December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by lunaslide＠loop.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

}At 07:20 AM 2/12/96 +0000, Deranged Mutant wrote: }>> Parents had that ability before. Cable boxes have a "perental control key" }>> on the side that enables them to lock out "offensive" channels. It works }>> quite well and is fairly hard for the kidlets to defeat. (I used it to }>> lockout the religious stations and home shopping channels.) }> }>When I was a kid some friends down the street knew how to unlock the }>Channel 100 XXX movies with a paper clip. A V-chip would hopefully }>be more sophisticated, but then again, so are today's kids... } }Sshhh! You are not supposed to tell them that! <rm> } }Yeah, I know it can be hacked. I also know that if they are that interested }in sex, NOTHING I do is going to stop them. (Which is as it should be. If }they have no exposure to any sexual material as a youth, some rather nasty }problems tend to crop up as adults. (Take a look at the studies of sexual }predators.) But that is a point avoided by the moralists...) <rm> What's really funny here is that the harder you make it for kids to get into something, the more they learn in order for them to get into it. Parents who impose restrictions on their children using all sorts of methods (hiding stuff, using the channel lock out deal, blah blah blah) are challenging their children to use deduction and reasoning to get at what they want. In the case of the v-chip, channel lockout, site blocking software, etc., the parents are turning their children into the most horrendous creatures of all...OH! Cypherpunks! lunaslide "Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." - -- Abraham Lincoln On the meridian of time there is no injustice, only the poetry of motion creating the illusion of truth and drama. Henry Miller ________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCPAzEX3QEAAAEEAOGQjhnqGH29pO1WDaXs5GFOVPhCBWyYEk9XEwRmscjveWzH AhA6DeOA480zWNqQURyqE2yPmR8WzT+OXYqmeiQiycKyFA41Vs/Ruf+gXXxe7uXS L5BK3K8oKbfoH0D5/TAkMT4r6BprXFQz4pFc3gY2SSaSPElpMjKHaKBsRsyRABEB AAG0HUplZmYgQ29ubiA8bHVuYXNsaWRlQGxvb3AuY29tiQCVAwUQMRffHzKHaKBs RsyRAQGNhwP9E9xEZ9/LCKnhgtnrqgD7pDoXG2pCy8FoyfFjoImGkG+jF1wELXmB Z0mf8F8CgYkys0mif1XeGDMelr1gzlZAm6LgQt4kcvztMW/aRLn18QP+iwltVT/L p8D37mitOjvuk46sWgAChIaPPPIeg/EaYQjQkmlpWKsEYIoTRy+E8mU= =4Gku -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Re: Assasination Politics
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"jimbell(a)pacifier.com" "jim bell" 12-FEB-1996 04:18:43.34 >>How much weight is Lotus going to give the opinions of a bunch of >>unbalanced sociopaths when they're thinking about making deal to gak those >>extra 24 bits? Not much, I'll bet. >If "AsPol" actually WORKS, Lotus won't have to "deal" to get "those extra 24 >bits." >Lotus should announce that they have heard of this new idea on CP, called >"Assassination Politics," and have assigned a couple dozen programmers to >implement it by July 1996. They'd back (guarantee) the prizes for the first >such organization, and they'd sell the software to others. At that point, I >think the resignations from government office would skyrocket. It seems likely that any overt organization operating an Assasination Politics scheme will be outlawed... even though the most logical reading of current laws says that it isn't illegal (except for the gambling part). An anonymously constructed one seems a lot more likely - which Lotus could then anonymously patronize. I do have some ideas for making such possible, but I'm waiting on a defense of three points before I'll release them. These points are: A. My previously mentioned problem with a limited but non-libertarian organization. B. I don't trust the average person to look ahead enough to make this (or other Anarcho-Capitalist) schemes work. In other words, the average person has to be able to see that a non-limited organization is a danger to them, etcetera. Moreover, Jim Bell is ignoring the other sources of propaganda than government in convincing the average person that someone is doing something wrong (when, by my ethics at least, they aren't) - such as religion and various organizations like the PFDA. Admittedly, as I've stated before, the requirement for some money would help, at least to the degree that our economy is meritocratic. (A growing tendency, fortunately.) If most people are on a subsistence wage (the result of free trade & automation with varying human abilities), they can't afford enough money for Assasination Politics. (Yes, I'm an intellectual Elitist. Deal with it.) C. While I may not like dealing with the average person very much (see above), I don't want to see them starving in the streets. I can see governmental welfare as being necessary for this, although the private form is definitely preferable. (And yes, I can justify this as being a libertarian - if not Libertarian Party - viewpoint. If I recall correctly, I had a debate with Perry on this on Libernet, in which he tried to dismiss me as "just a Democrat." I was posting under the name ALLENS(a)YANG.EARLHAM.EDU at the time). -Allen

