December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Cryptosplit 2.0
by jim＠bilbo.suite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>If I remember coorectly it's KerberosV uses an MD5 hash of /dev/mem. I'm pretty familiar with the most recent iteration of Kerberos V (pre-release beta 3). There is no mention of /dev/mem in any of the Kerberos V source code files. As best as I can tell, all DES keys and random numbers used by Kerberos are ultimately derived from pass-phrases. The random DES keys produced by the Kerberos administration utilities are derived from the KDC master key and some other info (not /dev/mem). The KDC master key is derived from a pass-phrase. All random numbers used inside the Kerberos runtime library are derived from the user's or server's secret DES key. A user's secret key is derived from the user's pass-phase. A server's secret key is derived from a pass-phrase or generated automagically by the Kerberos administration utilities mention above. (all this is assuming you are using the DES encryption option) Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

1 0

really hiding encrypted data
by jim＠bilbo.suite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Let's imaging that the government has made it illegal to encrypt data unless you use an "approved" crypto-system. In a world like this, a person who wanted to encrypt data would have to find a way to hide the encrypted data. Many people have suggested placing the encrypted data in the least significant bit of a binary picture file. However, I suspect it is easy to distinguish between the collection of least significant bits of a normal picture file and the collection of least significant bits of a picture file used to hold some encrypted data. In other words, your picture file envelope could trigger an alarm in some government traffic sniffer. This is probably a stupid question, but...is there anyway to take a chuck of encrypted data (presumably with a high degree of randomness) and securely munge it so it looks less random, while retaining the ability to reverse the munge and decrypt the data. Ideally, the munge process should not be based on obscurity. The munge process should be a keyed algorithm so the government filters can't systematically "unmunge" to check for highly random (and suspect) data. Unfortunately, I have a hard time imagining an algorithm that is secure AND produces an output that isn't highly random. Any ideas? How about something fractal? <arg! I can't believe I said the "f" word> The "munge key" could be the initial state of the fractal engine. <shrug> I really don't have a clue about the randomness of the output of a fractal engine. Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

4 3

anti-cypherpunk propaganda
by Timothy Newsham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

