December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: How do I know if its encrypted?
by pstemari＠erinet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:53 AM 1/14/95 -0600, Larry E wrote: > ... Those who believe remailers are an evil will argue against any >measure that will promote their presence (and I'm not suggesting >you're in that group). ... True enough. > ... Is encryption a step in the right direction, if an imperfect one? If >not I hope some other positive steps are proposed soon, else I fear >remailers may face extinction. The big problem I have with mandatory encryption for remailers is that it thwarts one of the two major purposes of remailers. Basically I see remailers serving two goals: 1) Defeating traffic analysis of point-to-point communications. Mandating encryption for this is redundant--anyone who wanted this would be encrypting their mail to begin with. Also, I don't believe this mode of operation generates many complaints. 2) Anonymous broadcast transmission. This one can generate a lot of complaints, but it is also very important for things like *.recovery newsgroups. Mandating encryption renders this mode useless. There is a third use, which is anonymous point-to-point transmission. While this is of some benefit for anonymous tip line, it makes things like mailbombs and hate mail very easy. --Paul J. Ste. Marie pstemari(a)well.sf.ca.us, pstemari(a)erinet.com

2 1

2 announcements of possible interest
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

2 announcements (one from PRIVACY, the other from Cyberia.) second is NII Security Issues Forum to Hold 2 Meetings 01/27/95 NEW 01/12/95 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 11:25:27 EST From: denning(a)cs.cosc.georgetown.edu (Dorothy Denning) Subject: INTERNATIONAL CRYPTOGRAPHY INSTITUTE 1995 Call for Participation (Deadline: March 15, 1995) INTERNATIONAL CRYPTOGRAPHY INSTITUTE 1995: GLOBAL CHALLENGES September 21-22, 1995 Washington, DC Presented by The National Intellectual Property Law Institute The International Cryptography Institute will focus on the cryptography challenges associated with meeting the information protection needs of users and the law enforcement and national security needs of nations. The Institute will address such topics as: - national encryption policies and regulations - meeting user needs for information security and data recovery - meeting law enforcement and national security needs - national and global encryption markets and product availability - international approaches and standards - creating an international cryptography infrastructure - the use of encryption technologies in different countries - cryptography in the financial industry and other industries - legal and policy issues of digital signatures and digital cash - new developments in encryption policies and technologies Persons interested in speaking at the conference are invited to submit a proposal to the Institute Chair: Prof. Dorothy E. Denning, Chair ICI '95 Georgetown University Computer Science Department 225 Reiss Building Washington DC 20057-0997 ph: 202-687-5703, fax: 202-687-6067 e-mail: denning(a)cs.georgetown.edu Proposals must be received by MARCH 15, 1995, and should include the following: - Name, title, organization, address, phone, fax, and e-mail address - Brief biography - Title of presentation - Abstract of presentation or paper - Amount of time requested for presentation and discussion Notification of acceptance will be made by April 15, 1995. Papers and materials for the proceedings will be due on August 15, 1995. Inquiries about registration or the proceedings should be addressed to: The National Intellectual Property Law Institute P.O. Box 27913, Washington, DC 20038-7913 ph: 800-301-MIND or 202-962-9494 fax: 800-304-MIND or 202-962-9495 ------------------------------ From: Seth Greenstein <sethg(a)access.digex.net> Subject: NII Security Issues Forum to Hold 2 Meetings 01/27/95 NEW 01/12/95 OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING Agency: Office of Management and Budget Action: National Information Infrastructure Security Issues Forum: Notice of Public Meetings and request for public comments SUMMARY: The National Information Infrastructure Security Issues Forum will conduct two public meetings to continue a dialogue between government and the private and public interest sectors on issues related to the security of information on the National Information Infrastructure (NII). Interested parties -- especially beneficiaries of Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Food Stamps, and users of public information, and participants in the sophisticated communications networks which support the U.S. transportation and customs systems -- are invited to submit a 1 - 2 page position statement and request to testify. The meetings are sponsored by the NII Security Issues Forum of the Information Infrastructure Task Force and Mega-Project III of the U.S. Advisory Council on the NII. DATES: Both public meetings, "Security of the Electronic Delivery of Government Information and Services" and "Security for Intelligent Transportation Systems and Trade Information," will be held simultaneously on Friday, January 27, 1995, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. in Raleigh, North Carolina. Those wishing to testify should submit a 1 - 2 page position statement and request to participate by January 20, 1995. Individuals wishing to offer general comments or present questions may request to do so during the meeting. Written comments may be submitted on paper or electronically, in ASCII format, and will be accepted until February 10, 1995. ADDRESSES: The public meeting, "Security of the Electronic Delivery of Government Information and Services," will be held in the Auditorium of the North Carolina Museum of History, 1 East Edenton Street, Raleigh, North Carolina. The public meeting, "Security for Intelligent Transportation Systems and Trade Information," will be held in the Auditorium of the Department of Cultural Affairs, 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh, North Carolina. Both buildings are in close proximity to the North Carolina