December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

y
by nobody＠rosebud.ee.uh.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> I don't understand this idea of building up trust just to betray >> someone. Maybe some cypherpunks can explain this in detail to me. `` too much but never enough; tear it up and watch it fall. ''

1 0

Characterizing Cypherpunk Culture
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

- E.Hughes: public vs. private - Cypherpunk culture research materials - CryptoAnarchist Manifesto and Cypherpunk Charter - True Name detection - an introspective note E.Hughes, Mysterious Cypherpunk Leader --- In my extensive research into Cypherpunk pseudospoofing culture, I've come up with a lot of apparent contradictions in what is known about the mysterious figure, E.Hughes in particular. It would be an understatement to say that he values his privacy! Anyway, his mail to me under his True Name is always very terse, and I'm not allowed to publicly quote any of his tentacles without violating the Pseudospoofing Religion (I wouldn't want to offend anyone or break any taboos). So, in my interest in profiling the culture and its leaders, I'm hoping that some CA cypherpunks interested in promoting their ideology and their leader can help fill in the blanks. One thing I have stumbled on is the cryptic references to tax evasion and black marketeering. It appears that he may be alluding to these in his public speeches. This based on mail by A.Chandler (another person who is hard to track down). Can anyone elaborate on these? This would certainly not be an invasion of his privacy. No transcripts are available, unfortunately. Also, it never seems that these speeches are announced ahead of time. Does anyone issue these announcements officially? For example, E.Hughes popped up at the Austin EFF meeting awhile ago and there didn't seem to be any advance warning to the list at large so that people might attend. I'm sure he wants to maximize his exposure and the Cypherpunk `movement'. Also, a prominent cypherpunk told me that E.Hughes had proseletyzed the religion of pseudospoofing to him, so to speak, and that the latter was his great inspiration in setting up a site to permit it. Mr. Hughes never has publicly stated anything on pseudospoofing, except that `that which cannot be enforced should not be prohibited' and `the claim that a person should be limited in pseudonyms represents a profound misunderstanding.' Is he promoting it behind the scenes? Another thing about Mr. Hughes I don't understand, and has always baffled me -- a long time ago he posted a statement about some kind of Unix email message log files, a standard and well-known UNIX file, and Mr. Finney or someone corrected him and said, `You have rather demonstrated your lack of Unix knowledge'. Well, I was greatly confused by that then, and even more so today. Mr.Hughes, from my personal mail, strikes me as someone who is a mastermind of Unix software, nooks and crannies, and security weaknesses. Maybe even SMTP and DNS (Mr. Metzger is an authority on the latter). Sort of the `hacker ethic'. I wonder if that little statement was actually a disinformation stab, to prevent others from suspecting his amazing prowess! And if H.Finney was E.Hughes' tentacle, that would explain some things too! I also wonder if T.C.May's professed aversion to Perl code is in the same category. (This is really a shrewd way to throw off people who are into those annoying `investigations'.) I would like to look at any software Mr. May has written. Also, he seems to have a great fluency for the Mac, which would make for some other great portrayals. Another mysterious reference is that of collaboration between A.Abraham and E.Hughes. I believe T.C.May remarked that they are working on digital cash protocols. I got the impression that they may be running the site ah.com (`Abraham-Hughes'). Do they grant accounts to anyone who requests? Like A.Chandler? A.Chandler said that he posts to the future-culture list, and told me he has written some books, but I can't find them, and he is evasive in email. Is A.Abraham posting to the list under different pseudonyms? could someone tell me what they are? (I got a bizarre mail error sending him something once, maybe an SMTP expert or someone from crl.com can help me. Who maintains that site, anyway?) A. Abraham also popped up in RISKS lately, saying that he had watched my `deterioration'. Thanks for your