December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: cryptography eliminates lawyers?
by dsc＠swcp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Black Unicorn wrote, >But won't clients insist on proper credentials in one form or another? Yes. >Doesn't the practicality and accountability of a centralized authority >(or several authorities) provide the best answer to this? No. >Who is going >to accept my signature promising that I did indeed get a law degree and >pass the bar? Very few. Certification can be from multiple private and government organizations and might vary depending on the type of legal service (or other lawyer service) needed. Licensing can only be done by an entity that can use physical force to prevent buying and selling legal services. >I don't see how the net will eliminate the basic need for highly >qualified professionals and the proof that they have credentials. It won't. The needs might shift a little but they will be there. >Perhaps diplomas and such will be transfered into digital signatures for >the institutions, but I can't see how this "cracks" any "monopoly." >Perhaps the monopoly is shifted to those who have diplomas, rather than >those "licensed to practice" but so what? It might "crack" government enforced monopoly. Should a market monopoly survive some form of crypto-anarchy it would be in the form of a certification entity that does such a good and efficient job that it is very hard to break into the business. Not so bad if it happens, but much more honest, efficient and softer-edged than "licensed to practice". I suspect that people have needs for varying levels and varying specializations so that several kinds of certifications may develop and might be supplied by multiple entities. I suspect that many people would want a certification that a lawyer meets the usual licensing requirements of the outside world. Who knows, maybe that would be the most popular kind. But it won't be the only kind. Dar =========================================================== Dar Scott Home phone: +1 505 299 9497 Dar Scott Consulting Voice: +1 505 299 5790 8637 Horacio Place NE Email: darscott(a)aol.com Albuquerque, NM 87111 dsc(a)swcp.com Fax: +1 505 898 6525 http://www.swcp.com/~correspo/DSC/DarScott.html ===========================================================

1 0

Re: cryptography eliminates lawyers?
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 13 Sep 1995, Dar Scott wrote: > Black Unicorn wrote, > >But won't clients insist on proper credentials in one form or another? > > Yes. > > >Doesn't the practicality and accountability of a centralized authority > >(or several authorities) provide the best answer to this? > > No. > > >Who is going > >to accept my signature promising that I did indeed get a law degree and > >pass the bar? > > Very few. > > Certification can be from multiple private and > government organizations and might vary depending > on the type of legal service (or other lawyer service) > needed. Didn't I just say this above? A centralized, or several centralized authorities. I guess the center of my question is, how can you apply Web of Trust to e.g. a university degree. Who cares what Bob and Alice think my degree is in, the client only wants to know from the institution. Licensing can only be done by an > entity that can use physical force to prevent > buying and selling legal services. I believe you are incorrect, but I guess my main concern is your characterization of "Physical force." I am assuming you mean coercion, and not that you will be jailed or such (though this may be the case). I would argue that as long as coercion exists (violence of any type, physical or not) you have a licensing authority. Take the hollywood blacklist. No one actually pushed around suspected pinko screenwriters (well, at least, if anyone did, it was incendential) but they certainly faced a great deal of persuasive motivation. Look at the committee as the licensing authority here. (Licensing you as a non-communist as it were). If several governmental and private authorities were in the practice of certifing that Bob has a law degree from Tremont University, and that he is competent to practice in D.C., and given that the citizens of D.C. will look for these credentials, isn't this a license? Afterall, Bob has to pass some test or requirement to get the signatures. Isn't this coercion in your definition? Can't the multiple authorities set common or near common guidelines? Rather, don't they HAVE to in order to have their signatures worth the electrons they are transmitted with? If you take the exteme position you seem to, there's an antitrust case here. Am I not "licensing" my key signature to people provided they pass my key signature criteria? Am I not doing violence by withholding my signature and the benefits it might convey for certain "terms?" In this definition, all trusted authorities are by definition licensing. Either their signature is worth nothing, and thus they are not coercive by witholding it, or it is worth something, and thus to be non-coercive they must give it to anyone who asks, rendering their signatures worthless. This is the trap of the licensing argument. The evil is not licensing, which I think serves a real purpose, but created convenience fees, taxation through the withholding of licensing and the use of other government largess. I wrote a massive piece on this and sent it to the list about a year and a half ago. With interest I will repost it. The real question is how you decide what an authority to license is. Is it to be dictated by government? Or by market forces (i.e. the reputation of the licenser). > > >I don't see how the net will eliminate the basic need for highly > >qualified professionals and the proof that they have credentials. > > It won't. The needs might shift a little but they > will be there. Then why will lawyers, or a 'professional monopoly' be broken? > >Perhaps diplomas and such will be transfered into digital signatures for > >the institutions, but I can't see how this "cracks" any "monopoly." > >Perhaps the monopoly is shifted to those who have diplomas, rather than > >those "licensed to practice" but so what? > > It might "crack" government enforced monopoly. Now you are getting more specific. > Should a market monopoly survive some form of > crypto-anarchy it would be in the form of a > certification entity that does such a good and > efficient job that it is very hard to break > into the business. Agreed. Again, what does this do to lawyers? See my above comments on what constitutes a license. > Not so bad if it happens, > but much more honest, efficient and softer-edged > than "licensed to practice". I'm not so sure. There will be a tremendous amount of corporate power in these authorities, and if (as you seem to be saying a few paragraphs up) it is hard to break into the trusted certification business, there is a monopoly again. > I suspect that > people have needs for varying levels and varying > specializations so that several kinds of > certifications may develop and might be supplied > by multiple entities. Like the several state Bars? Hint: An attorney licensed in Deleware has a much different speciality likely than one licensed in Alabama. > I suspect that many people would want a > certification that a lawyer meets the usual > licensing requirements of the outside world. > Who knows, maybe that would be the most popular kind. > But it won't be the only kind. So you have estentially admitted that a central authority is required? Or will be more often used? So is this a license or what? Looks like one to me. If your defintion of license is simply who does the coercing, I think you should reconsider. > Dar > > =========================================================== > Dar Scott Home phone: +1 505 299 9497 > > Dar Scott Consulting Voice: +1 505 299 5790 > 8637 Horacio Place NE Email: darscott(a)aol.com > Albuquerque, NM 87111 dsc(a)swcp.com > Fax: +1 505 898 6525 > http://www.swcp.com/~correspo/DSC/DarScott.html > =========================================================== > > >

