December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: ecash lottery (Was: ecash casino)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:22 AM 11/30/95, Bill Frantz wrote: >At 20:38 11/29/95 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >>Have to be _very_ careful here. A variety of scams can be developed which >>show lots of "small" winners, but which fail to show any large winners. The >>lottery operators can make a lot of extra bucks by simply not paying off >>the large winnings, in various ways. > >With complete anonimity, the scam I would think of first is giving other >nyms of myself all the big payoffs. Yes, this is a good example of one of the scams. If the lottery can't/won't reveal True Names of winners--a basic design criterion--then clearly people may have doubts. The whole thing can be cast as follows; "Send us money and we'll put your name in a hat. We'll let you know if you win, but we won't tell the public who won." (This problem is quite similar to voting protocols, so we might look to "fair voting" protocols for ideas.) My intuition (hand-waving) is that an anonymous lottery is possible, but I haven't looked at the details. Certainly multiple trusted holders of keys (escrow agents) would help make the lottery fair. Maybe bit commitment would help (each player buys the right to play, then "commits" his number. A public reading of the winning number occurs, and the winner can reveal his winning number (anonymously if he wishes, providing he had registered his hash....). --Tim May Views here are not the views of my Internet Service Provider or Government. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: Netscape gives in to key escrow
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:44 PM 11/29/95 -0800, sameer wrote: >http://www.cnet.com/Central/News/govt.html > > Bad. Very Bad. And I was almost starting to like Netscape. > But I did like the story's description of Damien Doligez as a "group of French scientists." DCF "Who used to have a personal life but who now does nothing but download Beta upgrades from the Net."

1 0

Re: The future will be easy to use
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"jlasser(a)rwd.goucher.edu" "Jon Lasser" 29-NOV-1995 16:23:00.41 Not if you're encrypting a Credit Card transaction to ship physical goods. In that case, I'm going to certainly want to link a key ID to a physical body (or at least address) if I'm the seller, so as to limit liability as best I can. While this might not ultimately be important, early adopters of crypto on the net seem in general to be financially interested with an eye to limiting liability. They want linked keys. There's a public-relations aspect to crypto which most systems not linking name -> key id fail. This is the step necessary to get it out the door. Unfortunately, it also appears counter to CP philosophy. However, if you have optional linking of ID and name, shippers will only ship to keys with such attributes. Because just ID and address, it could be a "hit and run" type attack shipped to a safe maildrop. --------------------------------- If the transaction is via a Credit Card, it's the card issuer's liability (and responsibility to determine creditworthiness), unless I'm badly mistaken. If it's bank-issued ecash, then it's up to the bank to disgorge physical dollars when ecash is presented to them. What's the risk in either case? -Allen

2 1

Re: The future will be easy to use
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>On Tue, 28 Nov 1995, James A. Donald wrote: >> This argument makes no sense at all: I am going to attack my >> enemies by paying people to send books, computers, and stuff >> to them? At 12:39 PM 11/30/95 -0500, Jon Lasser wrote: >No; you're going to steal from your enemies by having them ship things to >you without payment. Why would I bother to use encryption to encrypt someone elses credit card number? This is like arguing that I could use a crypto book to hit someone over the head with in order to steal their wallet, or arguing that a firewalled computer can still be attacked with a sledge hammer. Irrelevant. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

RED_sky
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

11-30-95. W$Jiver, Page One lead: "New Satellite Imaging Could Soon Transform The Face of the Earth. Big Worries About Security." Next time you gaze into the heavens, practice your smile. The ventures being backed by companies such as Lockheed Martin Corp., the E-Systems Corp. and Orbital Sciences Corp. will offer days-old digital images of unprecedented clarity. These corporate systems worry some scientists and federal policy makers concerned about privacy invasion and a free-for-all expansion of espionage. One notes that Lockheed Martin and E-Systems already have such systems in space. "They do this for the intelligence agencies. The very system that they're putting up there is a classified system now." A Senate staffer says that as budgets are chopped for the NRO and military satellite operators, the commercial systems will offer lower-cost images for government needs, preserve jobs and know-how in a vital area of technology and ensure U.S. leadership in the imaging industry. Nations such as France, Russia, South Africa, India and Israel are contemplating expanded use of their high-resolution systems. RED_sky (16 kb)

1 0

Re: Netscape, Corporations, and GAK Support
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:08 PM 11/30/95 -0500, hallam(a)w3.org wrote: > > Folks, lay of Netscape on this one. [...] > > It is the idea that individuals be forced to > use it for private conversations that is the bad idea. Jim Clark advocated Governemnt Access to Keys: GAK. He did not advocate voluntary escrow -- very few people object to voluntary escrow. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

AUTHOR A VIRUS, GO TO JAIL
by OpsAn＠gnn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Found this intersting too. US Position? AUTHOR A VIRUS, GO TO JAIL A computer cracker last week became the first virus writer sentenced to a jail term under Great Britain's Computer Misuse Act. The 26-year-old perpetrator was sentenced to 18 months in jail after pleading guilty to 11 charges connected with placing virus-infected programs on computer bulletin boards. (Investor's Business Daily 29 Nov 95 A6)

1 0

call forwarding trick in Las Vegas
by an366601＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: an453380(a)anon.penet.fi Your cybercrime task forces and exotic examples sound very intriguing, however, here in Las Vegas, Nevada we have a situation that is exotic but not quite in the same way. An "outcall" business has seemingly placed the telephone numbers of the major hotels into a Database along with the phone numbers of the local legal "outcall" services. When a "guest" from a hotel calls to have an exotic dancer entertain him in his hotel room, his call is "call forwarded" from the service to which he called to allegedly "S. E." and "R. S.". The "call forwarding" process was accomplished by a Select Call Forwarding maneauver from "off premises" and was not authorized by the service which was "by-passed". It seems no one much cares, (except the services from which the business was stolen), so this character is stealing to the tune of approximately $200,000.oo per week. How long will it be until he taps into the banks, etc? Does he pay taxes on his "full income"? How can this maneauver be cancelled by the owners of the businesses from which are being stolen? This guy is so brazen/stupid, he brags about "his accomplishment". Any input would be much appreciated. --****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION*** Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED. Please, report inappropriate use to abuse(a)anon.penet.fi For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to help(a)anon.penet.fi If you have any problems, address them to admin(a)anon.penet.fi

1 0

Re: ecash lottery (Was: ecash casino)
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:27 AM 11/30/95, Timothy C. May wrote: <snip> >My intuition (hand-waving) is that an anonymous lottery is possible, but I >haven't looked at the details. Certainly multiple trusted holders of keys >(escrow agents) would help make the lottery fair. Maybe bit commitment >would help (each player buys the right to play, then "commits" his number. >A public reading of the winning number occurs, and the winner can reveal >his winning number (anonymously if he wishes, providing he had registered >his hash....). My bet it would work a lot like anonymous voting schemes would, though I don't know how. It just feels like the same kind of thing... Cheers, Bob ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA (617) 958-3971 "Reality is not optional." --Thomas Sowell The NEW(!) e$ Home Page: http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/ >>>>Phree Phil: Email: zldf(a)clark.net http://www.netresponse.com/zldf <<<<<

1 0

SKIP, NFS, SSL, etc.
by Rich Salz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NFS is not a valid example of a one-vendor internetworking protocol. In the early days of NFS Sun worked amazingly hard to get all the major Unix players to support it. They all but lent out engineering staff; they hosted several 'connectathons', where everyone tested interoperability, made the license minimal cost (if not free), etc. And, of course, there was nothing competing. /r$

1 0