concern, but I am quite all right, and alive and well! (A., I'm not sure where you got the idea I was `deteriorating' -- I haven't sent you any mail over many weeks, unless you have been tickling me with some tentacles out there, hee hee. Or maybe you are just privy to my private mail to the `inner circle'.) I'm sure that many will criticize my inquiries above as `invasions of privacy'. That, after all, is what the cypherpunks stand for! Let me assure you that is not my intent whatsoever. I simply wish to understand the Cypherpunk culture in all its grandeur, and promote it accurately to the concerned public, who may perceive it as quite subversive! (Markoff called you `the most self consciously ornery group', but I realize that's quite an understatement!) But let me say that I think true leaders with integrity have always had to sacrifice teir privacy. It is a basic requirement of fame and influence -- in holding one's achievements up for public scrutiny, the public affords you greater reputation. Shirking from the public, particuarly in response to their simple entreaties, is counterproductive and extremely damaging. After all, if you have nothing to hide, you can be proud of your public reputation, and look at it as a hard won accomplishment for your diligent and honest efforts. This is how you establish that all important element of *trust* among the public, who will perceive you less as a subversive threat than a privacy advocacy group! (A less subversive title, like the self-proclaimed `radical libertarian' P. Metzger advocates in RISKS, `the government keeping its fingers out of our affairs.') Research Materials --- CA meeting minutes are nonexistent as well. People seem very hostile to documenting them. It's quite annoying, discouraging, frustrating, and unfortunate. I'm interested in tracking the progress of the digital cash and identity obstruction infrastructures under development. I don't understand why CA Cypherpunks are so secretive about their projects. I thought they were interested in collaborations, based on the public mailing list. There's a distinct feeling that the CA people are `insiders' and everyone else is just the audience. I guess this could be one reason that people shriek so much over pseudospoofing accusations here -- they see the distinct boundary between `them' and `us', but promote the deception for `them'. This is partly my concern in the `secret mailing list'. If there is one, I think the CA 'punks should be honest about it and not deceive anyone else. In fact, I think that maybe the CA 'punks should just have their own mailing list unless they want to publicize and collaborate with anyone in Cyberspace, not just whoever can make it to their CA meetings. What is the criteria for people to get on the secret mailing list, `project development free of paranoid ranters', anyway? Do you have to be in CA? Is pseudospoofing outlawed on that list? I always thought that *this* list was for project development, but of course now realize it's just the public cypherpunk international PR outlet. One thing I wonder about the intensely secretive Cypherpunks. Don't you think that the Internet was pretty much built up with entirely public, open debate and interaction? With things like cooperation and collaboration between people, instead of hostile flames between different cliques? Do you think you have the right attitude, conducive to harmony in future Cyberspace? It seems to me all these secret conspiracies and quasi-criminal philosophies are somewhat fundamentally against the grain of a hospitible Cyberspace. Well, as I always say, `to each his own!' or `live and let live!' as long as no criminals are involved! Also, I thought I heard something about cypherpunk archives somewhere, by Al Whaley, maybe at cpsr.org. Does anyone know anything about that? It seems to me an archive would be a great project. Who has archives, and to how far back to they go? G.Broiles was telling me he had a pretty good collection. (I consider him one of the most imaginative authorities on cypherpunk culture I've had the privilege of talking to!). The Cryptoanarchist Manifesto & CypherPunk Charter === The Cryptoanarchist Manifesto by T.C.May and the Cypherpunk Charter are very interesting, but they seem to be speaking metaphorically -- `thinly veiled', as I believe P. Metzger wrote in RISKS. They never refer directly to things like tax evasion, although the former does hint at what might be referred to as `cyberspatial guerrilla warfare' -- clearly a central tenet to the cypherpunk agenda. (see soda.berkeley.edu) One thing that I wanted to ask everyone's opinion on. At the end of the CryptoAnarchist Manifesto there is a references to a revolution that ensued `barbed wire fences' -- useful social infrastructures that protect private property rights, etc. But suddenly, Mr. May ends the essay with `you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences'. This was quoted in the NYT article. My question: this doesn't make sense to me unless `barbed wire' is a metaphor for something else. It seems to me that the Cypherpunks would want to advocated `barbed wire' in the sense that it protects their privacy rights! But the metaphor appears to go deeper than that. I think `barbed wire' may actually be a metaphor for *identity* and `fences' are the aspects of social institutions (such as laws and customs) that protect identities, such as proper attribution, crediting, etc. The cypherpunks, of course, are more interested in *blurring* those distinctions with things like misquoting, pseudopools, pseudospoofing, impersonation, etc. than in Privacy itself. (`you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences.'). The metaphor makes sense in this interpretation! The two documents are full of these kinds of subtle, invisible metaphors. In fact, a very large amount of postings and email by the `cypherpunk culture' are! Boy, I was quite deluded to think that the `cypherpunks are what they stand for' so to speak. I would appreciate if anyone knowledgeable could clarify their meaning (especially the authors! but that is a lot to hope for right now!) The lack of a basic document describing the Cypherpunk agenda by top leadership in pseudospoofing is definitely constraining and a serious obstacle to describing the Movement (given that it forms the invisible core of it) but, as everyone can attest, that hasn't deterred me so far. (BTW, I have to properly credit S.Boxx as helping me come to the `barbed wire == identity restrictions' idea. Thanks!) True Name Detection --- One thing I don't understand, either. J.Dinkelacker once talked about the list in long, introspective terms about being a Game with different Opponents and Teams and Names. (I can dig this up if anyone wants to see it.) I never fully understood that message -- it is deep with many metaphors and even allusions to Extropians. The thing that is puzzling about it was that at the time, J. Dinkelacker was a list newcomer, and newcomers generally don't comment on the long history of the list like this! The thing that was most fascinating about the post, however, was the apparent allusion of the distinction in `True Name' vs. pseudospoofed posts here -- he compared True Name posts to the pseudoanonymous ones, and said they were all pretty much the same, and that True Name posts had been easily as hot as the worst Pseudospoofed ones. But my question -- how could he tell the difference? N.Szabo has also made references to support being measured by `how many True Name' posts take one's side. N.Szabo also recently suggested that he is a tentacle, that he was retiring as one, and that the CA cypherpunks were quite amused by the `detweilering' (is that the right term?) exorcisms. This is interesting because it also confirms the `CA Pseudospoofing Clique-Conspiracy' scenario. `Mr. Szabo', are you really a tentacle? (Unfortunately, as pseudoanonymous posting goes, I've never gotten an honest answer to this question to date!) I'm flabbergasted if this is true, because you have built up such a tremendous net.reputation in many quarters. Would you be willing to tell me what you True Name is? Because you allude to my private mail and telephone calls to some cypherpunks (who you say have `compromised their privacy' in giving me their phone numbers, I'm not sure why) I think you must be in the thick of things! Your knowledge would be extremely valuable at this point. If someone else was posting under J.Dinkelacker or N.Szabo, I'd really like to talk to you. How do you know which posts are real, and which ones are fake? Is there a group of you people out there, who can tell, and have fun with this exclusive information? Obviously, being able to separate the Snakes from the Medusa Sisters is critical to understanding most of the traffic here! People who didn't see the distinction might become quite frustrated after awhile, especially from mail in their private