December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: DejaNews all over again--a URL for Usenet Searching
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Please don't copy Eugene Volokh <VOLOKH(a)law.ucla.edu> on your follow-ups; I copied him on my original because I had quoted him.] At 10:04 PM 11/6/95, s1113645(a)tesla.cc.uottawa.ca wrote: >Judging by the amount of posting you do here, I was surprised that I only >got 36 listings on your new address (1/3 of which quoted you but not >directly written by you). Either you post more to alt, soc and talk (which >they >don't have) or you use a third address (the second thing I tried was >tcmay(a)netcom.com, even less, though the archive's pretty recent, so that's >expected). I do little posting these days on Usenet. There is almost no sense of "community" there, in the sense of persistent, memorable posters, and in the sense of even _slightly_ having similar goals and aspirations. A vast number of the posts on any topic come from people who just rolled off the turnip truck and who have no interest in learning. >I figured I'd send this to you as a private note, but then I figured >this thing really is scary and has a lot to do with anonymity. >Watch out folks. Litte Brother is saving everything you've ever said on >usenet. Your old posts just won't go away. I've assumed this for many years. One used to be able to buy "Usenet on CD-ROM"...before the volume got to be too high. I've always assumed that archives would be increasingly available, eventually covering the entire history of Usenet, going back to the early 80s, and with tools for tracking the changes in login names over time (so that, for example, Perry's 1984 postings could be easily retrieved). Dossier services are coming, of course. If not legal to operate in the U.S., trivial to locate offshore. ("Employers, we will provide a scan of prospective employers. We can let you know if potential employees have ever posted to alt.drugs, alt.homosexual, alt.deviancy, or alt.cypherpunks. Avoid needless risks.") >(Not that someone who is so open in his views and true name as yourself >would mind, Tim, but I'm certainly happy for my sake, that alt isn't archived >yet. It's bad enough they have rec.) Huh? What makes you think "alt" is not archived? Just because DejaNews doesn't index it doesn't mean it is isn't archived in various places. Paul Robichaux pointed me to another searcher, http://www.excite.com/, which _does_ index the alt groups. I'm sure more are coming, reaching further and further back in time. (At the rate the Net has been expanding, by the time they can archive-and-index the last year of Usenet, they can get the entire history for not much more. I'll bet this happens by the end of 1997.) >Ps. I will of course run searches on every other address that the who >command on majordomo(a)toad.com supplies me with, so watch what you say >ladies, gents and otherwise. ;-> >Get those 'nyms ready. I offered the "Blacknet Dossier Service" a couple of years ago to the Extropians list subscribers. Nick Szabo helped me out by claiming to the list that he had purchased his dossier contents, and was "shocked" by what he found. A number of the Extropian list subscribers were quite perturbed before I told them it was a joke. Then I pointed out to them that there is absolutely nothing which stops such things. --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."

1 0

MOONLIGHTING BECOMES YOU.... Instan
by rewards＠t-1net.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// This Message was Composed using Extractor Pro Bulk E- Mail Software. If you wish to be removed from this advertiser's future mailings, please reply with the subject "Remove" and this software will automatically block you from their future mailings. //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Were sure you will agree this FREE report will reveal money manking secrets so powerful, it could change your life forever !!!! Its never been easier to generate profits. Take this important FIRST STEP For FREE DETAILS send e-mail to: cash(a)answerme.com

1 0

House Report on SAFE
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The National Security Committee report on SAFE is available: http://jya.com/hr105-108-pt3.htm (48K) This provides discussion of the Weldon-Dellums amendment and other matters. The Intel Committee report is due out shortly, which is designated Part 4.