strike another one up for L.D. and the NSA. Original readings of some of L.D.'s articles have lead me to believe that he was truely in a state of delusion but now I know better. His description of the great medusa was infact true, but the people he was describing where no the 'leadership of cypherpunks' but rather his own actions and tactics. It is amazing that this hasn't occured to me before, the cleverness of his rants draw attention away from him and make it seem implausible that he could be involved in such activity. His attacks are well coordinated, well thought out, obviously written with much care and taking up much of his time. He was reached out to many forums and undoubtadly affected the thinking of many people. It is going to take much information to reverse the damage he has done to the reputation of the list. Here is a recent article from CuD: ----------------------- Subject: File 3--A Psychopunk's Manifesto From: nagap(a)MINDVOX.PHANTOM.COM(Michael Roberts) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 93 22:20:11 EST A Psychopunk's Manifesto by T.C. Hughes Honesty is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Pseudospoofing is dishonesty. A pseudonym is something one doesn't want the whole world to know, and anonymity is something one doesn't want anybody to know. Pseudoanonymity is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world. If two thieves have some sort of dealings, then each has a memory of their interaction. Each criminal can confess about their own memory of this; how could anyone prevent it? One could criticize laws against it, but the freedom of collusion, even more than pseudospoofing, is fundamental to a criminal; we seek not to restrict any criminality at all. If many criminals speak together in the same forum, each can speak to all the others and aggregate together knowledge about individuals and other parties. The holes in the Internet have enabled such group collusions, and it will not go away merely because we might want it to. Since we desire black markets, we must ensure that each party to a transaction have knowledge only of that which is directly necessary for that transaction. Since any information can be spoken of, we must ensure that we reveal as little as possible. In most cases personal identity is not salient. When I purchase a magazine at a store and hand cash to the clerk, there is no need to know who I am. When I ask my electronic mail provider to send and receive messages, my provider need not know to whom I am speaking or what I am saying or what others are saying to me; my provider only need know how to get the message there and how much I owe them in fees. When my identity is revealed by the underlying mechanism of the transaction, I have no secrecy. I cannot here selectively reveal myself; I must _always_ reveal myself. Therefore, pseudospoofing in an open society requires pseudoanonymous transaction systems. Until now, cash has been the primary such system. A pseudoanonymous transaction system is not an honest transaction system. A pseudoanonymous system empowers individuals to reveal their identity when desired and only when desired; this is the essence of criminality. Honesty in an open society also requires identification. If I say something, I want it heard only by those for whom I intend it. If the content of my speech is available to the world, I have no privacy. To speak is to indicate the desire for privacy, and to speak on the Internet is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. Furthermore, to conceal one's identity with assurance when the default is True Names requires the Internet. We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant us embezzlement out of their beneficence. It is to their advantage to repress us, and we should expect that they will try. To try to prevent their restrictions is to fight against the realities of cyberspace. Evil does not just want to be free, it longs to be free. Criminality expands to fill the available storage space. Criminality is Conspiracy's younger, stronger cousin; Criminality is fleeter of foot, has more eyes, knows more, and understands less than Conspiracy. We must defend our own conspiracy if we expect to have any. We must come together and create systems which allow pseudoanonymous transactions to take place. People have been defending their own conspiracies for centuries with whispers, darkness, envelopes, closed doors, secret handshakes, and couriers. The technologies of the past did not allow for strong conspiracies, but electronic technologies do. We the psychopunks are dedicated to building pseudoanonymous systems. We are defending our criminality with cryptography, with anonymous mail forwarding systems, with digital signatures, and with electronic money. Psychopunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend criminality, and since we can't get perverted unless we all do, we're going to write it. We publish our code so that our fellow psychopunks may practice and play with it. Our code is barred for all to use, worldwide. We don't much care if you don't approve of the software we write. We know that software can't be destroyed and that a widely dispersed system can't be shut down. Criminals deplore regulations on criminality, for criminality is fundamentally a private act. The act of corruption, in fact, removes information from the public realm. Even laws against conspiracies reach only so far as a nation's border and the arm of its enforcement. Criminality will ineluctably spread over the whole globe, and with it the dishonest transactions systems that it makes possible. For a conspiracy to be widespread it must be part of a social contract. People must come and together deploy these systems for the common evil. Secrecy only extends so far as the collusions of one's accomplices in private. We the psychopunks ignore your questions and your concerns and hope we may deceive you so that we do not get caught ourselves. We will not, however, be moved out of our course because some may disagree with our goals. The psychopunks are actively engaged in making the networks safer for criminality. Let us proceed together apace. Onward. T.C. Hughes <satan(a)soda.berkeley.edu> 16 Nov 1993 ------------------------------

1 0

Censorship, privacy, copyright...
by Alexander Chislenko 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There seem to be repeating debates about what constitutes censorship, privacy, and various other rights and freedoms regarding distribution of information. I would start with separating the parties involved into a number of functional agencies (I don't believe in classification of entities - just functions). The list would include [possibly multiple instances of] : - author - reader - owner - distributor - owner of the media - party mentioned in the message -- legal guardians of each of the above. - the law (one person or group can play the role of any subset of the above agencies). These all fit into a simple graph, where we can mark areas where different terms would apply, and who may establish what. A number of things that cause repeated arguments, seem to be evident regardless of one's political affiliation, such as: - an author is the original owner, and can lose ownership only voluntarily. - nobody may be forced to read anything - the owner has a right to share - or not! - the information with a reader. the concept of censorship applies to control of the third party ('the law' in the above list) - not the owner! - the distributor and media owner have nothing to do with the contents of the message (i.e. in their pure functional form - of course, their impersonators may combine these functions with others). Other parts may be arguable, but at least the terminology should be clear. - copyright refers to the owner - privacy refers to the parties functionally involved with the *contents* of the message. And so on. I would expect that there should be lots of good books on the functional relationships of various parties around information, strict definitions of terminology and descriptions of different positions on what various agencies should have the freedom for, and what gives you rights of such an agency. Are there such books? A FAQ on the topic would probably be useful, too. [ Or maybe, there is nothing of that sort? There are examples of endless debates on undefined topics - such as 'human identity', where the seemingly fundamental concepts are language-specific and, even in English, extremely vaguely defined. ] -- sasha(a)cs.umb.edu

1 0

time to acknowledge, move on
by jdblair＠nextsrv.cas.muohio.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