mailboxes! I guess that those with tentacles would be upset if they are complimented, too -- they would want to reserve the powerful reputation-influencing right to compliment or criticize others for themselves. (That reminds me of all the flames I got over my facetious L.D. Cypherpunk Awards.) This cypherpunk culture sure is baffling sometimes. NYT and Wired articles only scratch the surface. (I suspect that letter to Wired on the subject was pseudospoofed, maybe eminent cypherpunk S. Sandfort, who has written for the magazine repeatedly, can clarify.) There are definitely many layers. Who knows what lies concealed at the center! Future anthropologists are going to have quite a difficulty in characterizing it! What we have here is an elaborate hoax far surpassing War of the Worlds -- except that when the `show was over' Orson Wells quit and apologized over the public uproar! an introspective note --- BTW, perhaps a hundred cypherpunks or tentacles have criticized my `florid' style over the months (great term, T.M.!). I have to credit A.Abraham as being one of the first great Cypherpunk Flamers to my mailbox on the topic. I tried over the past week to change my style a little, with short snippets with less organization and information, less indexing, no headings, less original material, no `congratulations' or intense analyses (obviously, everyone knows what everything means anyway, and these are far better left to the tentacles, so they can improve their reputations) more long quoting (like the `pseudopool' joke, hilariously funny), less attention to actual current dialogue, great hostile, ad hominem flames in the spirit of PM's best, terse statements with the utmost brevity and none of that nagging elaboration in deference to EH's `concision', none of those tedious informative forwarded materials that you've already seen, no independent reporter-style inquiries of prominent people like J. Bidzos, etc. This is all to accomodate the cypherpunks who have sent me hundreds of telegrams complaining about my more well-written pieces. I apologize for all of you in taking your valuable time in your mandatory readings of my dense prose. I'm sure the Cypherpunks list is a far better place, with many new people being converted and projects being accomplished, without my endless, blathering drivel, such as long, meandering paragraphs that seem to contain a lot of important information and complex, prolix vocabulary, but are really nothing but a `borg paranoid rants' according to the eminent cypherpunk newbie J. Dinkelacker, a `tale of sound and fury, told by an idiot, signifying nothing', like the brilliant pseudonymous dramatist Shakespeare once wrote, who could have been Francis Bacon, but because of someone's ingenious facade, no one really knows or gives a damn, and ingenious and eloquent cypherpunks like E.Hughes, T.C.May, A.Abramson, G.Broiles, H.Finney, N.Szabo, and P.Metzger, and all those other wacky and conspirational pseudospoofing CA cypherpunks, interested in saving Humanity from the Draconian Orwellian Totalitarian Oppressive Evil Corrupt and downright Unpleasant Gubberments to replace them with CryptoAnarchy and Digital Terrorism, Espionage, Sabotage, and Warfare (all's fair in love and war!), even to the extent of brainwashing honest people and demonizing and stalking opponents like S.Boxx and G.Spafford into quivering insanity and poisoning cyberspace and corrupting DNS databases and SMTP software and keyservers with toxic waste and establishing imaginary interstate telephone numbers and accounts and fake media accounts by insiders that all unequivocally prove their unique existence and dominance over `lesser intelligences' by raping and their white virgin minds and urinating on their Beliefs (the raw power of which is Liberating), or, that is, particularly in these cases, use this brilliant Shakespearean metaphor to no end in their clever disinformation campaign surpassing that of War of the Worlds and NeverEnding, under the leadership of the most evil megalomaniac since Hitler with hideously majestic plans for World Domination far surpassing His Royal Eminence, as documented in RISKS 15.25 and 15.27 and 15.x (?) by the insane man but brilliant satirical exorcist on his holy jihad, which has spread to very many lists such as the `Internet Mercantile Protocols' list and CERT's only being the mere tip of the tentacles, so to speak! I remain yours -- the humble historian-servant of the Cypherpunks.