Capitol Building. Position statements and requests to appear for the meeting, "Security of the Electronic Delivery of Government Information and Services," sent to the Government Information Technology Services Working Group, marked to the attention of Ms. April Ramey, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1425 New York Avenue, Room 2150 N.W., Washington, D.C. 20220. Position statements may also be submitted via fax to (202) 622-1595 or through electronic mail to april.ramey(a)treas.sprint.com. Electronic mail should be submitted as unencoded, unformatted, ASCII text. Position statements and requests to appear for the meeting, "Security for Intelligent Transportation Systems and Trade Information," should be sent to the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center of the Department of Transportation, marked to the attention of Mr. Gary Ritter, DTS-21, at 55 Broadway, Cambridge, MA, 02142. Position statements may also be submitted via fax to (617) 494-2370 or through electronic mail to "Ritter(a)volpe1.dot.gov". Electronic mail should be submitted as unencoded, unformatted, ASCII text. Parties offering testimony are asked to provide them on paper, and where possible, in machine-readable format. Machine- readable submissions may be provided through electronic mail messages sent over the Internet, or on a 3.5" floppy disk formatted for use in an MS-DOS based computer. Machine-readable submissions should be provided as unencoded, unformatted ASCII text. Written comments should include the following information: * Name and organizational affiliation, if any, of the individual responding; * An indication of whether comments offered represent views of the respondent's organization or are the respondent's personal views; and * If applicable, information on the respondent's organization, including the type of organization (e.g., trade association, private corporation, non-profit organization) and general areas of interest. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information relating to electronic delivery of information and services, contact Ms. April Ramey of the Treasury Department at (202) 622- 1278. For further information relating to transportation and trade issues, contact Mr. Gary Ritter at the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center by telephone at (617) 494-2716. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Issues for Public Comment A. Background The public meetings are part of an ongoing dialogue with the Administration to assess the security needs and concerns of users of the National Information Infrastructure (NII). The NII is a system of high-speed telecommunications networks, databases, and advanced computer systems that will make electronic information more widely available and accessible than ever before. For example, citizens may be able to learn about federal benefits programs through public kiosks, or may receive their social security payments through direct deposit to their bank accounts. As the U.S. transportation infrastructure becomes more complex, Americans will benefit from the application of information technologies to such operations as toll collection, motor vehicle registration, and traffic routing. This increased availability and accessibility of services and products provided through information technology will dramatically affect the way in which individuals conduct their everyday affairs. Consequently, broad public and commercial use of the NII hinges upon implementing technologies, policies, and practices that not only ensure that users of information systems have access to information when and where they need it, but that subjects of information records are able to protect themselves from unauthorized or inappropriate use of information. "Americans will not use the NII to its full potential unless they trust that information will go where and when they want it and nowhere else," declared Sally Katzen, Administrator of the Office of Information Regulatory Affairs at OMB and chair of the Forum. "The Federal government is a primary user of the NII and thus a catalyst for change. Yet the NII will be designed, built, owned, operated, and used primarily by the private sector, making it essential that security on the NII be considered in partnership with the public." To address these critical issues, the Vice President formed the Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF). The IITF is chaired by Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown and is comprised of senior Administration officials having expertise in technical, legal, and policy areas pertinent to the NII. The mission of the IITF is to articulate and implement the Administration's vision for the NII. The NII Security Issues Forum was established within the IITF to address the cross-cutting issue of security in the NII. The Forum is chaired by Sally Katzen, Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget. In addition to the IITF, the President has established the U.S. Advisory Council on the National Information Infrastructure. The Advisory Council represents industry, labor, and public interest groups, and advises the Secretary of Commerce on issues relating to the NII. Mega-Project III, one of three work groups of the Advisory Council, is responsible for addressing security, intellectual property, and privacy issues as they relate to the NII. B. Structure and Content of Public Meeting Security is linked inextricably to broad public use of the NII. The technologies, policies, and procedures used to ensure the confidentiality, availability, and integrity of digitally produced and transmitted information, information products, and services on the NII will determine whether, how, and to what extent digitally linked information services will be broadly used in such critical applications as providing public information, supporting the delivery of government services, utilizing intelligent transportation systems, and conducting trade. Development of policies and procedures that will ensure the security of public and private information and communications on the NII requires study from different perspectives, whether that