December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Remailer stuff
by greg＠ideath.goldenbear.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Sorry if I'm being dense - will someone please E-mail me and tell me why outgoing-only (or incoming-address-unavailable) remailers are useful? Also, with respect to getting the addresses of working remailers from a newsgroup - it may not be a good idea to treat any address advertising itself as a remailer as a useful remailer. Remailer 'x' may well be run by a remailer-hater who publishes its traffic openly, archives it for sale to the highest bidder, is a front for the NSA, etc. I'm only inclined to trust remailers run by people I trust; or maybe those with keys signed by "C-punx Remailer Certifying Service". It's important to let the user have some degree of control over which remailers are used. (The newsgroup does seem like a nice way for remailers to indicate they're still active, though.) Are people really interested enough in more advanced measures to protect privacy that they're willing to pay for them? The digital-postage remailer stuff sounds interesting to me - but I have a hard time believing that people will pay (and go through extra hassle) to get the same functionality they already get with existing remailers. I've also considered setting up a privacy-friendly Internet site; I believe that Sameer Parekh has already done so. I don't remember seeing anyone but Sameer post from his site, however. I don't mention this to slam Sameer but to point out that perhaps people aren't interested enough in privacy to want to go to much extra trouble to get it. (Of course, everyone posting to the list now is already known as a list member - switching to a privacy site wouldn't add much.) I agree that it would be nice to have privacy-friendly Internet access available - I agree strongly enough that I'm willing to work towards providing it - but I'm reluctant to commit hundreds of dollars per month to set up a site that won't attract enough business to even be self-supporting. Would it be worth $5 or $10 per month to folks to have a mailbox they used via IMAP or POP, or $20 or so for a shell account on a box at the end of a 56K feed? (I don't see C-punks as a very big fraction of the customers of such a site, but I'm surprised that there doesn't seem to be more interest in practical privacy stuff.) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.5 iQCVAgUBLkChoH3YhjZY3fMNAQFVvQP/b2g8rgUaxWkdBR34DqMfR6T8bDZOhDmo gATzHduPlbFTWsz2BV6ME/XgHJAxJAT14kZx8vTEKy/y3PgR7tg4zz0pcj+shZWB BZlatH8EpZNffxO+yBF0B9Ur7HC7QrwixhVu7LjFmDwgKEnpRF/w54K8I0eXTfEh PpMXeFvVKkw= =T9pL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Chaum ecash
by Joseph Block 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry to clutter the list but: I had sent email about beta-testing Chaum's ecash scheme. I've since lost my copy of the original announcement (had a drive crash - joy!) and have never received a reply. Could some kind soul send me a copy of the announcement? thanks jpb(a)gate.net

1 0

Re: Voluntary Governments?
by snyderra＠dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:15 PM 8/4/94, Timothy C. May wrote: >"Opening the list up"? I've been on the list since the beginning, and >anarcho-capitalist, politico-cryptologic themes have _always_ been >with us. The role and nature of government in the presence of strong >cryptography is a recurring, and important, theme. I have no problem with politico-cryptologic themes or discussions on the role and nature of government in the presence of strong cryptography appearing in Cypherpunks. They certainly beat "PGP good, Sternlight/Detweiller bad" messages. I only question generic discussions of forms of government without any reference to cryptography or even privacy. I don't see that as any more appropriate for the group than abortion or health care debates, if it doesn't have a cryptological theme. There's no question you've been involved longer than I. I've only been on the mailing list for 3 or 4 months. In fact, I tend to make a concerted effort to read messages from you, because they tend to be concise and reasonable. I'm just not sure that political commentary without a reference to cryptography fits the purpose of the cypherpunks mailing list. If you disagree with me, fine, we'll disagree, and I'll mentally filter out another subject line. :-) It's not all that hard, which is why I originally responded via direct email rather than sending it to the list. Bob -- Bob Snyder N2KGO MIME, RIPEM mail accepted snyderra(a)dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu finger for RIPEM public key When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.

3 2

Re: Anonymous code name allocated. // penet hack
by L. Todd Masco 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Doug Cutrell writes: > >So, in between my check and yours, Todd posted the cypherpunks hack > >telnet 25 and the anonymous id disappeared. Hmmmmm. I wonder how > >that happened? :-) > > > >Thanks Todd! > > > > Rick > > I'd like to understand what Todd's "hack" means... I assume that he's > talking about telnetting to the sendmail port. But I thought that anyone > could unsubscribe anyone from cypherpunks by simply sending a message with: > > unsubscribe cypherpunks obnoxious(a)jerk.com > > It isn't even necessary to forge the return address, because majordomo > doesn't check. I just pulled majordomo's help file. It's appended below. In my experience, listservers will clear any commands that don't come from the person affected by passing them on for processing by the list maintainer as a security precaution. I had assumed majordomo did this, but I'm not certain. -- Todd