1 0

FCC policy
by George A. Gleason 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Re Strick's item on "used to be legal to listen to anything that passed through your airspace as long as you didn't (divulge or sell)..." Yes this used to be the case. I'm not sure if ECPA is what changed it, but.... there is some hope of getting it changed back again... Bill Clinton just signed a piece of legislation which restored a pre-1990 standard with regard to religious freedom, overturning a more authoritarian standard prmulgated by the Supreme Court in the last couple of years. The critical case involved Native American use of peyote, a sacramental cactus which is also a controlled substance. Anyway, if Clinton is backing efforts to return to older and more libertarian standards in one area, it's worth a try he'd go for it in another area as well. He made a decent statement about how religious freedom is vital to the 1st Amendment, is foundational in our country, and so on; one could make the same case around a freedom to *hear* which is the necessary corrolary to the freedom to speak. -gg

2 1

Re: Quotable Quotes
by smb＠research.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>who was the cypherpunk who said, ``Cypherpunks, It's such a feeling o f >raw power over lesser intelligences''? I can't remember. I have seen only one person on this list use TeX style quotes, such as ``Cypherpunks ... '' instead of "Cypherpunks ..." and that person is ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu. Writing style may not be conclusive proof, but it adds to the preponderence of circumstantial evidence. For whatever it's worth, I use ``this'' quoting style as well. When you do enough writing in troff and LaTeX (they both use it), you train your fingers accordingly. --Steve Bellovin

2 1

Re: Privacy != right?
by cfrye＠ciis.mitre.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

One element of the "right of privacy" debate I've seen is the distinction between a "right _of_ privacy" and a "right _to_ privacy". Linguistically, "right _of_ privacy" == "privacy right", indicating that this particular right would be enumerated somewhere. In the case of a "right _to_ privacy", the concept is a bit more vague and allows the penumbral (implied) construction given by Stanton. Since there is no specific mention of a "right _of_ privacy" in the Consititution, one must fall back on the implied construction and interpret Constitutional privacy as defined by other amendments. What this construction of the "right _to_ privacy" allows is for appellate courts to weight enumerated rights as more important than implied rights. Thus, in the name of furthering the goals of another amendment (say #6, speedy/public trial), the courts can limit the implied "right _to_ privacy". Best regards, Curtis D. Frye cfrye(a)ciis.mitre.org "If you think I speak for MITRE, I'll tell you how much they pay me and make you feel foolish."

1 0

The Republic of Desire (anonymous organizations)
by allan＠elvis.tamu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Let's start a new topic, and mr. deitwieler is not invited. Has anyone considered how an organization like The Republic of Desire from Gibson's _Virtual Light_ novel could be created/formed? It seems to me that it would be an excellent example and development motive for the crypto-anarchy tools: the DC-net protocol, Zero Knowledge Proofs used for anonymous credentials, reputation-nets/webs-of-trust, etc. etc. My only problem with this is knowing how to organize the "guerilla cell structures" or whatever it was he mentioned. Anyone have a ref for something that discusses guerilla cell organizations? -- Allan Bailey, allan(a)elvis.tamu.edu | "Freedom is not free." Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations | allan.bailey(a)tamu.edu GCS -d+ p--- c++++ l+++ u++ e++ m++ s n+ h+ f g+ w+ t+ r y+ "Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." -- George Bernard Shaw "Armadillos....those are the meanest suckers you're ever gonna wanna see... But you gotta kill 'em the first time, otherwise they get this revenge thing in their heads and they come lookin' for ya......." -- (i got this from the 'zine Armadillo Culture)

1 0

Re: The Republic of Desire (anonymous organizations)
by cfrye＠ciis.mitre.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> My only problem with this is knowing how to organize the >"guerilla cell structures" or whatever it was he mentioned. Anyone have >a ref for something that discusses guerilla cell organizations? The classic Russian model (late 1800's through the October Revolution) was to have three-person cells, each of which had one person who knew one person above them in the hierarchy and someone who knew one person below them. This makes for good security as there is no redundant information in the network and one failure breaks the chain. I don't have any specific citations in mind, but the Russian history instructors at A&M might be a good place to start. Best regards, Curtis D. Frye cfrye(a)ciis.mitre.org "If you think I speak for MITRE, I'll tell you how much they pay me and make you feel foolish."