of the subject of the information, the user of the information, or the creator of the information. The Forum and Mega-Project III seek input from parties representing beneficiaries of federal information and services and users of intelligent transportation systems and trade data. Solutions to these concerns will come via technical solutions, as well as legal and policy mechanisms. The Forum and Mega-Project III seek input in this area as well. Specifically, what legal measures, policy mechanisms, and technological solutions, or combinations thereof, can be used to effectively protect the security of federal benefits information or transportation or trade data, delivered or made accessible on the NII? A panel of witnesses drawn from the public will be assembled to discuss the following topics with a panel of senior Administration officials, members of the Security Issues Forum, members of the Advisory Council, and policy makers at the State level, and to field questions and comments from other members of the public. Position statements for the meeting, "Security in the Delivery of Electronic Information and Services," should address four principal questions: 1. How do you envision the NII being used to provide services and information electronically to citizens? Specifically, what types of services and information should be delivered or made available? 2. What risks and threats do you foresee in making services and information available via the NII? Such threats might include fraud, unauthorized access, breach of confidentiality or privacy, breach of integrity, and system performance. 3. What legal, policy, and ethical issues do you foresee affecting usage of the NII? Such issues may include liability, information/property rights, access, document/records management, legal admissibility/evidentiary requirements, and auditability. Do some issues, such as privacy and open access, tend to countervene each other? 4. What kinds of administrative or technical solutions should be developed or promoted to address security, legal, and ethical concerns? Such solutions may include verifying recipient and/or vendor eligibility, ensuring operational and systems security, and establishing means to facilitate settlement, detection, and prosecution. Position statements for the meeting, "Security for Intelligent Transportation Systems and Trade Information," should address five principal questions: 1. Who should be permitted access to sensitive trade and transportation information systems? How can inappropriate access and use be prevented? 2. What technical and institutional safeguards in electronic data transmission, storage, and retrieval are needed to protect the security of trade and transportation data? Such risks might include: disclosure of proprietary and confidential business information, criminal access to trade and cargo records, disclosure of individual travel patterns or vehicle locations, or disclosure of transportation dispatch communications regarding sensitive cargo shipment routes, itineraries, and locations. 3. What does an "appropriate level of security" consist of? Is there a "one-size-fits-all" solution, or can policies be established which flexibly meet diverse needs? 4. Do certain systems merit greater degrees of security protection, such as traffic signal control systems, variable message signs, fleet location monitoring, electronic toll collection, international trade data, and motor vehicle registration records? 5. Who should establish and enforce security policies? How can government and the private sector work together to support a secure National Information Infrastructure? II. Guidelines for Participation in the Public Hearing Individuals who would like to participate on a panel must request an opportunity to do so no later than January 20, 1995, by submitting a brief, 1 - 2 page summary position statement. If approved, each participant will be allowed to present brief opening remarks. Primary participation, however, shall be during the general discussion to follow, according to the format described above. Participants in the public meeting will testify before and participate in discussions with a panel consisting of members of the Advisory Council, members of the Security Issues Forum, and other Administration officials. Individuals not selected as panel participants may offer comments or ask questions of the witnesses by requesting an opportunity to do so and being recognized during the meeting by the chairs of the meetings. Oral remarks offered in this fashion should not exceed three minutes. No advance approval is required to attend the public meetings, offer comments, or present questions. The public meeting on "Security of the Electronic Delivery of Information and Services" will be chaired by Mr. Jim Flyzik, Chair of the Government Information Technology Services Working Group of the IITF. The public meeting on "Security for Intelligent Transportation Systems and Trade Information," will be co-chaired by Ms. Ana Sol Gutierrez, Deputy Administrator of the Research and Special Programs Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and Ms. Christine Johnson, Director of the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office of the U.S. Department of Transportation. More information about the Clinton Administration's National Information Infrastructure initiative can be obtained from the IITF Secretariat. Inquiries may be directed to Yvette Barrett at (202) 482-1835, by e-mail to ybarrett(a)ntia.doc.gov, or by mail to U.S. Department of Commerce, IITF Secretariat, NTIA, Room 4892, Washington, D.C., 20230. For inquiries over the Internet to the IITF Gopher Server, gopher, telnet (login = gopher), or anonymous ftp to iitf.doc.gov. Access is also available over the World-Wide-Web. Questions may be addressed to nii(a)ntia.doc.gov. For access by modem, dial (202) 501-1920 and set modem communication parameters at no parity, 8 data bits, and one stop (N,8,1). Modem speeds of up to 14,400 baud are supported. Sally Katzen Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Certified to be a true copy of the original by John B. Arthur, Associate Director for Administration