1 0

re: CYPHERPUNK considered harmful.
by Sherry Mayo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

P. Trei writes > "CYPHERPUNK" considered harmful > I would like to propose that we, the 'cypherpunks', are making a > strategic error, which will make it far more difficult to achieve the > goal we share. > Our error lies in our approach to encouraging the widespread use of > crypto. It is an error of hubris - overweening pride. > We too often think of ourselves as an elite - smarter and better in > various ways to our non-cpunk neighbours. We refer to these others as > 'Joe Sixpack" and other such derogatary terms. I think thsi is confusing two separate things. The need to publicise and encourage the use of crypto is important to many of us and lots of us do this in various ways (web pages, magazine articles etc). The other aspect of the cypherpunks is writing code, discussing protocols etc, some of which is fairly arcane stuff and is by necessity the interest of an "elite" (as you put it). I think the success of this list lies in the mixture. > I suggest that we drop the term 'cypherpunk' - it has the wrong > connotations to get our ideas into the mainstream. I don't have a > perfect replacement yet: I'll come clean and say that initially the term "cypherpunks" made me cringe (and still does, maybe 'cos I'm a brit ;-) ;-) but I certainly remembered it and it stuck in my mind enough to get me interested in this stuff in the first place. In short, don't ditch the name because if nothing else it *is* memorable, much more so that some more comventional tag. However, you do make some bloody good points about not alienating more conservative people by coming over all crypto-anarchist (or whatever your particular bent is) when encouraging/publicising the use of crypto. The "why use crypto" questions and answers was a good example of how to appeal to a more conservative viewpoint. When trying to find out about crypto intially on the WWW I was rather overwhelmed by the number of political rants and a bit underwhelmed by the lack of solid info. This situation has improved a lot in the last 2 years but still needs work IMHO. [An aside to Web page maintainers... <whinge> Another thing to consider (for Web sites in particular) is that people from _all over the world_ will be reading it. If your site is a fairly central one, bear in mind that a lot of rants about congress trampling all over the Nth amendment mean bugger all to a lot of us furriners, and come over as a bit parochial. I'm not saying a local perspective is a bad thing, just that it shouldn't be the only thing. </whinge> ] my 2c worth Sherry

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

[NOISE] Alice's Remailer site (was:Re: Digital Fingerprinting)
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: patrick(a)Verity.COM (Patrick Horgan) > > From: Mac Norton <mnorton(a)cavern.uark.edu> > > To: Patrick Horgan <patrick(a)Verity.COM> > > On Wed, 13 Sep 1995, Patrick Horgan wrote: > > > > > Then, in W.Ky., as in Stockbridge, "You can get > > > > > anything you want..."? :) > > > Why do I feel like I'm sitting on the group W bench? > > I don't know, kid, what you in for? > Encryption. And they all moved away from me on the group W bench there, > talking mean hairy eyeballs and all sorts of things until I said, and > annoying the NSA, and they all moved back, talking about crime, PEM, PGP, > and liberty and justice for all;) > Patrick I've seen various 'Alice Restaurant' pastiches, Alice's NNTP server, Alices MIT GUI, etc. I guess it's time to try to do one for crypto.... This song is called Alice's Remailer site and it's about Alice, and the remailer site, but Alices Remailer site is not the name of the Remailer site, it's the name of the song, and that's why I called this song Alice's Remailer site. You can send anything you want through Alices Remailer site. You can send anything you want through Alices Remailer site. Connect right in it's around the back. Halfway down that seventeen inch rack. You can be anyone you want through Alice's Remailer site. etc.... Peter Trei Senior Software Engineer Purveyor Development Team Process Software Corporation http://www.process.com trei(a)process.com

2 1

Re: CYPHERPUNK considered harmful.
by patrick＠Verity.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just a couple of comments, one on a question and one on an answer. > > >Q: Aren't LEAs worried that strong encryption will make it more > >difficult for them to catch crooks? If this is for non-cypherpunks, you should say what an LEA is. They wouldn't understand your question. (Shoot, some cypherpunks are probably going, "Huh?") > > >Q: What's this 'key escrow' thing? > > > >A: Some government agencies have been trying to figure out methods which > >simultaneously permit US citizens to use strong cryptography against > >criminal eavesdroppers, while retaining the ease with which LEAs can > >currently tap your calls. The schemes generally involve something > >mistitled 'key escrow', in which copies of cryptographic keys would be > >stored at sites accessible by LEAs. > > 'key escrow' is a code word for government access to the unencrypted > message. It is a persistent theme, dating back to the NSA's CCEP in about You probably need to say what the NSA is, and certainly have to identify CCEP. Patrick _______________________________________________________________________ / These opinions are mine, and not Verity's (except by coincidence;). \ | (\ | | Patrick J. Horgan Verity Inc. \\ Have | | patrick(a)verity.com 1550 Plymouth Street \\ _ Sword | | Phone : (415)960-7600 Mountain View \\/ Will | | FAX : (415)960-7750 California 94303 _/\\ Travel | \___________________________________________________________\)__________/

1 0