4 5

Re: Privacy != right?
by cfrye＠ciis.mitre.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Oops, forgot to finish the last sentence of my privacy post. The last paragraph should read: Since there is no specific mention of a "right _of_ privacy" in the Consititution, one must fall back on the implied construction and interpret Constitutional privacy as defined by other amendments. What this construction of the "right _to_ privacy" allows is for appellate courts to weight enumerated rights as more important than implied rights. Thus, in the name of furthering the goals of another amendment (say #6, speedy/public trial), the courts can limit the implied "right _to_ privacy" with fewer problems than if two "textual" amendments had come into conflict. Best regards, Curtis D. Frye cfrye(a)ciis.mitre.org "If you think I speak for MITRE, I'll tell you how much they pay me and make you feel foolish."

1 0

Forwarded mail from S.Boxx
by Eric Hughes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This one was just too good to resist. Eric ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Delivery-Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1993 01:04:50 -0800 Return-Path: daemon(a)anon.penet.fi To: tcmay(a)netcom.com, hughes(a)soda.berkeley.edu From: an12070(a)anon.penet.fi (S.Boxx) X-Anonymously-To: tcmay@netcom.com,hughes@soda.berkeley.edu Organization: Anonymous contact service Reply-To: an12070(a)anon.penet.fi Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1993 09:03:32 UTC Subject: an epiphany I've finally figured out your intense loyalty, sensitivity, and secrecy. You're homosexual lovers. Quite a complex and secretive culture, these cypherpunks. I really do wonder what magic the Wizards have truly practiced. Look, if you don't want to tell me, just say so. But could you tell me when you are going to `come out of the closet'? I mean, everyone is going to find out some day, right? Could you at least tell me when the Big Day is? I'm really dying of anticipation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Regarding the issue of telnet'ing through an insecure system: A general solution to this problem is to have the system you are attaching to engage in some dialog with you to establish your identity. However, the dialog must be such that even if it is monitored by the system you are going through, that will not allow them to later claim to be you. This is the same basic problem as entering a PIN for a credit or debit card in an environment where the PIN can be seen or recorded. If someone sees your PIN they can steal your ATM card (or dcash card, in the future) and access your money. Cryptographic solutions involve zero-knowledge proof systems but they are too complicated to work in your head. For the hohocon case you could have a calculator programmed with some one-way function (DES is available for the HP48); the remote system could generate a challenge number and you would use your calculator to DES-encrypt it with a fixed secret key, then type the result in, and the remote system would check it. This would not help the hohocon people because next time they tried to log in as you the challenge number would be different. There was a paper in the Eurocrypt 91 proceedings called "Human Identification Through Insecure Channel" which attempted to address this problem. The authors proposed a system which was supposed to be simple enough that you could work the response in your head, but which would be complex enough that eavesdroppers would not be able to figure it out, even after seeing many examples. The idea was that the remote system would issue a challenge as a string of letters or digits: 1982043765. You will give a response of the same length, but only certain positions matter. Those positions are identified by one of two secret words that you memorize. Suppose the first secret is 1246. You will produce a response which embeds the 2nd secret word in the positions where 1,2,4, and 6 appear. Suppose the 2nd secret word is 3124. Your response, written below the challenge, would be: 1982043765 3421223142 - - - - Only the marked positions matter; the others are random. This sounds simple enough, but the problem is that for true security the authors require a much longer string with a much larger set of characters, 40 or 50 characters long. I tried implementing their algorithm, without even memorizing the secrets, just writing them down (they had to be about 10 letters long), and entering in a reponse given a challenge, and I couldn't do it. It was extremely difficult to locate the checked positions and put in the next letter. It took forever to do it, and I kept making mistakes. Maybe with practice it would get easier. Or, perhaps the technique would still be useful with a smaller question size to provide less security but still more than you would get without it. It would be interesting to see if other people come up with approaches to solve this problem. I really don't think that protecting my smart card with a 6-digit PIN is going to be adequate. Hal Finney hfinney(a)shell.portal.com

6 5