1 0

Dangerous Web Site
by Robert A. Hayden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was net-surfing and I came across the following site: http://www.satelnet.org/ They do credit checks of any person, SS# ID's, national database searches, etc of any person or business (for a small fee). Gee, don't I feel like little brother now. ____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden(a)krypton.mankato.msus.edu \ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=- \/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> I am Pentium of Borg \/ Finger for PGP Public Key <=> you will be approximated

2 1

voice pgp
by Loren Fleckenstein 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've heard mention that Phil Zimmermann was going to demonstrate Voice PGP at the January Cypherpunks meeting at Cygnus. Can anyone mail me a note about this? Has the meeting already taken place? How well did the demo perform?

2 1

Re: Jude Milhon in WIRED
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Oh, come on, Perry - your memory must be decaying. I've met Jude 3-4 times in the last 1.5 years, including at Bay Area cypherpunks meetings (the long boring photo-shoot for the NY Times Magazine, for instance), and it's been referred to in the past that "cypherpunks" was her pun. She's also the one who put out requests for character contributions to a novel she's doing, which went to the list. Besides, if you're grumpy that you haven't met someone, you need to get out here to the left coast more often - New York winters must be getting to you :-) Bill

1 0

Re: C`punks slogan? - Pri
by jsled＠free.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- lmccarth(a)thor.cs.umass.ed wrote: > Lest we suffer a recurrence of the C'punks Logo thread, which generated a > whole raft of list traffic which would have been better kept private, please > reply directly to Joshua and not to the whole list. [He seems to imply that > he wants private replies ("testing procmail") anyway, but I want to encourage > this practice explicitly.] Thanks... actually, that's exactly what I wanted, but forgot to put it in... and my last post about "Slogan help": disregard that entirely... it's not needed (either part). But so far I've only gotten one reply about the slogan thing, so please give me help on that one, folks... Josh Sled <jsled@ctp.org/jsled@free.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLxf3kKTT29daLBKRAQGEWgQAhrKR/r/+mqXO63RN86c7hq3bsmid2KLU ct2zJAebaZBzVvltrF3WsBYoWmCSo1tWrYFjv3QsU1gnRJRyxSGVtzzkfOSq7b51 UlGRzUb+6AXvviWmqdBwHGWbT4M6/mxxH8X8gC/eeFWyHMpgEcFzhV9tWUHCqkC/ GMDvXoaKPa0= =i71M -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- þ KWQ/2 1.2g NR þ "MTV get off the air!" - DKs

