December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Crimestoppers anon tip mailbox
by David C. Lambert 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Is anyone in a position to set up a cypherpunks CrimeStoppers mailbox (for >> use through the remailers)? You could set up a web-page with instructions >> and a list of crimes for which there are rewards. > >Someone already tried that. The cops got a copy of the WWW logs and >started investigating everyone who'd looked at the WWW page... Right - this was an abduction case in Florida, if memory serves. > So at the >least you'd need a bunch of anonymous WWW proxies as well. I don't see that as a problem. I'm about to set up at least one of these myself, and I believe that there are others around - please correct me if I'm wrong. In any case, there needn't be a web page to do the actual reporting. There can be web pages to advertise, and then a simple maildrop for the tips. You could even arrange that the maildrop send everything to a remailer for delivery to a non-advertised address for an extra layer of protection (in case someone forgot to use a remailer to send the tip in the first place, or they screwed up in a way that revealed their identity). David C. Lambert dcl(a)panix.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMFhV8KpplsfgM88VAQHwIgP/eO5eQIb6PgraSAGeoWJ4Jvc3F8tTkY2u ZiBfuWN3XMu8JRUQOAcW7Vs4lfgBBm7HDHe05mbmczQGsMTzhcLErQ1m1uPup+Xw LJmbI2hWjxmuTZI14zoTAnTeTJt3L2XLwl7BPpkWkB7EIrERpua2FYIfdqArFO4e AxEsD+ybA/k= =pcn4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

MIME Security Issues
by Richard Potocki 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anybody wish to express any comments regarding MIME security. I have read the RFC's and any/all doc's I could find on this issue. I understand what the security risks are, but I have been unsuccessful in my attempts to find info regarding what is being done, or has been done to correct this. If I remember correctly, I think I once saw a brief mention of filters or something. I am new to this stuff, so any assistance would greatly appreciated. Thank you, Rick

2 1

Child Porn, Morphing, and Pointers
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:40 PM 9/14/95, Rev. Ben wrote: >> The bill would expand the definition of child pornography >> to include any photograph, film, videotape or computer >> image produced by any means, including electronically by >> computer, if it depicts or appears to depict a minor >> engaging in sexually explicit conduct. > >If I'm reading this correctly, if I Photoshop a kids face onto the body >of the latest Playboy centerfold, I'm in violation of this proposed law? I believe there have already been prosecutions along these lines. For example, do you think a _comic book_ with child porn themes ("explicit" art, situations) would not be prosecuted as child porn? I strongly suspect that a _painting_ of a 7-year-old girl engaged in a sex act would result in a prosecution. Keith Henson, amongst others, has long suggested that a good test case will be the _morphing_ of legal images to make them look like child porn. This is not a legal list--for that there are several other fora/forums--but it is clear that the child porn laws are not necessarily aimed at the protection of specific minor children from "exploitation," as the laws apply to porn imported from countries where the age of consent is lower, apply to images of dead children (who can no longer be exploited by the images), and to "created" images of children (morphing, cut-and-paste, paintings, etc.) The laws are clearly aimed at both extinguishing the _market_ for child pornography and the _thoughts_ themselves, not at the protection of specific children. (Advocates will argue that by suppressing the production of child porn markets, future children may be protected....) The main Cypherpunks theme I can find here is this: anonymous remailers and Web proxies will be used to access offshore (or indeterminately located) sites. The Feds will likely come down very hard on any remailers or proxies found to be "trafficking" in such materials. I'm going to post to this list a recent post I made to the Cyberia list about whether pointers are the same as transfers. --Tim May ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- 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

Linking = Showing = Transferring?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I posted this to the Cyberia mailing list, but think it has some implications for Cypherpunks as well. And, I'm responding to Duncan Frissell, one of our own. (I don't advise subscribing to Cyberia unless legal issues interest you and you have the time for another high-volume mailing list. Still, some bright folks there--as well as some dullards. David Friedman just joined the list. To subscribe, send a message to listserv(a)listserv.cc.wm.edu with the message body of subscribe cyberia-l YourNameHere.) > >To:cyberia-l@warthog.cc.wm.edu >From:tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) >Subject:Linking = Showing = Transferring? > > >As good a chance as any to extend my "showing = telling" point... > >At 9:32 AM 9/14/95, Duncan Frissell wrote: > >>And my favorite: "What if the student merely includes *links* to >>the above on his web page?" Of course racist images/messages are >>always and everywhere as legal as church on a Sunday although they >>may carry civil liability in limited cases -- not a problem for >>judgment-proof students. >... >>"Is the URL the page itself? --- Unanswered philosophical questions >>of the wired age." > >_Linking_ is effectively _showing_, given the point-and-click mechanics of >hypertext. This is a situation anticipated by authors (e.g. Ted Nelson), >but is now coming to the fore. > >Granted, providing a link is not the same as actually _including_ the >material the link points to, but it is very, very close. Arguably, the >same. > >(Example: I create a home page with links to many images that are child >pornography by U.S. standards. The images themselves may be initially >stored in URLs that are in countries with different standards for consent, >e.g., Denmark or Thailand. Have I violated the child porn laws? Arguably, >I am "making available" these materials, but all I have done is to provide >the _pointers_. The readers of my home page are the actual downloaders, >not me.) > >I can imagine rebuttals to this position, arguing that an author who >includes URLs to other places is doing nothing different than an author >who includes footnoted references to other works (and surely we all agree >that footnotes are not copyright infringements of any sort). > >However, look at how the Web is being used. Home pages that have >compilations of interesting things are effectively the works! It is as if >the original materials are being stored on those home pages themselves! > >There is _technological_ and _propertarian_ fix to this: controlled or >paid access to the URLs under question. The "gatekeeper" function shifts >to the actual material under question. > >But there are many new questions. > >And Duncan's specific point remains: > >-- is it a violation of pornography laws (perhaps campus rules) to have a >home page with links to URLs containing pornographic images? > >-- is it a violation of _child pornography_ laws to have a home page with >links to URLs containing child pornography images? (The URLs could be >offshore, perhaps in jurisdictions where the age of consent is much >different than in the U.S., e.g., Denmark or Thailand.) > >-- is it a violation of national security laws to have a home page with >links to URLs containing national defense secrets? (The URLs could be >offshore.) > >-- is it a violation of copyright/patent laws to have home pages with >pointers to protected material? (Songs, written works, images, inventions, >etc.) > >And so on.... > >--Tim May ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- 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