1 0

SSZ status test [No Reply]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

SSZ Status Test No Reply No Repeat

1 0

Re: ecash remailer
by David K. Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Hal writes: >[suggesting a problem with Ed the Currency Cleaner] >> What about this, though: Alice did not mean to pay Bob, but rather >> Charlie, and Bob stole the coins. He launders them through Ed's >> service. Charlie never got the cash, and Alice complains to the bank >> that the coins were stolen. The bank says, fine, we can identify the >> perpetrator, let's see... it's Ed. Ed is now charged with theft and >> has an expensive and uncertain legal experience ahead of him. > >Jumping in hastily: > >It seems to me that Ed faces a larger problem if the above scenario turns >out to be a viable attack. Consider the following sequence: Alice and >Charlie decide to get some (payee-anonymous) currency laundromat in hot >water. Alice (payer-anonymously) washes some coins at the laundromat. >Con-man Charlie claims he didn't get paid for some fictional transaction with >Alice. Alice complains to the bank, and the rest proceeds as before. The >Alice-frames-Ed situation is functionally equivalent to the Bob-robs-Charlie >situation from the bank's perspective. > Wouldn't the ability to have the bank prove that the coins were 'cashed' make this all null and void? The only way this would work would be if Charlie is willing to completely forego cashing in the coins, *ever*. Should he cash them in later, Ed would seem to have grounds for suspicion/complain. Dave Merriman This is a test (3 UUE lines) of the unconstitutional ITAR - 1/713th of the PGP executable. See below for getting YOUR chunk! ------------------ PGP.ZIP Part [015/713] ------------------- M=$<(&L`#*IPP",(G6(,,S,`P](<2RWU96XCW86/JBYV8A\D8@X'HB_9H#&\X MX'PCUB.,13B"X8`R?^J-:UB.M_`U\>[#)BS&5$0C,Y#^1CS>1`\T1QTXX6!3 M8H,),S$8G>&.WP(8IRA`-M['+`Q%&_C"">5-F%LX@<_Q$;*P'',Q$Z/AA[8M ------------------------------------------------------------- for next chunk to export --> http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/export/ <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> My web page: http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1148

1 0

Re: National Security Committee amendments to SAFE
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Peter D. Junger" <junger(a)upaya.multiverse.com> writes: > I do not want to give Congress any ideas, but there is also the > possibility that they could take away the federal courts' jurisdiction > to hear constitutional questions without amending the constitution. > On the other hand it is possible that the courts would find a way to > hold that that limitation on their jurisdiction is unconstitutional. > Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH If Congress or the Executive branch do this, the American people and nation will be in far, far deeper trouble than would be caused by mere crypto restrictions. Peter Trei trei(a)process.com

1 0

Crypto Law Survey - updated and online
by Bert-Jaap Koops 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have updated my survey of cryptography regulations worldwide. It is available at URL http://www.kub.nl:2080/FRW/CRI/projects/bjk/lawsurvy.htm Please set pointers to this URL rather than copy the file, as I intend to regularly (i.e., about once every two months) update the survey. I greatly appreciate comments, corrections, and additional information. Bert-Jaap Koops Center for Law and Informatization Tilburg University The Netherlands

1 0

Magic Money
by EWilhem＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Where do I get the software, Please E-mail me at roger12(a)cam.org. I'd like the evaluation software.

2 1

Re: Keyed-MD5, and HTTP-NG
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 1 Nov 1995 hallam(a)w3.org wrote: > > There were two names on the MD5 document -- mine and Bill > > Simpson's. Bill didn't tell me that he was called (I suspect he > > would have), and I wasn't called, either. We were the only two > > editors of that portion of the specification. > > This appears to have been a problem from both ends. A number of > people arround here only heard about the IPsec work when it had > reached the final call phase. Hmmm, I guess (as usual) people weren't keeping up with the drafts. It really makes some of us outsiders wonder what the IETF actually does in its gilded white towers. > I think this highlights one of the problems with the IETF we need a > much broader infrastructure for understanding what progress other > groups have made. The time when we can expect to do everything through > email alone is past. I wish I could persuade more people in the IETF > that the Web infrastructure could provide a valuable assistance > as a collaboration tool for their needs. Unfortunately the approach seems > to be that because there are is a person living at the end of a 2400 > baud modem in vermont who cannot configure his PPP we should all continue > in the stone age. I guess that's certainly an _elitist_ attitude. Let's leave Vermont alone for a second and maybe talk about including the developing world in the process. That might explain some of the resistance. In many parts of the world, the basic telecommunications infrastructure simply won't support a 2400 baud connection. Does this then mean that there should be no advocate, no voice for citizens from those regions because they are limited to 300 baud? Hopefully we all agree that developing nations are equally entitled to a voice in establishing standards which will define the foundations of the next century. I can't imagine anyone arguing for a pre-emptive silencing. of voices which strive to be heard through setting technical standards as a floor -- minimum standards which are designed *purposefully* to exclude. Next thing someone will advocate is EBCDIC, or something equally lame idea, I guess ... > We could improve readability of RFCs through using HTML and reduce > the flamage on mailing lists through collaboration tools like the > open meeting. But we don't because it hasn't been done that way in the > past. Well, I think that it is possible to read a mailing list through HTML if that is what you would like to do. You have that option and choice. But this does not mean that you should dictate that everyone should follow your choices and preferences. While some would argue, that the attempted imposition of your personal preferences is demonstrative of a monstrous ego that does not recognize inherent individual jurisdiction, I won't expose myself to the accusation that I would advance such a specious argument, I will simply ask what you would suggest is the solution to including alternate views and voices, if it isn't a mailing list. Will the standards track follow a policy of inclusion or historic policies of exclusion? > I would like to see a collaboration system where I can present an expert > with the context of a proposal very rapidly without expecting them to > read the archives of an entire mailing list. It really doesn't take all that long to get up to speed. A couple of months, tops. > Phill > Alice de 'nonymous ... ...just another one of those... P.S. This post is in the public domain. C. S. U. M. O. C. L. U. N. E.