1 0

Draft of editorial to SF Chronicle
by raph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Chaos and Anonymity keep the Internet Vital I could not let Martha Siegel's editorial ("Anarchy, Chaos on the Internet Must End", 2 Jan 1995) go unchallenged. To the uninformed reader, her arguments may seem plausible. However, her distortions give a picture of the Internet quite at odds with the true nature of the Net. Her views are by no means representative of those who actually use the Net. Of the dozens of messages I saw in response to the editorial, not a single one was in favor of her proposals. As Ms. Siegel correctly points out, the Net is not governed by any one individual person or organization. Rather, it is collectively run by those who use it as part of their daily lives. The operation of each Internet node is subject to the individual judgement of the people who own it. Ms. Siegel is wrong, however, in believeing that such a state of affairs is intolerable. Rather, this state of affairs has brough us a remarkable flowering of discourse, ideas and culture, which is just now beginning to be recognized in the mainstream press. In a lawyer's dream world, there is a rule covering every action in every situation, along with a well-functioning system to enforce the rules. This is the exact opposite of the spirit of the Net, and of Usenet in particular. Rather, there has evolved an informal set of guidelines for promoting open, civil discourse, collectively known as "netiquette." These guidelines may seem arcane to newcomers, but basically they simply ask people who use the Net to be considerate of other people, their time and their resources. A violation of netiquette brings on not legal action, but responses pointing out why the action was inconsiderate. Continued violation brings on ridicule and scorn -- people who engage in this are considered to be either sociopathic or just obnoxiously self-promoting. The single most infamous breach of netiquette in Usenet history was almost certainly the "green card spam," in which thousands of advertisements for green card services were posted to completely unrelated message areas, or "newsgroups." Advertisements presented in a way considerate to others are tolerated and even welcomed on the Net. Posting thousands of copies, though, is just going too far. Negative response was immediate. The perpetrators were asked to stop, but they refused to. One Norwegian hacker took it upon himself to track down and "cancel" the offending messages. Most people on the Net considered this to be entirely appropriate. A number of other self-promoting hucksters have sensed an opportunity, and have performed similar spams. In response, the Net evolved a defense mechanism to counter these spams and minimize the damage. The person currently serving this role is known by the pseudonym "CancelMoose." Almost everyone on the Net supports this effort, and agrees that it improves the overall value of Usenet. Who was responsible for the original green card spam? Why, Ms. Siegel herself, the same one who is complaining about "chaos and anarchy." Chaos, anarchy, and anonymity are a large part of what keeps the Net so vital. Particularly galling is Ms. Siegel's appeal to free speech. Usenet in its present form is perhaps the most conducive forum for free speech in history. The threat to free speech is not from chaos or anonymity, but from the sorts of changes that Ms. Siegel proposes. Usenet is astonishingly effective in getting around the practical barriers to free speech. These barriers come in many forms, including libel, trademark, and copyright laws, fear of retribution, etc. Because of its decentralized, communal nature, Usenet resists direct attempts to censor. The main tool for circumventing more these more indirect barriers is anonymity. As an example of such barriers, take the t-shirt commemorating the green card incident. It was emblazoned with the words, "Green Card Lawyers - Spamming the Globe" and a fist clutching a green card. Shortly after the shirt was proposed, Canter & Siegel threatened to sue if the shirt was in fact produced. It was only after several outraged lawyers promised to defend against such a case pro bono that I and others could be proud owners. Or take one of the sexual abuse recovery newsgroups, where anonymity is the norm. If someone were to post a message asking for support, saying "my uncle did it" under their real name, they would be vulnerable to a libel suit from said uncle. On the other hand, if they used an anonymous service such as the one in Finland, they would not simply escape punishment for the libel, but prevent it from happening at all. In many countries (and even China is on the Net these days), writings critical of the government, such as exposure of human rights abuses, are illegal. The authors face imprisonment, torture and death. By posting anonymously to the Net, the information can be brought safely to the attention of the world. Not all anonymous messages are pleasant or popular. Unpopular speech is a necessary consequence of free speech. At least to the founders of this country, the benefits of free speech outweigh the discomfort. Our founding fathers were also comfortable with anonymity -- the Federalist papers were originally published under the pseudonym Publius, because the authors felt the ideas should be evaluated on their own. Judging from the materials already published by Ms. Siegel, an Internet built according to her vision would free of such disturbing ideas, but would readily support five hundred channels of green card ads, impassioned pleas to purchase American flag plaques, and, yes, anonymous testimonials for radial keratotomy specialists.

