, 29 Nov 93 12:23:02 EST >From: "Herb Lin" <hlin(a)nas.edu> >Encoding: 5789 Text >To: farber(a)cis.upenn.edu, editors(a)eff.org, alert(a)washofc.cpsr.org >Subject: A study of National Cryptography Policy > > >Please forward this message to any individual or mailing list >that you believe should receive it. Many thanks.. >********************* >As part of the Defense Authorization Bill for FY 1994, the U.S. Congress >has asked the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board >(CSTB) of the National Research Council (NRC) to undertake a study of >national policy with respect to the use and regulation of cryptography. >The report of the study committee is due two years after all necessary >security clearances have been processed, probably sometime summer >1996, and is subject to NRC review procedures. The legislation >states that 120 days after the day on which the report is submitted to >the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary shall submit the report to the >Committees on Armed Services, Intelligence, Commerce, and the >Judiciary of the Senate and House of Representatives in unclassified >form, with classified annexes as necessary. As of this date (November 29, >1993), the House and the Senate have agreed to this study, but the >President has not yet signed the bill. > >Assuming the legislation is signed by the President, this study is >expected to address the appropriate balance in cryptography policy >among various national interests (e.g., U.S. economic competitiveness >(especially with respect to export controls), national security, law >enforcement, and the protection of the privacy rights of individuals), >and the strength of various cryptographic technologies known today >and anticipated in the future that are relevant for commercial >purposes. The federal process through which national cryptography >policy has been formulated is also expected to be a topic of >consideration, and, if appropriate, the project will address >recommendations for improving the formulation of national >cryptographic policy in the future. > >This project, like other NRC projects, will depend heavily on input >from industry, academia, and other communities in the concerned >public. Apart from the study committee (described below), briefings >and consultations from interested parties will be arranged and others >will be involved as anonymous peer reviewers. > >It is expected that the study committee will be a high-level group that >will command credibility and respect across the range of government, >academic, commercial, and private interests. The committee will >include members with expertise in areas such as: > > - relevant computer and communications technology; > - cryptographic technologies and cryptanalysis; > - foreign, national security, and intelligence affairs; > - law enforcement; > - commercial interests; and > - privacy and consumer interests. > >All committee members (and associated staff) will have to be cleared >at the "SI/TK" level; provisions have been made to expedite the >processing of security clearances for those who do not currently have >them. Committee members will be chosen for their stature, expertise, >and seniority in their fields; their willingness to listen and consider >fairly other points of view; and their ability to contribute to the >formulation of consensus positions. The committee as a whole will >be chosen to reflect the range of judgment and opinion on the subject >under consideration. > >The detailed composition of the committee has not yet been decided; >suggestions for committee members are sought from the community at >large. Note that NRC rules regarding conflict of interest forbid the >selection as committee members of individuals that have substantial >personal financial interests that might be significantly affected by the >outcome of the study. Please forward suggestions for people to >participate in this project to CSTB(a)NAS.EDU by DECEMBER 17, >1993; please include their institutional affiliations, their field(s) of >expertise, a note describing how the criteria described above apply to >them, and a way to contact them. For our administrative >convenience, please put in the "SUBJECT:" field of your message the >words "crypto person". > >Finally, some people have expressed concern about the fact that the >project will involve consideration of classified material. Arguments >can and have been made on both sides of this point, but in any event >this particular ground rule was established by the U.S. Congress, not >by the CSTB. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the asserted >need for classification, the task at hand is to do the best possible job >given this constraint. > >On the National Research Council > >The National Research Council (NRC) is the operating arm of the >Academy complex, which includes the National Academy of Sciences, >the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. >The NRC is a source of impartial and independent advice to the >federal government and other policy makers that is able to bring to >bear the best scientific and technical talent in the nation to answer >questions of national significance. In addition, it often acts as a >neutral party in convening meetings among multiple stakeholders on >any given issue, thereby facilitating the generation of consensus on >controversial issues. > >The Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB) of the >NRC considers technical and policy issues pertaining to computer >science, telecommunications, and associated technologies. CSTB >monitors the health of the computer science, computing technology, >and telecommunications fields, including attention as appropriate to >the issues of human resources and information infrastructure and >initiates studies involving computer science, computing technology, >and telecommunications as critical resources and sources of national >economic strength. A list of CSTB publications is available on >request. > >

2 1