December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Unicorn vs....
by tim werner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: lefty(a)apple.com (Lefty) >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >>In the discussions of what is or is not an "anarchist", aside from the >>obvious "Anarchist Cookbook" (couldn't resist), is there an official >>Anarchist codicil? What makes one an official anarchist? > > [stuff deleted] > >In a month or so, the Board of Elections sends you back a card showing you >to be a registered Anarchist. Of course, you don't get to vote in the >primaries... We get to vote on other issues besides candidates in primary elections in Ohio. This is their chance to get taxes passed that failed during the last general election. I used to skip the primaries, until I realized this. I used to think they were voting on whether to place the tax on the ballot in November, or something. tw

1 0

Re: Unicorn suit
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[This note was written in response to a note from Black Unicorn to me. He suggested at the end that I could copy the Cypherpunks list on it, so I have done so. However, I've deleted some of his points, and since he did not post his note to the list, some context may be unclear. That's life.] I'm responding, but only to a few points. Thanks for your comments. I won't repeat my points, so no comment just means that. > I thought I would reply in person, and off the list because your's is an > opinion which in my mind carries with it a great deal of forethough and > is deserving of much respect. Feel free to post your response (what I'm replying to here) to the list as a whole. Yes, it's long. But it's of more relevance to our world than most of the stuff that gets posted, especially the endless forwardings of Chaum's announcement, for example. > I feel we are in many ways alike in the way we approach problems (I hope > you will take this as a compliment :) ) and in some ways we are akin in > politics. Maybe yes, maybe no. I have no hesitation in advocating the collapse of central governments, as you know. Central governments of both the left and the right have killed hundreds of millions of people, so the "dangers" of anarchy look comparatively mild to me. > I doubt even tmp is "entirely" anonymous. Anyone with a reputation is to > some degree non-anonymous. Of course we all know who he is, for many reasons. > I post anonymously to keep my real name out of common circulation. This > is particularly true of the "scholarly" postings I make. I do not want > these attributed to me in the circles in which I travel. At the same > time, I take a casual approach to my identity. There are those on the > list who know me in person, and I don't feel threatened by this. It is > merely a buffer for an entirely seperate set of endeavors (business v. > academic pleasure if you like). I have never made extreme efforts to > remain entirely unassociated with my real name to friends. Such is not > the case to business associates. If enough people know that Black Unicorn = Fritz Foobar, then the linkage can be made and the "damage" done. As others have said, you apparently have some uptight customers. That's not my problem, or anyone else's who makes the normal kind of comments on the Net. (Tmp goes beyond normal, but if your lawsuit was centered around the "damages" aspect, then potentially nearly any of our opinions could be "damaging" because of your overly sensitive European customers. That's not right.) > In my case an old law school classmate of mine asked for my help on the > net. (Usenet in particular, along with PGP). Clearly this fell under > the "personal relationship" which my anonymous posting was never intended > to protect against. > > After watching the posting war between myself and tmp, said friend faxed > copies (unwittingly with newsprint looking text) with attributation to > make the reference clear to a mutual associate who unfortunately tended more > to the "business" side of relationships. I'd say you have some sleazy friends, then. For them to fax off copies of what they think of as rants is bad enough, but for one of your contacts to then "alert" the others is mind-boggling. > > Black Unicorn has certainly made postings that I think are strongly in > > line with the ideas I call "crypto anarchist." Does my saying this > > constitute some kind of libel on Black Unicorn, should this posting > > somehow make it back to the Black Forest or someplace like that? > > No. You are speaking a truth. My ideas do fall in line with your > definition of cryptoanarchy. They do not however make me a radical > anarchist bent on the destruction of nations as tmp alleged. Tmp was just using a label. I'll admit the semi-forgery was not kosher, though these semi-forgeries are transparent to anyone who looks at the headers. But calling you an anarchist bent on the destruction of nations is acceptable characterization in a political debate. If I say Bill Clinton wants to destroy the health care system, this is normal political rhetoric. If Detweiler calls me a Satanist, so what? ("What if your customers were Moral Majority Christians?" you might ask. Then I'd say that all one has to do is tell one's customers the truth. Under no circumstances can the 'damage" caused by tmp's kind of free spech be considered assault. I'm a free speech absolutist. That the comments tmp made came in a heated forum for such political debate makes it all the more wrong for a lawsuit.) > I've been on the list for some time now, lurking then posting when I had > a feel for who read it, and where it went. I never felt threatened by my > presence on the list, and never did it occur to me that anyone on the > list could or would "out" me to my business associates. Even if they do, so what? Not to sound angry here, but suppose I speculated that Black Unicorn = Fritz Foobar? Would the "damage" that ensued be my fault? I just don't get it. That the Cypherpunks list is not public--except when it gets gatewayed to Usenet, as has happened a few times--is little protection. If I cite your views--but don't quote them verbatim--in a forum where your Swiss customers see them somehwo, have *I* committed a crime or tort? Not in my view, though the law may think so. (I still say it's free speech, even if "damaging." Many things are damaging...negative book reviews, unflattering opinions, etc. Sadly, the American legal sytem is moving toward allowing these "damages" to be the basis for suits.) > rumor mill this is not the case. I would not be HAPPY if my business > associates saw my posts on cypherpunks, but I would be (and was) much more > upset if they saw only the accusatory rants of tmp. The proper and normal response to accusatory rants is to answer them. Are you calling for limits on "accusatory rants"? The Founding Fathers would not be amused. > The real difficulty in these affairs is that not to file a suit is often > more damning than anything. I think your reputation would have no lasting damage done to it by ordinary speech. Even so, Detweiler's rants are clearly broad-brushed insults, which courts should not regulate. Your uptight Swiss clients should be taught not be believe everything they read. > > A settlement is vindication enough in my case. > Except that Detweiler's "apology" was obvious satire, almost identical to the "apology" he posted to the Cypherpunks last December. He is likely now planning a much more massive assault on you and his other perceived enemies....a campaign of fabricating quotes, arguing with himself via different pseudonyms, etc. And now that he knows your uptight Swiss customers are so sensitive, he will probably try to find ways to let them know about your "anarchist" leanings. If he's as smart as I think he is, he'll use the network of remailers. He'll also try to fabricate quotes that make you seem like a truly vicious money launderer, perhaps with insinuations that your furniture business is a cover for drug trafficking. (If I were Detweiler, licking my wounds, plotting revenge, that's what I'd do.) If this happens, as I predict it will, your recourse will be to either try to force the remailer operators to produce the logs (so you'll have somebody to sue), to sue the remailer operators per se (which will become a test of common carriage, unless they back down), or--best of all--to tell your Swiss customers that bizarre rants are the outcome of a society which tolerates free speeech and that they should ignore all posts allegedly written by you unless the posts are coming from your site, or, better, have been digitally signed by you. As Nat Henthoff says, "sunlight is the best disinfectant." > > I know often you do not respond to mail.... I hope you will drop me a > note on this one however. > > Also feel free to post this mail to the list if you like. The only reason I > didn't cc: it was to the extent that my reply sounded like a personal > discussion. OK, I just saw your last paragraph as I was wrapping this up. I'll add the Cypherpunks list to the distribution. It may be long, but these issues are at least as important as much of what gets posted. --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: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