4 3

interesting problem with remailers
by jml＠wizard.synapse.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I need a good dependable cypherpunk style anomymous remailer. So I have been experimenting with a few. I have discovered a rather curious problem. I have sent test messages to homer(a)rahul.net. These test messages read as follows: :: Request-Remailing-To: myname@mydonain Subject: Test this is line1 this is line2 this is line3 this is line4 this is line5 this is line6 I have encrypted this message with the public key of homer(a)rahul.net using the pgp -ea command (for armour). This yields something like: -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE---- version 2.6.2 blahblahblah blah blah blah blah etc..... ------END PGP MESSAGE--- I have then put :: Encrypted: PGP <blank line> at the beginning of the message and send it with Eudora PC 1.4. Now curiously enough the message that I received back from homer@rahul is the following: ************************************************************* To: myname@mysite From: nobody(a)rahul.net Subject: Test Remailed-By: A Free Zone Remailer V1.2 <homer(a)rahul.net> Complaints-To: Homer Wilson Smith <homer(a)rahul.net> X-Comments: X-Comments: finger homer(a)rahul.net for instructions. X-Comments: X-Comments: Unauthorized or illegal use of this remailer, especially X-Comments: for spamming the internet or posting copyright violations X-Comments: will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. X-Comments: Homer Wilson Smith (607) 277-0959, Fax: (607) 277-8913 X-Comments: FULL HEADER LOGGING IS: ON This is line1 this is line3 this is line5 ************************************************************* No this is line2 no this is line4 no this is line6 I am unable to explain this. Obviously the message must be recieved intact by the remailer because being encrypted with PGP if it were corrupt in anyway it would simply not decode properly and I would get no reply whatsoever. Now before somebody says that the trouble is at my site, I also have an account on CI$ (compuserve). The same thing happens to message I received there. So obviously it cannot be my site. Unless I am doing something that somehow tells the remailer to only remail one line out of two. (?????) And this problem is not only with homer@rahul. Other remailers do the same. I know that it most be something that I am doing but it escapes me what. Again it must receive the PGP message correctly. I am stumped.... If anybody can help explain this little mystery, it would be most appreciated. Please reply here at cypherpunks(a)toad.com and also forward to wizard(a)alpha.c2.org (to see if it works) Thanks all -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAy8X2ZIAAAEEALbeB9136vtAk/FOOb8a1rYv7OWAVJZMiWs/CI1Hla9iUxBj hv+KM1rK31cygbk2/y38cZFQupgP34/0HkLKXsl5bP7vifXi5JzyNpeOmYT3Cr/E FqyWRFUo6dyp7AVm23ryZGZAM2qfcdXaslEqWAD3PczAnQ34vKhVa3SvpHjhAAUR tAZ3aXphcmQ= =syn9 -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

hiatus
by merriman＠metronet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just a short note to let folks know that I'll be unsubscribing for a while (probably a couple of months) while I get ready and then move to Amarillo to set up an ISP :-) The staging phase is taking up a large portion of my time, and I really don't have the slack to do more than give the subject lines in the CP list a cursory glance these days - just enough to see what the current flame war is about :-) Once I get the ISP set up, I'll be putting an anon remailer on it; I may also offer "Remailer-in-a-box" accounts for some relatively minor fee (if motivated, I may even take digicash as payment :-). I don't expect any problems about setting up accounts, since I'll be the MIS Manager, VP Engineering, etc, etc. Too, since the service will be commercial, I expect that I'll be able to do a pretty fair job of ignoring complaints of the kind that get .edu and on-the-left remailers shut down. I'll still be able to receive email at this account at least until the end of February; once I get set up in Amarillo, I'll resub and let everyone know where I am (just in case anyone cares :-) FYI, the tentative name for the ISP is panhandle.net..... Dave Merriman - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Finger merriman(a)fohnix.metronet.com for PGP public key and fingerprint. PGP encrypted Email welcome, encouraged, and preferred. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." John F. Kennedy