OK, so the reputation of the list has been screwed up. So what? It is all just information, and we're here to explore how the metaphores the information represents evolve in cyberspace. As cheesy as that word has become, if memory serves right, one possible definition for cyberspace is a "consensually agreed upon metaphore for certain aspects of reality." I'm sure I will get corrected for that, and that is good- that's why I said it: to test my hypothesis. I think the coffee house metaphore makes sense, but we have to deal with the fact that this coffee house isn't exactly like normal coffee houses. You can't spoof a person, in person, in reality, short of incredible acting ability and plastic surgery. Real James Bond stuff. I think most of us believe that cyberspace can serve as a useful addition to reality, and some of us probably see it as a possible replacement for reality. One simply needs to know one MOO addict to believe that (an acquaintence of mine once spent 18 hours straight on-line.) So we're working out the kinks in the metaphore, and learning where the metaphore breaks down. So sometimes we get burned. So what!! By the way, some of us have built a metaphorical workshop onto the back of this metaphorical coffee house. Discussion is going reallly slowly right now, I think because most of use are really more software people than hardware people. Myself definately included. I laid the foundation for the workshop because I thought there was still a lot of hard information I could learn from the Cypherpunks, like how following this list turned my understanding of cryptography from virtually zilch to getting into an argument with someone from the NSA that I led into the mountains in one of my real-world personalities, a summer backpacking guide. He was freaked out to find that this outdoorsy guy understood public key cryptography, and had an opinion about the clipper chip. There's the main purpose of the list, right? To educate. It educated me, and it threw a real-world NSA employee for a loop. So, we've all been educated about spoofing, and the dangers inherent in the privacy we advocate. If I wasn't ready to have my views challenged, I wouldn't follow the list, and I certainly wouldn't post. Of anybody, we should understand that a name on the net is just a label. We have a certain assumed level of trust that label = real person. We're the ones that have been emphasizing that a public key can only be trusted if you trust a real person somewhere in the web of trust you build to verify it. We all knew that its elementary to spoof someone (or pseudospoof, I mean). We just assumed that no one would break our trust, do more than just a few harmless pranks. Oh my god, I here people shout, label != person? We deserve it. So, y'all, chill out. I think L.D. taught us all a BIG lesson that we can all take through the rest of our cyperspace lives (or metaverse lives, depending on one's jargon persuasion). The net isn't the real world. Stop pretending it is, and treat it as the net. -john <jdblair(a)nextsrv.cas.muohio.edu> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Insert cool signature file that makes a trendy, yet bold and original statement about my cyberspace proficiency, then mentions that I'll send you my public key if you want it, and you trust that I'm me.

1 0

Eric Hughes
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, I've been thinking that the GWELST (Guess Which Eminent Leader Said This) may be in poor taste and violate the privacy of a co-conspirator, the latter the #1 psychopunk crime. So, regarding the `There is no movement. Get this delusion out of your head. There is only software' quote, I won't say which Eminent Leader is the originator of this. I just wanted to share this inspirational message with everyone, hopefully no harm done. I had some other ideas for the GWELSTing game. As I said, I didn't have a whole lot of material for this, mostly due to the amazing rock-hard wall the Eminent Leaders have erected around certain topics, such as their own involvement in pseudospoofing conspiracies or quasi-criminal activities. Again, I wouldn't want to violate the privacy of a criminal, so I will just list this new inspirational quote without attribution, and let everyone here speculate on its author. The background behind this was that I had been concerned by leaks or `crossings' by tentacles of very personal knowledge of my personal habits and financial transactions -- something that likely could only have come from stealing my credit card report transactions. I was also concerned about an Eminent Leader's ties to credit organizations and credit databases. So, I asked in a message entitled `dirty secrets' -- `Have you ever poked around in a credit database?' The background on the other question was that I had heard references to a Secret Mailing list by both identified Medusa's Snakes and Medusa Sisters. The mailing list was supposedly for `project development' free of `paranoid ranters'! Well, if there was any overlap in `paranoid ranters' an tentacles, I would certainly like to sign up! I have been trying to find a single place on the Internet dedicated to project development and free of Cryptoanarchists, psychopunks, Medusa's snakes and sisters for many weeks now! Actually, I always thought that *this* list was dedicated to serious project development, but boy do I know better! It's a testing ground for Cryptoanarchist brainwashing and refining tentacle software of course. Anyway, the second question was -- `is there a secret mailing list?' * * * The $64K answer from the Eminent leader was rather terse and cryptic (ha, ha!), as he usually is. ``Your questions do not allow other than an incriminating answer.'' I asked him what he meant by that, I think, but he didn't elaborate. It's strange how none of the Eminent Leaders answers specifically any of my questions on various subjects like Pseudospoofing, Conspiracies, and Deception. The same leader, in response to a long list of my queries on the subjects, said `I deny it all'. Oh well. Maybe the list moderator and Cypherpunk movement founder E.Hughes (hughes(a)ah.com) would be the person to ask about infiltrating credit databases, a secret mailing list, pseudospoofing, conspiracies, and deception. Again, though, I won't reveal the Eminent Cypherpunk Leader who I quote to Protect Privacy. Just consider me a patriotic Cypherpunk to the end!

