December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

AT&T Encryption Product
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NCR - An AT&T Company ____________________________________INTRA CORPORATION From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart(a)pleasantonca.ncr.com> Location: Pleasanton District To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Location: The Real World,or at least Cyberspace Subject: AT&T Encryption Product Well, it was interesting to see Philippe Nave's posting about an AT&T encryption software product (using the government's digital signature and secure hash standards instead of RSA and MD-5, so it won't be PGP- or PEM-compatible). Prices seemed a bit high, though not bad for AT&T, who are cutting some new market turf as well as typically pricey, and the encrypted Zmodem software may be useful. Does anybody know if there are any other SHA / government-signature products out? (I'm assuming there won't be much freeware because of the patent issue; people who don't mind violating RSA's patent generally use PGP.) Bill

2 1

Newsgroups, Sternlight-bashing and screaming children
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NCR - An AT&T Company ____________________________________INTRA CORPORATION From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart(a)pleasantonca.ncr.com> Location: Pleasanton District To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Location: cyberspace Subject: Newsgroups, Sternlight-bashing and screaming children I consider the Sternlight-bashing suggestions to be unreasonable; Sternlight may rave from a warped, pro-government viewpoint, but he is capable of carrying on civilized conversations, even when he's (continually) grinding the same axe. The coffee-house analogy is a very good one, and there *is* occasionally a screaming-children problem on usenet; I assumed the original poster was referring more to the perpetual-newbie types rather than to the newly arrived, chronologically-deficient college students, most of whom are either quiet, productive, or both (though a college student and the author apparently felt otherwise :-) I still prefer having this as a mailing list, in spite of the volume; I can read sci.crypt when I want to, though I'll probably have to get a netcom account rather than keep telnetting into my old system now that I've moved. Thanks; Bill

1 0

rant pointer
by Eli Brandt 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

L. Detweiler has a rather hefty essay in the latest Risks on the subject of `pseudospoofing', social parasites, "a criminal group called the CryptoAnarchists" (with members such as "Eric May" and "T.C. Hughes"), and such matters. I will not forward it to the list, unh unh, no way. PGP 2 key by finger or e-mail Eli ebrandt(a)jarthur.claremont.edu

3 3

P. Metzger
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Assuming you are not P. Metzger, please help him to understand how to implement a kill file rather than assaulting me with mailbombs. ===cut=here=== [insert minimailbomb here]