1 0

... and speaking of WiReD...
by paul＠hawksbill.sprintmrn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Given the recent discussion on WireD, I thought some of you might enjoy this editorial (read: rant) authored by Erik Bloodaxe. Enjoy. - paul Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 20:34:00 CST > Reply-To: TK0JUT2(a)MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU > Sender: CU-DIGEST list <CUDIGEST(a)UIUCVMD.BITNET> > From: "Cu Digest (tk0jut2(a)mvs.cso.niu.edu)" <TK0JUT2(a)MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU> > Subject: Cu Digest, #7.03 > To: Multiple recipients of list CUDIGEST <CUDIGEST(a)UIUCVMD.BITNET> > > Computer underground Digest Sun Jan 15, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 03 > ISSN 1004-042X > > Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2(a)NIU.BITNET) > Archivist: Brendan Kehoe > Retiring Shadow Archivist: Stanton McCandlish > Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth > Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala > Ian Dickinson > Copy Reader: Laslo Toth > > CONTENTS, #7.03 (Sun, Jan 15, 1995) > > File 1--Open Letter to Wired Magazine (fwd) > File 2--More Legal Analysis of Steve Jackson Games (Legal Bytes) > File 3--The Stupid Net.Coverage News Awards -- 1994 and 1995 > File 4--Alliance for Community Media -- Call for Workshops > File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 25 Nov 1994) > > CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN > THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 20:08:38 -0600 (CST) > From: David Smith <bladex(a)BGA.COM> > Subject: File 1--Open Letter to Wired Magazine (fwd) > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > >From--phrack(a)well.sf.ca.us (Chris Goggans) > >Subject--Open Letter to Wired Magazine > >Date--13 Jan 1995 00:51:09 GMT > > To Whom It May Concern: > > I am writing this under the assumption that the editorial staff at > Wired will "forget" to print it in the upcoming issue, so I am also > posting it on every relevant newsgroup and online discussion forum > that I can think of. > > When I first read your piece "Gang War In Cyberspace" I nearly choked > on my own stomach bile. The whole tone of this piece was so far > removed from reality that I found myself questioning what color the > sky must be in Wired's universe. Not that I've come to expect any > better from Wired. Your magazine, which could have had the potential > to actually do something, has become a parody...a politically correct > art-school project that consistently falls short of telling the whole > story or making a solid point. (Just another example of Kapor-Kash > that ends up letting everyone down.) > > I did however expect more from Josh Quittner. > > I find it interesting that so much emphasis can be placed on an issue > of supposed racial slurs as the focus of an imaginary "gang war," > especially so many years after the fact. > > It's also interesting to me that people keep overlooking the fact that > one of the first few members of our own little Legion of Doom was > black (Paul Muad'dib.) Maybe if he had not died a few years back that > wouldn't be so quickly forgotten. (Not that it makes a BIT of > difference what color a hacker is as long as he or she has a brain and > a modem, or these days at least a modem.) > > I also find it interesting that a magazine can so easily implicate > someone as the originator of the so-called "fighting words" that > allegedly sparked this online-battle, without even giving a second > thought as to the damage that this may do to the person so named. One > would think that a magazine would have more journalistic integrity > than that (but then again, this IS Wired, and political correctness > sells magazines and satisfies advertisers.) Thankfully, I'll only have > to endure one moth of the "Gee Chris, did you know you were a racist > redneck?" phone calls. > > It's further odd that someone characterized as so sensitive to insults > allegedly uttered on a party-line could have kept the company he did. > Strangely enough, Quittner left out all mention of the MOD member who > called himself "SuperNigger." Surely, John Lee must have taken > umbrage to an upper-middle class man of Hebrew descent so shamefully > mocking him and his entire race, wouldn't he? Certainly he wouldn't > associate in any way with someone like that...especially be in the > same group with, hang out with, and work on hacking projects with, > would he? > > Please, of course he would, and he did. (And perhaps he still > does...) > > The whole "racial issue" was a NON-ISSUE. However, such things make > exciting copy and garner many column inches so keep being rehashed. > In fact, several years back when the issue first came up, the > statement was cited as being either "Hang up, you nigger," or "Hey, > SuperNigger," but no one was sure which was actually said. Funny how > the wording changes to fit the slant of the "journalist" over time, > isn't it? > > I wish I could say for certain which was actually spoken, but alas, I > was not privy to such things. Despite the hobby I supposedly so > enjoyed according to Quittner, "doing conference bridges," I abhorred > the things. We used to refer to them as "Multi-Loser Youps" > (multi-user loops) and called their denizens "Bridge Bunnies." The > bridge referred to in the story was popularzed by the callers of the > 5A BBS in Houston, Texas. (A bulletin board, that I never even got > the chance to call, as I had recently been raided by the Secret > Service and had no computer.) Many people from Texas did call the > BBS, however, and