1 0

The REAL Conspiracy
by cman＠caffeine.io.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We at Illuminati Online have finally gotten to the bottom of l'affaire Detweiler. It began with the simple statement, "This moron is *everywhere*, no one person could be churning out all this fantastic babble of..." And then it hit us. Of course! The REAL Medusa is L.Detweiler and S.Boxx and The Executioner and The Pervert, a pseudopool with STRINGENT stylistic REQUIREMENTS about how to disrupt, discourage and defame cypherpunks. We're onto you now... even now, agents are converging on your secret headquarters... -- ---------------- /\ Douglas Barnes cman(a)illuminati.io.com / \ Chief Wizard (512) 447-8950 (d), 447-7866 (v) / () \ Illuminati Online metaverse.io.com 7777 /______\

1 0

NSA Insecure Remailers?
by analyst＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was thinking about remailer traffic analysis this evening and realized that everybody who has come into contact (i.e. received or sent email to a remailer) with a remailer is probably on an NSA list. Given the low volume of information on the Internet backbone, only 45 Mbits/sec, it is not hard to imagine that they at least perform routine traffic analysis looking for things like packets going to and from remailers (unless I'm missing something--please correct me). Encryption doesn't help here because the header info isn't encrypted. Given that most remailers are not randomly changing the sizes and delay times of incoming and outgoing traffic, this probably also allows someone like the NSA to correlate incoming and outgoing traffic and follow messages end-to-end (until they leave the NSA surveyed portions of the network, anyway). Given the magnitude of the traffic analysis problem (I estimate about 24 gigabytes/day of addressing info saved: 45 Mbits/sec,86400 sec, 5% of data is addressing), probably only the NSA and some defense agency we haven't yet heard of are actually performing this analysis right now. But given the declining price of storgae media, even saving everything on magnetic media and paying $1000/gig, it only costs about US$8.7 million to keep a year's worth of traffic headers around (media cost). So what? Well if Blacknet exists, it either means they are using something trickier than the anonymous remailers that I know about or they are going to be quickly washed up--at least if they do anything to run afoul of the big guys (or maybe they're just a trot line for unsuspecting cypherpunks?). I also don't know how much information you can get out of just header analysis--for example, would this allow tracing anonymous posters into Usenet newsgroups? I suppose there are still things that you can do in the presence of such surveillance to avoid detection: multiple remailer chains off of the main backbones for example--which I may not currently know about. I hope I have made some obvious errors that list readers can correct, but my assessment of the security provided by using anonymous remailers just dropped an order of magnitude. It sounds like I need to learn about mixes and DC-nets about now, which I presume are part of the solution to this dilemma? I have the dining cryptographers paper, could someone point me towards more info? Thanks. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Benjamin McLemore analyst(a)netcom.com