1 0

The Depravities of Cypherpunks
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I did not understand Mr. Metzger at first. When he sent me messages in the form `go away and leave us alone' I thought he was suggesting I be censored from the cypherpunks mailing list. Apparently he is only objecting to personal email from me. Well, after receiving 40 messages with the concatenated contents of other messages from him and myself over the matter, in response to the following two, I certainly will not do so. Mr. Metzger did say it was OK for me to post to the Cypherpunks list, for which I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude in his allowing me his permission. He threatened to send me 400 letters the next time I sent him personal mail however, and of course he is certainly capable of it. I mailed postmaster(a)lehman.com, asking him to encourage Mr. Metzger to learn how to use a kill file instead of sending me mailbombs in response to his obvious intense mental anguish at seeing my name <g>, but unfortunately Mr. Metzger is the postmaster at his site. Mr. Hughes is quite perplexed at my sheer rage at Mr. Metzger's unsurpassed childishness. He didn't approve of me attempting to shame Mr. Metzger (a close personal friend, I suppose) into refraining from sending me mailbombs and dealing with his own insanity in a more proactive manner -- like figuring out how to implement a kill file in his mail -- by informing the cypherpunk world of his puerile prank. I told Mr. Hughes that it was likely that Mr. Metzger was his own site administrator (I was not positive at this point, alas). Mr. Hughes has not responded to that letter. Mr. Hughes is also quite puzzled why I should violate Mr. Metzger's privacy in revealing his `private' mailbomb to other members of the community he (supposedly) resides in. I guess he believes that mailbombs, like everything else, are a private matter. My apologies, Mr. Hughes, for what you consider an inappropriate use of your mailing list. My personal opinion is that I had essentially no other recourse, and even the `recourse' I chose was obviously ineffective! I asked Mr. Hughes to condemn Mr. Metzger's behavior. So far his only comment is that it was `rude'. Maybe he will have another opinion upon learning of Mr. Metzgers 40 letter bomb just received, or his 400 letter threat. Or maybe he thinks that Mr. Metzger is just another patriotic cypherpunk, perhaps even deserving of a medal! Also, I have mail from Mr. Jason Zions (jazz(a)hal.com) also complaining that I violated Mr. Metzger's privacy in revealing his mailbomb to me to the list as a whole. This strange code of cypherpunk chivalry I am not familar with. I am quite bewildered! Perhaps someone can point me to an FTP site housing the Cypherpunk Code of Chivalry. I looked on soda.berkeley.com and found the Cypherpunk Charter (By E.Hughes) talking a lot about things like privacy and software, but it didn't really seem to address the issue of mailbombing. Maybe the basic idea is just privacy *everywhere*, even with cyberspacial assault and societal criminals. I guess I did miss the point. If all the other cypherpunks condone or applaud Mr. Metzger's behavior, please let me know. I'm not really sure what the consensus is on this. (Of course, here, no one can really be sure of the consensus on *anything*! <g>) I certainly haven't heard from anyone I respect yet, assuming these people are still on the list. BTW -- I do get the impression that the list membership is down. Perhaps Mr. Hughes can reveal that directly. Some people have been blaming me for the `deterioration of the list' lately. Another person told me that the list had `quite improved since I stopped posting'. I'm not sure what to make of all this -- unless both were tentacles, I suppose that might explain it all. Frankly, I have been posting very little lately compared to my Golden Cypherpunk Days. (ah, the carefree and naive life of youth.) Also, Mr. Hughes has always advocated software solutions like kill files, and if anyone objects to my presence, please put me in yours. It is silly to continually be offended by me! The people who are interested in listening will not plonk me, and those that are inflamed by my postings *will* -- what could be simpler? That certainly couldn't be a problem for anyone, could it? I mean, if what I am saying has no merit, people will immediately recognize that, right? To paraphrase somebody else, `There is only a message'. * * * P.M., after the 40 letter mailbomb >If you insist on 400 detweiler, I'll send them to you. Last warning. Mr. Metzger, I assure you an apocalypse in cyberspace will happen before I will ever send a message to the address pmetzger(a)lehman.com. In fact, perhaps you could tell me all your other addresses, so I do not inadvertently send mail to them. For example, I had a glimmer of hope that postmaster(a)lehman.com was not you, and paid dearly for it with your 40 letter mailbomb. Mr. Metzger, Do you pseudospoof? This could be a problem. What if I inadvertently send something to one of your tentacles? Does that count? Will you mailbomb me in that case, or just forgive me for my stark ignorance? I have to ask a favor, if you don't--perhaps you could give me a list of all the addresses you post from. I mean, that would compromise the pseudoanonymous security of your identities, but on the other hand I have absolutely no desire to be subject to another explosion in my mailbox when I open my mail! I guess in this case, you might have to decide which is worth more, your hatred for me and insane desire that you not see any communication from me in any form, or your passionate goal of further undetected, secret pseudospoofing. You have to forgive me for my instinct of replying to the letters in my mailbox. It has served me well until now. I assure you I will now make an exception in your case! For example, my response to your last letterbomb threat might have been `please don't do it!' but I now realize that would have gotten me `nowhere' (or wherever it is that bomb victims go) thanks to the previous two mailbombs! Thanks for the valuable education in cyberspacial netiquette! (All my habits and perceptions in cyberspace have been radically altered lately in response to changing circumstances, and your mailbombing is just the latest incarnation, so I certainly shouldn't be complaining!) HOWEVER -- I will continue to post to the cypherpunks list, since you, Mr. Metzger, have so kindly given me permission and I am still not being censored yet. Please, please, please Mr. Metzger, do not interpret this as sending you private mail! I certainly have NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER to be subject to your 400 LETTER MAILBOMB. Perhaps some other cypherpunks, who have no objections to your behavior so far, and criticize me for taking a stand by condemning it publicly, would like to VOLUNTEER IN MY PLACE. So, here is what bought me the 40 letter mailbomb: ===cut=here===

1 0

L. Detweiler's latest rant on comp.risks
by hughes＠ah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I would suggest that everyone with any interest at all in the latest L. Detweiler rant, which appears on comp.risks, to send a short message to RISKS attesting to the separate existence of the following individuals, as listed by LD at the end: >I thank the following eminent Cypherpunks for ideas in this article, >although it should not be construed to be representative of their >opinions, and neither can I provide any guarantee they represent >unique people: >G.Broiles, A.Chandler, J.Dinkelacker, H.Finney, E.Hughes, M.Landry, >T.C.May, N.Szabo In particular, I'd like to see short messages from each of the above people to RISKS attesting to their own individuality. Also, if LD has accused you in public or private of not existing, please send a message stating this. The address is risks(a)csl.sri.com Keep your comments short and polite, and mention "L. Detweiler" in each of them. We need everyone who has been involved to send a message. Please speak out. Thanks. Eric