4 6

Re: Unicorn vs....
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>In a month or so, the Board of Elections sends you back a card showing you >>to be a registered Anarchist. Of course, you don't get to vote in the >>primaries... > >We get to vote on other issues besides candidates in primary elections in >Ohio. This is their chance to get taxes passed that failed during the last >general election. As do we. I can vote on those; it's just that anarchists don't run primary candidates. Or regular election candidates, for that matter. >I used to skip the primaries, until I realized this. I used to think they >were voting on whether to place the tax on the ballot in November, or >something. You can't tell the players if you don't read the program. In case anyone's been wondering, I vote a straight "None of the Above" ticket. Every election. I happen to believe that if you don't punch holes in your cards (we don't have those big, fun voting booths here in California like they do back East), you have no right to complain. -- Lefty [gYon-Pa] (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

Ecash w/ offshore bank clearing house
by Gary Jeffers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ECASH WITH OFFSHORE BANK CLEARING HOUSE Well Chaum's ecash doesn't seem to be quite the Holy Grail that it looked like. It needs a clearing house to be effective. Would an off- shore bank acting as a clearing house for Chaum's ecash be practical? Could that be a State Killer? Yours Truly, Gary Jeffers PUSH EM BACK! PUSH EM BACK! WWWAAAYYY BBBAAACCCKK! BBBEEEAAATTTT STATE!