2 1

Re: Crypto++, Cpunk Icons, list noise
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, 4 Nov 1995 don(a)cs.byu.edu wrote: > An anonymous complainer writes: > > >Well, Perry, my opinion is that there is far too much noise on this list > >as it is. I have already seen my words drowned out by bellyaching over > >next to nothing. > > POT-KETTLE-BLACK. > > Also, since nothing you've written (in your commentary, as opposed to > anonymous announcements or releases that most people use anonymity for > here) indicates that you're using anonymity for any particular reason, Hmmm, I'm not sure that anyone has an inherent right to question WHY a person seeks moments of anonymity or privacy. I don't believe that anyone should be placed on the defensive, for *choosing* to maintain some semblance of a personal life, or wishing to maintain some illusions that they might still have some shred of personal privacy left. Hopefully, we can still leave a man with his dignity. I should not have to defend my right to present my ideas as I believe are appropriate to the circumstances. My choice to present the idea, that an entire economic sector needs to carefully reevaluate their strategic choices, and their discovered hidden security attitudes -- will stand or fall strictly on its merits. The debate is not advanced in any way by attaching a reputation to the question. Like any other person, I have my skeletons, and I have my regrets. I certainly have unfinished, unresolved, issues that I need to tend to. In that sense, I am no different than any other man. I also realize that ultimately, I'll have to come forward from behind the veil of secrecy which is provided to me. This I will do, after I have reconciled my own security considerations. Please allow me the boundary and dignity to choose when, where, and in what form I choose to reveal myself. That inherent right, should be extended to any man, and no man should be called to account for his desire to maintain his personal privacy, no matter how arbitrary his reasons. Especially when he comes forward to challenge Goliath. > please stop so people can killfile you. Or send it from a nym at > alpha.c2.org. I mean, the NSA has your real name anyway, what's the > point... At this time, I don't feel that a bi-directional private communications channel is needed. I have no need for a "nym". People who need to contact me, can. People who would like to know a bit about me, can. Netscape has my address. So does AT&T. And reputations aren't pertinent. (Although, I will say, that the disappearing here-again, gone again, internet draft at ds.internic.net is simply childish, and I'm certain that it was just routine "file maintenance" that caused the flicker.) The ball isn't in my court, it's in theirs. Netscape and AT&T are some of the primary parties who will have to take the hit for the fiasco that they find themselves in. For now, I'll leave my communication channels with them open, rather than letting my mail queue fill more than it already has. Email that is already overqueued. I don't really envy the two companies' position. No one expects to find as significant a security flaw as my anonymous email to this list detailed at this stage of code Burn-In, and I don't take any pleasure in facing the unenviable task of informing ANY party that a Trojan Horse has been engineered into the fabric of an existing globally installed code base. No one does. And as the messenger, I (hope) I don't have anything to fear, from the NSA or any other foreign group that would seek to pursue its own agenda within the borders of sovereign Canada. I really don't think that the NSA is "evil incarnate", as some list subscribers do. They have their intelligence and know how to use it. Usually, they use it prudently. If I did have any worries about the NSA, then I might take some elementary precautions. I certainly wouldn't have my terminal screen pointing towards the twelve odd feet of open glazing that sits behind me, as I currently do. Privacy can't simply be reduced to "a desire to hide from the NSA", just as security isn't something which is simply provided by licensing from RSA. Look to the message rather than the messenger. Alice de 'nonymous ... ...just another one of those... P.S. This post is in the public domain. C. S. U. M. O. C. L. U. N. E.

4 5