1 0

Waving the White Flag
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Gosh, it has been very unpleasant lately. I have never been subject to mailbombs, and my postmaster has never been harassed over my postings anywhere (by an Eminent Cypherpunk Leader, no less), before yesterday and today. Yes, I really thank all the cypherpunks for their valuable lessons on the internet and cyberspace. Now we really *can* believe that pseudospoofing inherently promotes a sense of community trust and harmony! All this time, and all the rancor on the list, all our stellar successes in media penetration and identity-subversion protocols can be chalked up to the Joy of Pseudospoofing. I really am grateful for you all in showing me your vision of cyberspace, and how it is superior to all those Orwellian and `Dossier Society' schemes that involve those oppressive identification protocols. shew. Anyway, this letter is an attempt to find a topic that someone will not flame me about, and is relevant to the cypherpunk list as I understand it! Phiber Optik -- I have been watching the trial of Mark Abene, aka Phiber Optik, closely, and I think I even fowarded articles on it to the cypherpunks once. This is a very fascinating trial. We learn, for example, of the first use of wiretaps for digital data (modem communications) for a successful prosecution. Also, we learned about how LOD (Legion of Doom) -- or was it MOD, Masters of Deception, I get all these criminal organizations mixed up! -- infiltrated phone systems. I think I even heard in one news report that some in the group performed illicit wiretaps. I find this *fascinating*. Can anyone elaborate to me the wiretapping that was going on? who did they wiretap? how did they do it? how did they avoid detection? more importantly, have the phone systems been upgraded or modified to be protected from this kind of extremely insidious crime? I read in `Cyberpunk' by K.Hafner and J.Markoff (the latter my favorite cyberspatial writer) that K. Mitnick in California also had this capability of wiretapping, and used it in an extremely sophisticated way. Apparently he actually tapped the lines of police stations and knew when they were coming, or knew when they had detected or `sniffed' his own illegal wiretapping. Did this happen? or is all of this rumor? I remember Phiber Optik posting to *this list* on the subject of phone wiretapping. I think he might have been a bit too knowledgeable for his own good, eh? What ever happened to K. Mitnick, anyway? He did serve federal time, I know that. I remember reading that story and thinking -- here is someone we should keep our eyes on, even after he is out of prison, *especially* when he is out! Conspiracy Charges -- Another question. I understand that Mr. Abene was charged with `conspiracy' or at least that was one of the charges involved in the whole affair, perhaps against others. My question: what is the legal criterion for a `conspiracy'? what are the penalties? did Abene actually get successfully prosecuted for `conspiring'? what was the conspiracy? Did it have anything to do with the wiretapping?what are famous conspiracy cases? I'm sure that some cypherpunks may be knowledgeable on these subjects. I sincerely hope I haven't offended anyone in asking. Mr. Finney posted some outstanding analyses of the ITAR (which I subsequently incorporated into a RISKS article), for example, so there is definitely some strong legal background here. please cc: your replies to me or I may not see them.

1 0

Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?
by doug＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)eff.org> said: >Perry writes: >> Seems to me that bandwidth is >> going to be nearly free in both directions in a few years whether >> government intervenes or not. > >I agree about the potential for it to be free, but, I gotta tell you, the >monopolists running the cable systems in this country have no inclination >to share that nearly free bandwidth with you, even if you're willing to >pay for access to it. I hate to disagree, considering that I prefer to agree with the philosophy here, but it *can't* work that way, regardless of what we wish. The problem is that bandwidth is a highly limited resource, just like real estate is a limited resource. Eventually we will complete saturate network bandwidth no matter what technology is used. This has been discussed in various forums for many years. Once optical fiber optic bandwidth peaks, you have to move to ultraviolet for greater channel capacity. Then that is exhausted, and we will continue pushing...gamma ray bandwidth fiber optic (or line of sight transmission) will eventually be a target, despite its extreme difficulties even in theory. At the same time we will be laying fiber and raising dishes to beat the band. But no matter how well all that goes, we will *very* quickly reach a saturation point of facilities as each new technology is introduced. These days it's easy to be optimistic, because bandwidth is growing geometrically. The problem is that there is no way in hell that that trend can continue indefinitely. One or two decades hence we will saturate theoretical limits. Bandwidth is and will always remain a scarce and precious resource. On the other hand, if you mean "slow channels by comparison with state of the art channels," then yeah, *that* may as well be free at any given point. Right this instant one could make an argument for 110 baud channels being free. >In order to get to a world in which free markets can meet our demand for >high-bandwidth connectivity, we have to dig ourselves out from the >market-failure position we're in now. And because government is part of >the problem, changing government policy is part of the solution. So, >that's one of the major thrusts of EFF's NII policy. I agree, but this seems to be a subject change. Doug

4 4

A short response to L. Detweiler: 'I exist as myself.'
by hughes＠ah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

L. Detweiler's recent article on the RISKS of confusing an online identity with a potentially knowable physical one are quite interesting, if hypothetical. 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. 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. It just ain't so. Therefore, to set the record straight I feel I ought to make the following public statement: I, Eric Hughes, have never posted or communicated in any name other than my own. 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. I also decline to answer, point by point, the numerous defamatory innuendos made by L. Detweiler against the members of the cypherpunks mailing list. Might I also observe that none of the statements are specific enough to actually count as accusation, but merely as general slander? Eric

1 0

On my recent Bcc: to cypherpunks
by hughes＠ah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just forwarded my own contribution to the RISKS digest. Please, do not reply to the risks(a)csl.sri.com address unless you are submitting something for publication! I realized too lat what a blind carbon copy would do to repliers on the mailing list. Aack. Eric

1 0