1 0

Re: Response to Perrygram
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:16 PM 2/13/96, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >I will repeat, Tim. You have no job and do nothing for a living. For >you it is probably hard to understand that some of us prefer to get >our mail segregated by topic so that we don't have to spend more time The issue of what I do with my time is a red herring. As it happens, many folks in the "cyberspace activism" spend as much time or more as I do on the Net. In any case, who cares how I spend my time? I also note that for several years Perry was clearly spending a whole lot more time than even I am now on the Net, making the "Top Ten Usenet Posters," or somesuch. I am sure that when Perry was a Shearson-Lehman, or Lehman Brothers, or whatever it was called, and was posting several articles an hour on Extropians, Cypherpunks, Libernet, Usenet, etc., that he would have roughly the same reaction I am now having to someone writing: "Perry, you are writing too much--some of us are trying to get some work done!" He would likely have dismissed their complaints as irrelevant, that no one is forced to read his articles. Likewise today. No one is forced to read my posts, Perry's posts, or anyone else's posts. This is what filters are for. As it happens, I do *not* read all of the posts here. In fact, I delete about 90% of them after scanning the first paragraph, the subject, and the author. Takes me about 15 seconds, tops, to do this, and sometimes I'm even faster. (Do the math: I can "dispose of" about 50 or 60 messages a day in 10-15 minutes...and this is about the best that can be hoped for, even if Perry were the moderator and the 10 or so messages a day that are truly off the wall were screened out...it just wouldn't change the basic time to screen all that much.) >than needed reading our email. However, for some of us, time is >money. I have failed to directly answer your comments on this sort of >thing out of deference to your "elder statesman" status around here, Spare me, Perry. As I mentioned, you certainly used to write a truly vast number of rants to Extropians, Libernet, and, yes, even Cypherpunks. A check of the archives will show this clearly. It is well and good that you apparently are now very busy and cannot write your customary number of articles. But spare us the insinuations (in several of your perrygrams) that because you are too busy to write you are doing critical work and because some of us use our time to write we are slackers. I write because setting down my thoughts and exploring ideas is far more important to me than just about anything else I can imagine doing, including writing C programs. If you don't like this, learn how to use filters and filter me out, or leave the Cypherpunks list. Seems simple enough to me. --Tim May >but this is getting silly. If you want to post about libertarianism, >libernet, so far as I know, still takes postings. If you want to read >about the habits of migrating birds, there are interest groups for >that. We don't have a lot of good places to discuss specifically >cryptography and its impact, and this group was set up *for that*. > >I mean, why not just have one mailing list for all topics of all sorts >if "filtering" and "hitting the 'd' key" are supposed to be the only >way we deal with this stuff, hmm? > >Perry Boycott espionage-enabled software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2