2 1

Re: Ethics of Anonymous Remailers (Re: Needed for a computer ethics class)
by jburrell＠crl.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >No, but it's something that I often get asked. I would be interested to hear >examples of good things that people are using my anonymous remailer for. Take Pr0duct Cypher, for example. Many believe that what (s)he's doing(*) is a Good Thing, and I've seen him/her using the Cypherpunk remailers to conceal his/her identity. * If you don't know, (s)he's the person who wrote PGPTOOLS, and a hack for PGP 2.3a to decrypt messages written with 2.6. I assume (s)he's doing it anonymously due to ITAR regulations. --- Hey Feds! How's it goin'? (LIke you're not reading the list. :) -- Jason Burrell <jburrell(a)crl.com> Finger for PGP public key. There is no such thing as limited censorship. If you want your freedom, fight now. Don't wait until you've lost it. WWW: ftp://ftp.crl.com/users/ro/jburrell/WWW/home.html

1 0

Re: Anonymous code name allocated. // penet hack
by doug＠OpenMind.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>On Tue, 2 Aug 1994, L. Todd Masco wrote: > >> > It isn't even necessary to forge the return address, because majordomo >> > doesn't check. >> In my experience, listservers will clear any commands that don't come from >> the person affected by passing them on for processing by the list >> maintainer as a security precaution. I had assumed majordomo >> did this, but I'm not certain. Tod and Robert are right, I was wrong... I just checked this by creating a dummy account from a different address. When I tried to unsubscribe the dummy account from my usual account, I got a message telling me the request had been deferred to the list owner. So it's not *totally* trivial to mess with the list... Doug

1 0

One last acronym...
by Joseph Block 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Federal Usurpation of Citizen's Keys Eliminates Real Security " " " " " " Secrecy