Annonymous Web proxies.
by hallam＠w3.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There has been a lot of debate about setting up of annonymous Web proxies. There are many thousand already deployed. Any Web proxy which does not keep logs is effectively an annonymous Web proxy. Just download the CERN server and run it. http://www.w3.org/hypertext/WWW/Daemon/Status.html The point about monitoring such sites is an apt one. Iwork under the assumption that I am monitored because if I was a spook I would be monitoring me. Most of the discoveries of security holes arrive at my door sooner rather than later. I would have monitored the communist party for the same reason, it was one of the the most obvious place for the soviets to attempt infiltration, the other being the authoritarian establishment right. Phill

1 0

Re: Mixmaster posting poll
by Erik E. Fair 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:40 9/13/95, Lance Cottrell wrote: > >I seem to recall that someone on this list wrote some mail2news software, >Who was it and which standard did it follow (if either). Has anyone installed >it? Is anyone else planning to install it. I will install a gateway when I >get my T1 (in a couple of months). Rich Salz wrote mail2news, based on some ugly stuff I wrote, ages ago. Erik Fair

1 0

Explaining Zero Knowledge to your children
by danisch＠ira.uka.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There is a paper about explaining Zero Knowledge methods in simple words. It's titled "Explainig Zero Knowledge Authentication to your children" or something similar. It's said to be in the proceedings of any conference. Does anybody know where to find it? Thanks Hadmut

1 0

cryptography eliminates lawyers?
by terrell＠sam.neosoft.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: "Cortland D. Starrett" <cort(a)bioanalytical.com> >Subject: cryptography eliminates lawyers? >As a follow-up to the article reference I posted, I pose the >following question: > >Will cryptographic technology and information (communication) >technology reduce the need for legal services in the future? >(especially regarding contracts, buying/selling, patent law, etc.) >Will legal services just look different? Will they be more >efficient (cheaper)? > >Put bluntly, will cryptography put lawyers out of business? >Any comments would be appreciated. > >Cort. > How could crypto put lawyers out of business? People would still have disagreements; plans would still go wrong; cars would still crash. More important, transactions would still need to be structured to carry out the desires of the parties while minimizing risks. Good communications technology, including crypto, could make lawyering more efficient, but I suspect the savings would be minimal. Communications technology will no more put lawyers out of business than CASE put programmers out of business. Buford C. Terrell 1303 San Jacinto Street Professor of Law Houston, TX 77002 South Texas College of Law voice (713)646-1857 terrell(a)sam.neosoft.com fax (713)646-1766

4 7

AOL Porno
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Will the federal prosecutors and Fibbies on this list please emphasize that the Internet was not involved in the AOL kiddie porn case. The Internet has enough opportunities for bad publicity as it is. DCF "Who wonders: How it is that CompuServe was able to exist from 1979 to the arrival of Prodigy and AOL without major sex, and drugs, and rock and roll problems?"

2 1

Re: DD, pedaphiles, and Terrorists, oh my
by anonymous＠freezone.remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

September 13, 1995 PRESS BRIEFING BY MIKE MCCURRY [Snip] MR. MCCURRY: ... [The President]'ll be making some fairly significant news on Thursday. So he'll be very busy next week. Q News? What kind of news? Q News on what? MR. MCCURRY: You'll see next week. [Snip] Q What about Thursday -- Q Are you going? MR. MCCURRY: Half and half, I think. I'll go -- I think there are some days that look more political; I don't think it's necessary for me to be there. Q What will be the general topic on Thursday? MR. MCCURRY: On Thursday? Technology. [Snip to end] URL: http://docs.whitehouse.gov/white-house-publications/ 1995/09/1995-09-13-press-briefing-by-mike-mccurry.text ---------- Any scuttlebutt that computer security, the Internet or encryption are the "technology?" Or related to the NYT spin today on LEA-web-snooping: "We are not going to permit exciting new technology to be misused to exploit and injure children," Attorney General Janet Reno said today in announcing the arrests. The culmination of the inquiry by the Federal Bureau of Investigatlon comes at a time when the agency has needed some favorable attention to offset a string of incidents that have cast it in a negative light. Its officials have come under fire for their role in the siege at Waco, Tex., the standoff with a white separatist in Idaho and, most recently, over an attempt to cover up aspects in the Idaho incident. Or diversion from the allegations of Special Agent Whitehurst that Feeb lab rats and bosses are corrupt -- tar-morphing even Golden Boy Freeh. Pray that kid-loving Reno HRTs the abusive brats.

1 0