Using /dev/random for PGP key generation? Be Wary
by rngaugp＠alpha.c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Subject: Using /dev/random for PGP key generation? Be Wary I have created a modified version of pgpi for use with a hardware random number generators. Recently, there has been some confusion because people have assumed that I wished people to use this version with NOISE.SYS or an RNG that gathers entropy from timing events called /dev/random. I did indeed mention /dev/random in the readme file, but I did this only because I thought /dev/random would be a likely path for a hardware RNG on a unix system. ( I have never tested this software under unix, but I see no reason why the "RNGDRIVER" feature of the modified PGPI would not work under unix.) Be assured that I originally planed the modification to be used with a real hardware RNG. I tested it with the CALNET/NEWBRIGE RNG under DOS and OS/2. The "RNGDRIVER" feature I tested with OS/2 and the driver in RNG810.ZIP available at ftp.cdrom.com. You may be able to compile and run it under other OSes as well. I see no reason why not. It is my understanding that NOISE.SYS gathers entropy from timing certain events. I have recently learned that a /dev/random works under Linux also by gathering entropy from timing. I am unsure about using my modification, together with these drivers that are not connected to a real hardware RNG. In what way would the use of these drivers' methods of gathering entropy be superior to PGP's method of getting entropy from keyboard timing? If you choose to do something like this, you should think carefully and make a careful study of the code. One thought for the future: It would be nice if BBS'es that run unattended could have a version of pgp that they could run without worrying about running out of entropy! (Because no one is there to type on the keyboard.) Perhaps something like NOISE.SYS (that would get entropy from the COM ports) put together with my mod to pgpi could be made to work. But careful thought an careful design should be done first. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: cp850 iQCVAgUBMR63hs29s2mG+tTVAQFyKwP+Mh95ZNwwrBF+UjEKlEcfaiWY5ab8NthC b3j4cmv9PUXLrCM4DUH2iXtY2f9YNN9GsWT1S1Eu2b0368VBkQTm1+eWcKiDVmlB DumNmt4rZPhYam7wc/5gyGdIyzhGJBeJ0ZOP1kd4w0TfLsDprwKGOD1a0N7T3Ycz gFqBX34x59s= =MDXi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Free end-to-end encryption code?
by Adam philipp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:48 PM 2/12/96 +0000, you wrote: >> Okay...well...here's another problem. You see, most of the clients are >> going to be Windows people. I can't use a Unix-only solution. > >There exists at least one ssh Windows client. Which was a beta that expired February 9th 1996... There is another in the works...REAL SOON NOW(tm). Adam, Esq. --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\ |PGP key available on my home page|Unauthorized interception violates | | http://www.rosa.com/~adam |federal law (18 USC Section 2700 et| |-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|seq.). In any case, PGP encrypted | |SUB ROSA... |communications are preferred for | | (see home page for definition) |sensitive materials. | \-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/

1 0

Re: Portland, OR, Key-Signing+
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:45 PM 2/12/96 -0800, Bruce Baugh wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >ANNOUNCING: >THE SECOND QUASI-MONTHLY PORTLAND CYPHERPUNKS SOIREE AND KEY-SIGNING >I really hate to add this particular paragraph (and it isn't in the >version that'll get posted to newsgroups), but...one person won't be >welcome. Jim Bell's conduct at the last meeting and on the list are >such as to make it quite clear that I don't want him in my home. Bullshit, Bruce! My "conduct" at the last meeting was quite acceptable (nobody else complained, BTW) ; the source of the entire dispute that ensued was completely the irresponsible conduct of Alan Olsen in flaming me on the national cypherpunks list, and my only "crime" was objecting to his flames. I was, quite frankly, shocked that Alan Olsen would behave as badly AFTER the meeting as he did. NOTHING that happened AT THE MEETING prepared me for his later abuse. It turns out, however, that he later incriminated himself by admitting to sending some anonymous flames on Cypherpunks to me; if anything you should be objecting to HIS behavior for this. The fact that you are not is QUITE REVEALING. (Clearly, Olsen was massively (and, at least on the record, at that time, secretly) strongly objecting to my political philosophy and ideas LONG BEFORE the meeting, yet he didn't have the guts to confront me before the meeting.) Even you apparently admit this to be true, by virtue of remembering (now!) to carefully point out that material discussed at the meeting is "fair game" for future discussion on lists. You're obviously trying to cover Olsen's ass on this matter by retroactively making it look like what Olsen did was somehow "acceptable". For the record, I object: Kow-towing to a few people by prohibiting cameras, yet flaming others (anonymously, no less!) for non-hostile commentary made at the first meeting makes Olsen look terrible, and defending him makes you look pretty bad. Olsen's setting up a local Cypherpunks area, adding my name to the list, then removing my name when things got a bit too embarrassing is clearly his standard (mis)behavior; you appear to be adopting his policies and practices. If you REALLY were well meaning, you would not tried to flaunt your rejection of me in a public message; you would have kept that part private. What you want to be able to do is to pretend that it is I who was at fault for Olsen's transgressions; you don't know newer attendees to hear both sides of the story. How does it feel to be a sleazy character, Bruce? Jim Bell Klaatu Burada Nikto