3 2

Re: v2.6 for the rest of us
by Richard Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Snarf it from ghost.dsi.unimi.it, as cautiously as you like. > (Oh, actually, the ftp site has moved to goblin.something -- it will > tell you when you try to log in.) > Eli ebrandt(a)hmc.edu Try ftp://ftp.dsi.unimi.it/pub/security/crypt/PGP/ Richard

1 0

v2.6 for the rest of us
by Paul K. Strong 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jeff Barber wrote: >While creating a 2.6-like version from 2.3a seems a worthy goal, this >supporting argument is flawed. The original PGP was written in the USA >and, never having received the proper export approvals, must have been >"illegally exported." Isn't Phil Zimmerman being "investigated" by a >grand jury for this even now? So, it would seem to me that a bulletin >board carrying any version of PGP holds illegally exported software (wrt >US law). How does 2.3a differ from 2.6 in this respect? Ok, you got me there! My supporting argument is indeed flawed. However, I would say that most people _regard_ v2.3a as a legal version outside the USA and so are willing to carry it on their systems; and at this time I believe nothing concrete to the contrary has been proved. Versions 2.5 and 2.6 however are obviously illegal exports, and I think that it is the fact that people think of one as legal and the other as illegal that makes the difference, and therefore we who are outside the USA need our own version to be brought up to date. I have, at this time, been informed of two separate people working on a new version that is compatible with 2.6, based on 2.3a code. Maybe everyone working on (or who know of people working on) such developments could post information regarding what exactly they are changing/upgrading/doing to 2.3a to make an 'international' v2.6. What do others think of everyone 'putting their cards on the table' to enable other knowledgeable cypherpunks to help and suggest things? Am I jumping the gun? Should we just let MIT's v2.6 reach an FTP site somewhere outside of the USA and let it slowly (and cautiously) get distributed to a small community of cypherpunks leaving the rest incompatible? All of those inside the USA, *PLEASE* get involved with this. It _is_ important! Thankyou for listening. ***************************************************************************** * Paul Strong Fidonet: 2:254/438 (weekly mail check) * * * * pauls(a)dcs.rhbnc.ac.uk Finger for PGP v2.3a public key * *****************************************************************************

3 4

Email Stalking on CNN
by Jeff Davis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The idiot box behind me is making noise about Headline News' lead story for the evening, Email Stalking. The woman involved states she'll never use email again. Seems to me her arguments are moot, as cypherpunks has already developed the technology to solve this problem. Anyone volunteer to be a spokesperson for rebuttal? -- PGP PUBLIC KEY via finger! JAFEFFM Speaking & Thinking For Myself! * eagle(a)deeptht.armory.com email info(a)eff.org * *** O U T L A W S On The E L E C T R O N I C F R O N T I E R **** ***** Committed to Free Public Internet Access for World Peace *****

1 0

Re: (fwd) Re: NSA Helped Yeltsin Foil 1991 Coup
by baum＠newton.apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> If the story is >true, it means that the NSA can break some classes of conventional >cryptosystems very fast -- fast enough to be of use in this case, for >instance. Well, you are assuming that the coup plotters, who seem to be a fairly incompetent bunch of conspirators, were using high security communications, etc. Though, if they weren't, it still might point out intelligence gather abilities (as opposed to code breaking abilities). ************************************************** * Allen J. Baum tel. (408)974-3385 * * Apple Computer, MS/305-3B * * 1 Infinite Loop * * Cupertino, CA 95014 baum(a)apple.com * **************************************************

2 1

MacPGP
by catalyst-remailer＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

New MacPGP Unicorn asked about the new MacPGP. Unicorn should ask Tim May, who has had a copy for three days now. Or Eric Hollander who has had it 5 days. Or Eric Hughes who's had it two days. Who the fuck do I have to send this thing to to get it released and mentioned? I'm done. They've got it, well the source at least. The program, MacPGP2.3aV1.1 has been out for months.

1 0

Re: MacPGP
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-> Unicorn asked about the new MacPGP. Unicorn should ask Tim May, who has had a copy for three days now. Or Eric Hollander who has had it 5 days. Or Eric Hughes who's had it two days. Who the fuck do I have to send this thing to to get it released and mentioned? I'm done. They've got it, well the source at least. The program, MacPGP2.3aV1.1 has been out for months. <- I too have had a copy for quite some time, closely isolated in a closed partition. I just wanted to know that it was indeed now sourced.... -uni- (Dark)

1 0