subsequently used the bridge, but so did people from > Florida, Arizona, Michigan, New York and Louisiana. And as numbers do > in the underground, word of a new place to hang out caused it to > propagate rapidly. > > To make any implications that such things were strictly a New York > versus Texas issue is ludicrous, and again simply goes to show that a > "journalist" was looking for more points to add to his (or her) > particular angle. > > This is not to say that I did not have problems with any of the people > who were in MOD. At the time I still harbored strong feelings towards > Phiber Optik for the NYNEX-Infopath swindle, but that was about it. > And that was YEARS ago. (Even I don't harbor a grudge that long.) > Even the dozen or so annoying phone calls I receied in late 1990 and > early 1991 did little to evoke "a declaration of war." Like many > people, I know how to forward my calls, or unplug the phone. Amazing > how technology works, isn't it? > > Those prank calls also had about as much to do with the formation of > Comsec as bubble-gum had to do with the discovery of nuclear fission. > (I'm sure if you really put some brain power to it, and consulted > Robert Anton Wilson, you could find some relationships.) At the risk > of sounding glib, we could have cared less about hackers at Comsec. > If there were no hackers, or computer criminals, there would be no > need for computer security consultants. Besides, hackers account for > so little in the real picture of computer crime, that their existence > is more annoyance than something to actually fear. > > However, when those same hackers crossed the line and began tapping > our phone lines, we were more than glad to go after them. This is one > of my only rules of action: do whatever you want to anyone else, but > mess with me and my livelihood and I will devote every ounce of my > being to paying you back. That is exactly what we did. > > This is not to say that we were the only people from the computer > underground who went to various law enforcement agencies with > information about MOD and their antics. In fact, the number of > hackers who did was staggering, especially when you consider the usual > anarchy of the underground. None of these other people ever get > mentioned and those of us at Comsec always take the lead role as the > "narks," but we were far from alone. MOD managed to alienate the vast > majority of the computer underground, and people reacted. > > All in all, both in this piece, and in the book itself, "MOD, The Gang > That Ruled Cyberspace," Quittner has managed to paint a far too > apologetic piece about a group of people who cared so very little > about the networks they played in and the people who live there. In > the last 15 years that I've been skulking around online, people in the > community have always tended to treat each other and the computers > systems they voyeured with a great deal of care and respect. MOD was > one of the first true examples of a groupthink exercise in hacker > sociopathy. Selling long distance codes, selling credit card numbers, > destroying systems and harassing innocent people is not acceptable > behavior among ANY group, even the computer underground. > > There have always been ego flares and group rivalries in the > underground, and there always will be. The Legion of Doom itself was > FOUNDED because of a spat between its founder (Lex Luthor) and members > of a group called The Knights of Shadow. These rivalries keep things > interesting, and keep the community moving forward, always seeking the > newest bit of information in a series of healthy one-upsmanship. MOD > was different. They took things too far against everyone, not just > against two people in Texas. > > I certainly don't condemn everyone in the group. I don't even know a > number of them (electronically or otherwise.) I honestly believe that > Mark Abene (Phiber) and Paul Stira (Scorpion) got royally screwed > while the group's two biggest criminals, Julio Fernandez (Outlaw) and > Allen Wilson (Wing), rolled over on everyone else and walked away free > and clear. This is repulsive when you find out that Win in particular > has gone on to be implicated in more damage to the Internet (as Posse > and ILF) than anyone in the history of the computing. This I find > truly disgusting, and hope that the Secret Service are proud of > themselves. > > Imagine if I wrote a piece about the terrible treatment of a poor > prisoner in Wisconsin who was bludgeoned to death by other inmates > while guards looked away. Imagine if I tried to explain the fact that > poor Jeff Dahmer was provoked to murder and cannibalism by the mocking > of adolescent boys who teased and called him a faggot. How would you > feel if I tried to convince you that we should look upon him with pity > and think of him as a misunderstood political prisoner? You would > probably feel about how I do about Quittner's story. > > 'Hacker' can just as easily be applied to "journalists" too, and with > this piece Quittner has joined the Hack Journalist Hall of Fame, > taking his place right next to Richard Sandza. > > Quittner did get a few things right. I do have a big cat named Spud, > I do work at a computer company and I do sell fantastic t-shirts. Buy > some. > > With Love, > > Chris Goggans > aka Erik Bloodaxe > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > http://fringeware.com/staff/jonl > -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Paul Ferguson US Sprint tel: 703.689.6828 Managed Network Engineering internet: paul(a)hawk.sprintmrn.com Reston, Virginia USA http://www.sprintmrn.com

1 0