2 1

Re: The Terrorists are coming! (fwd)
by CatAshleigh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, and a dark side, and it holds the universe together ... -- Carl Zwanzig ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 18:12:39 -0700 (PDT) From: CatAshleigh <yusuf921(a)raven.csrv.uidaho.edu> To: Subject: Re: The Terrorists are coming! I was originally going to e-mail this to the people who made the comments, and would recognise what they had said, so I didn't preserve the distinction of who said what, but after re-reading I think it's directly related to Big Brother's attempts at limiting our privacy the >> are my comments, the > are responces and the ones without any >> at all are my counter porposals. sorry if there's any confusion > > first of all the only "muslim" (NOT ARAB, NO ARABS HAVE NUKES, the only > > country with nukes in the middle east is Israel) country > > with a nuclear program is pakistan, and they're years away from anything > > that could be stolen. > > True, but only because they haven't gotten their hands on any yet. It is > well known in certain international arms circles that Kadaffi or Hussein > would absolutely *love* to have their own means of producing nuclear > weapons. And they aren't alone. We built Hussein, and I believe that Kadaffi was still struggeling to build chemial when we bombed him in '86, or so, but I believe I could be mistaken. > > some call it pork barrel, I call it consperasy theory to protray muslims > > as terroists. > > I don't think so. Most of the world's terrorists (with the exception of the > IRA and a handful of others) are recruited and trained by folks in the > Middle East. It may be true that they have gotten more than their share of > publicity in the past, but the fact remains - the Middle East is *the* > training ground for that sort of thing, and there isn't a fundamentalist > over there who wouldn't like to shove a suitcase nuke up Bill's ass. Every orginization which exists in the middle east has a purpose, Hezbullah's purpose is the liberation of Palestine, using nukes would be counter produtive, like in the movie "red dawn" USSR invaded, but USA wouldn't use nukes on it's own territory, because that would make it worthless land. think critically, 1) What would be gained by nuking the US? there are more Muslims here then there are Jews 2) the objective of "terror tactics" is to destroy a lot of property with as few injuries as possible, something akin to "counting coup" to demonstrate that "IF their intention had been to kill people, alot more bodies would be found, which (ie more fatalities) is easly accomplised by simply packing the bomb with shrapnal. could you be more specific about which "fundamentalists" you're talking about? > Haven't you heard? America *is* THE ENEMY to a majority of the folks over > in that part of the world. If you don't believe me, travel to that part of > the world carrying an American passport and see what happens. OY! please don't make generalizations. Iran had a popular revolution and overthrew the Shah (it's well documeted that he tortured prisoners in his jails) and replaced it with a democratic parlement, and implemented Islamic law, the USA urged Saddam Hussein to attack them and refused to extridite the Shah to be tried for his crimes. Would you expect any less after that? Who else called the USA a satan? the "ENEMY" is dictators who suppress the people from democratic elections and the countries who back them. therefore keep your eye on Egypt, but they're not very conserned about the USA because there's not much the USA can do to interfere there. > In message <Pine.3.87.9408011942.A12890-0100000(a)raven.csrv.uidaho.edu> > CatAshleigh writes: > > > first of all the only "muslim" (NOT ARAB, NO ARABS HAVE NUKES, the only > > How do you know? > that's common knowlage, when Iraq got close to developing them, Israel bombed them. the only country the usa is throwing a hissyfit about is Pakistan. (and N. Korea) > Ahem. Uzbekistan is Muslim, and is also the third or fourth largest > nuclear power, and also is in a part of the world where there is a > long tradition of ... how do I say it gently ... greasing the palm. > I spent quite a while next door in Afghanistan and am familiar with > the culture. > the 5 largest nuclear powers are 1) USA 2) Russia 3) china 4) India 5) Israel (believed to have about 100 warheads) Uzbek was part of the USSR, and that's where they deposited some of their permanent sites, Uzbek refused to return them when the federation broke apart because they (they're smart) don't trust the russians farther then they can throw a nuke at them, after all they wanted nothing to do with USSR and were forced into the USSR by the soviets invading. Nukes are their insurance, they're not going to be parting with those any time soon. China is who they should be keeping an eye on. Smaller weapons certainly, such as stinger missiles, but that's capitalism :) A large part of the former USSR was Muslim and there were strategic and tactical nuclear weapons scattered all over the place (tactical weapons are used as mines, fired from artillery pieces, carried by short range missiles, and dropped from fighter bombers). If none of these is unaccounted for, it is a genuine miracle. It was my understanding that only the USA was incompetent enough to develop "tactical" nuclear weapons where any grunt can drop them and KABLEWY > Also, there has been quite a lot of press coverage here in the UK of > the defector from Saudi Arabia who claims that (a) the Saudis backed both > the Iraqi and the Pakistani nuclear programs and (b) the Saudis at > least have some nuclear materials. > The "defector" is an idiot, saudies were too busy building infrastructure to waist money backing other people's weapons development. The Saudies backed Iraq because they were fighting Iran and saudies aren't too fond of Shi'a. It might also be noted that the USA is similarly guilty. > > second of all there are more deaths caused by lighting on golf courses, > > ask any insurance agency. > > Also not true. The total number killed directly and indirectly in > Japan alone by atomic bombs is certainly over 100,000. I can't believe > that that many people have been killed by lightning on golf courses! > <BUZ> that's deaths from lightning on golf courses verses "terrorist attacks" I should have made that more clear, sorry. I'm glad that you mentioned that though, lets remember that it was the USA who was the "terroist" who bombed the civilians at Nagasaki and Heroshima (terrorist as defined in the dictionary) > > some call it pork barrel, I call it consperasy theory to protray muslims > > as terroists. > > Pork barrel? by inflating the NSA, and CIA, more people in your department, more job security. > -- > Jim Dixon > ---------- > > > The only other people who are called terroist are the IRA, and I don't see > > the FBI scrambling to protect Great Britian's consulet in DC when a > > car bomb goes off in London > > Here in the UK we read about lots of terrorist groups, not just the IRA: > ETA in Spain ... At least not called terrorist in USA papers, in fact only the British news agencies call the IRA terrorists, american papers seem to take a neutral attitude to the situation. my paragraph was in responce so automaticaly equating "nessisary step-ups in security against terrorists" as a codeword for "spying on arabs and muslims" by the FBI and CIA. > Maybe you should subscribe to a London newspaper. > The internet is better. > --- > Jim Dixon > > Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, and a dark side, and it holds the universe together ... -- Carl Zwanzig

1 0

ID Card Hearing 8/3/94
by David Banisar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

National ID Card Hearing 8/3/94 Barbara Jordon, Chairwoman of the US Commission on Immigration Reform will be testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow on the Commissions recomendations on verifying workers are eligible. Drafts of Ms. Jordon's testimony reveal that the Commission has backed off its initial proposal to require a national id card. Rather, the Commission will recommend a pilot program for the 5 states "most harmed by illegal immigration." It appears that this "pilot program" is only an attempt to limit initial opposition to the proposal with a future plan to implement it to other states as possible. In fact, when the national id proposal was first floated, the plan was to implement it step by step. Assuming that this will include Florida, California and Texas, a sizable percentage of the US population will be affected by the proposal. The Hearing will be held in Hart Senate Office Building, Room 216 at 10:15 am

1 0

Re: Anonymous code name allocated. // penet hack
by rarachel＠prism.poly.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't think I have a code allocated, unless I accidentally replied to some message from penet... If (suppose) I had one allocated, what would happen with the tuna spam? Would anything alert me that it was tried?

1 0