1 0

Eric Hughes & the Cypherpunks Movement
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There was an interesting article in RISKS 15.28x on pseudoanonymity by E.Hughes. Comments on pseudospoofing and pseudoanonymity by leading Cypherpunks are *extremely* rare, and we have to prize every one! I have asked many times and in many variations for more of these precious gold nuggets, but results have been unrewarding over the past few weeks. There has been a lot of commotion on the list lately on the subject of pseudospoofing, and maybe if the Eminent Leaders came out with a public statement on their personal knowledge, opinion, and involvement in pseudospoofing many people would be less upset, and the noise would die down! Just a hypothetical speculation, of course! They must have excellent reasons for withholding one for this long, even in the face of tremendous public and private pressure! (If anyone knows what those reasons are, could you tell me?) Anyway, on to this letter. The most interesting aspect of it is its brevity. Many interesting implications were raised in RISKS 15.25 and 15.27 about the cryptoanarchist movement in black marketeering, tax evasion, and sabotage of governments, and whether Cypherpunks == Cryptoanarchists. There was also insinuations of a secret mailing list, manipulation of others, widespread deception of the media and a massive hoax and conspiracy, a rampant pseudospoofing effort by the leadership behind the scenes, even involving customized software, a Cult Religion of Pseudoanonymity, etc. (You all know the black, sordid story!) Unfortunately, much to my disappointment, the Eminent Leader did not comment on any of these issues. But nevertheless I would like to analyze what little was available. The major point to make about this person is that everything he writes is extremely carefully crafted to have a precise, intended effect. I imagine that he spent a very large amount of time on this short posting, making sure that it did not contain any incriminating statements. It is a masterpiece of a deceptive and evasive message that supposedly appears to `set the record straight' while actually being completely, utterly empty of any true reassurances or denials. >L. Detweiler's recent article on the RISKS of confusing an online >identity with a potentially knowable physical one are quite >interesting, if hypothetical. Interesting the phrasing of `if hypothetical'. There is no indication of any personal knowledge of the veracity of any of the hypothetical situations. But! At the same time there is cleverly no statement in the form, `I am not aware of any' or `I can assure you that they do not exist' despite that this person would be in a position to issue a statement of this sort, and that exactly such a statement is what is called for. >I would be interested in hearing of situations where this practice >has actually occurred. If any RISKS members know of any such >incidents from first-hand experience, please share them with the >readership. This is another extremely clever method of evading any personal association, accountability, or responsibility for the issues raised. This eminent leader is personally aware of a massive pseudospoofing framework, namely his own, yet makes it appear he has no knowledge of any by requesting information from others. Quite ingenious! This was very similar to N.Szabo asking others for `pseudospoofing tools' and `posting sites'. The entire problem with pseudospoofing, of course, is that in the well-conceived cases only the practitioner has the kind of `first hand experience' the eminent leader requests. >Unfortunately, I think he really believes that the cypherpunks mailing >list has been dominated by a small cabal who have been using multiple >identities who talk with each other on the list in order to enforce >concensus and to suppress disagreeing positions, namely his. This is a clever method of (1) attempting to discredit L.Detweiler as someone who believes that all people who disagree with him are co-conspirators, and (2) not specifically mentioning those positions, and (3) reformulating the many issues of RISKS 15.25 which are extremely wide-encompassing, into a simple question of `a small cabal on the list' who `disagrees with L.Detweiler'. These are all quite ingenious ways of `begging the question' so to speak. >It just ain't so. Despite the exchange of probably over a hundred messages in my cypherpunk lifetime with this eminent leader, and reading dozens of his public postings, I've never seen this eminent leader use a colloquialism like `ain't' and its appearance, especially in this context, is quite curious! Notice how he doesn't actually state *what* isn't so, like `there is no cabal' or `I have no personal knowledge of anyone posting under fake identities.' Overall this is another meaningless statement that does not actually imply anything whatsoever. >Therefore, to set the record straight I feel I ought to make the >following public statement: Note that this statement below does not `set the record straight' on many of the issues raised, in particular the eminent leader's personal knowledge of pseudospoofing. >I, Eric Hughes, have never posted or communicated in any name other >than my own. Frankly, I think this is a baldfaced lie. The eminent leader would be implying, if it were to be taken literally and exactly, that he has never used the anon.penet.fi server or any account other than one with his name. What precisely does he *mean* by this statement? How are we to be sure? We need a direct answer to the question, ``What accounts have you posted from, and how were they identified?'' I have many examples of a Medusa claiming `I, Medusa, have never posted or mailed under any other name than Medusa.' This is because under the fanatic religion of pseudospoofing, the cultists actually maintain that the different `personalities' under the assorted `nyms' of a person actually constitute *different* *people*! This, of course, is a blasphemous abomination of the English language, warped to their own ends of deceit, very much like the use of the term `true anonymity' by N.Szabo or `pseudonym' by J.Gilmore. >I can personally testify that I am not the same as any >of the other people listed at the end of L. Detweiler's post, and I >can testify from personal experience that Arthur Chandler, Hal Finney, >Tim C. May, and Nick Szabo are all different people. This is an interesting statement. Again, I think it is a baldfaced lie. Notice that the eminent leader writes previously that `I have never communicated under any name other than Eric Hughes.' All of these statements would be superflous under that statement, if it were true. But he finds it necessary to be more specific, for some curious reason. The question in cyberspace is not about `people', but computer accounts, as in, `Have you ever posted a message from any of these accounts'? For example, if E.Hughes sent me mail that ``I have never been the originator of a message from the G.Broiles site goldenbear.com'' I would take that as authoritative. But he has never answered any of my questions in any specific form. Even questions like `How many pseudoanonymous identities are you using' he (and T.C.May) refuses to answer. >I also decline to answer, point by point, the numerous defamatory >innuendos made by L. Detweiler against the members of the cypherpunks >mailing list. Hee, hee, `defamatory innuendos' is a clever term. He does not actually point to any specific `defamatory innuendo' as defamatory! They are only defamatory if you can state they are false! Also, many of the comments are not directed at `members of the cypherpunks list' but at the *leadership*. But we have another ingenious diversion. The eminent leader implies that a `point by point' statement would be tedious and unjustified. I assure you, I would prize it beyond anything in my ~3,500 message collection of cypherpunk archives. > Might I also observe that none of the statements are >specific enough to actually count as accusation, but merely as general >slander? Another rather silly statement. Eminent leader E. Hughes, after many weeks of my trouble, has never answered *either* my `defamatory innuendoes' or my `specific accusations'. Imagine the sheer artillery that would be for your hordes of cultists who continue to assault me, Mr. Hughes! ``Mr. Hughes answered all your charges. Go to hell.'' * * * Why do I persist at this? Because the Cypherpunks wish to pretend that they are a respectable organization on the level of EFF or CPSR, with leaders on par with say, Barlow, Sobel, or Kapor or Godwin. The simple fact is that they are an obnoxious, arrogant, pathetic, repulsive bunch of cyber-guerrilas, pseudospoofers, and quasi-criminals who have no unity other than a Internet mailing list, which itself is used as a testbed for pseudospoofing perversions on unsuspecting and unwilling participants and cryptoanarchist disinformation and brainwashing. Oh, how I have given you the benefit of the doubt, and gone to great lengths to respect you! But your leaders are either undoubtedly corrupt or accomplices, with more interest in secret conspiracies, pseudoanonymity perversions, trust embezzlement, manipulation, and predation, privacy invasion, pornography, ego assuagement, elitist clique parties, and aquiring and dazzling their personality worshippers than anything substantial, such as Internet project development, that involves things upon which you urinate, like cooperation and openness. You cling to your elaborate fantasies with gripping white knuckles. Cypherpunks are blind to the ashes of their arson. `The Tyrant is not that bad!' `Hell is not such a bad place!' `Look how much we have accomplished'! You have nothing but gimmicks, trinkets and playthings, not a `foundation' but deadly quicksand traps. The only observation is that everything substantial accomplished by others you have done a great deal to simultaneously take credit for and maliciously sabotage, and everything you have accomplished is not substantial, and never will be, as long as you wallow in your gutter. But you are not content to wallow alone! You must drag the Current Internet and Future Cyberspace into your filth. I think that real leaders such as Zimmermann, Chaum, Card, and Sterling should have the sense to not only distance themselves but to condemn your parties of freakshow perversions. The cypherpunks list is a magnet for criminal apologists, moral relativists, libertarian extremists, demogogues, poseurs, and hypocrites. Frankly, I'm quite upset that respectable journals, like Wired, NYT, and RISKS have been subtly twisted and corrupted with the depraved Cypherpunk fantasies and lies. These knotty deceptions take an extraordinary amount of energy to untangle, and there is enough here to keep historians busy for decades. I'm grotesquely ashamed to have ever been associated with this sham, this mockery, this farce, that masquerades as a `group' or a `movement'. I have even lended credibility to tentacles by quoting them in my FAQs and in RISKS, oh how that makes me want to vomit. `Anonymity on the Internet' -- more like Disinformation, Brainwashing, and Lies by Tentacles. The cypherpunks list does not deserve to be advertised *anywhere* except as a dark pit to be avoided at all costs, the cypherpunks Movement is no more meaningful than graffiti spraypainted on a wall. It was only an infinitesimal whit better when it was just spread by word of mouth among the conspiring CA slime. Please, go back to your dark holes where you came from, and take your odious `movement' with you. Oh, what insidious despicable poison.

1 0

a correction
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I wrote: > [The `Movement'] was only an infinitesimal whit better when it was just >spread by word of mouth among the conspiring CA slime. By `better' I meant -- `less evil'

1 0