1 0

Re: CyberAngels
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Feb 12, 1996 23:23:59, 'ethridge(a)Onramp.NET (Allen B. Ethridge)' wrote: > >The Guardian Angels have decided to enter cyberspace and make it safe for >us all. They have a FAQ on the web - http://www.safesurf.com/cyberangels/ >. How is this relevant to cypherpunks? From their FAQ: > > >"9) What kinds of changes would the Guardian Angels / CyberAngels like to see? > >a) We would like to see an improvement in User identification. User ID is >impossible to verify or trace back. The very anonymity of Users is itself >causing an increase in rudeness, sexual abuse, flaming, and crimes like >pedophile activity. We the Net Users must take responsibility for the >problem ourselves. One of our demands is for more accountable User IDs on >the Net. When people are anonymous they are also free to be criminals. In a >riot you see rioters wearing masks to disguise their true identity. The >same thing is happening online. We would like to see User ID much more >thoroughly checked by Internet Service Providers." > See: _Computer underground Digest_, "CyberAngels in Cyberspace," #8.04, 01/13/96 (my original piece on the CyberAngels) _Computer underground Digest_, "CYBERANGELS," #8.06, 01/21/96 (the CyberAnels official response) _Computer underground Digest_. [ENTIRE ISSUE]. #8.13, 02/06/96 (the readership responds) CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest Also, I have been corresponding with folks at _Wired_ who are picking up the story, for their March issue I believe. On Feb 13, 1996 00:46:05, 'joseph(a)genome.wi.mit.edu (Joseph Sokol-Margolis)' wrote: >not sure if this is the right place. >I agree with allen, about the issues of 'nym. But looking at other aspects >of these cyberangels I'm unsure how to feel. On one hand they seem resonable, >protecting only the children. ... The CyberAngels want to do *far* more than "protect only children." --tallpaul

2 1

Stewart Baker's web site & OECD international crypto policy
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Stewart used to be General Counsel for NSA. He retired to move into private law practice with Steptoe & Johnson. He has a variety of short papers on encryption, network law & policy available on his law firm's web site, http://www.us.net/~steptoe/. My favorite was his summary report on the OECD meeting in December, ~steptoe/286908.htm, at which the US tried to parade some of the fruits of its behind-the-scenes efforts to convince other governments to become as authoritarian as the US government on crypto policy. If the US government can quietly convince other countries to support Clipper-like systems (including "mandatory key escrow" and "trusted third parties") then they can say, "See, this is a real problem -- all these other countries are having to deal with it too." Of course, if their covert US efforts to stir these people up become widely known, the technique will have less impact. The US government's efforts have failed to convince citizens and industry that there's a problem, when they won't tell us what the problem is but assure us that it's a really big problem. Our own government is now colluding with other governments -- against us and their own citizens -- in a joint attempt to attempt to rob the ordinary people of the world of our rights to privacy, free speech, and free assembly. It would be interesting to see notes from other participants in the same OECD meeting(s). Another 1-hour meeting was scheduled in Canberra on Feb 9. Anyone know what happened there? John Gilmore -- Love your country but never trust its government. -- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvania

1 0

Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:57 PM 2/12/96 +0000, Deranged Mutant wrote: >"The word to kill ain't dirty > I used it in the last line > but use a short word for lovin' > and you wind up doin' time..." But has anyone done time yet (recently) for "indecency." I don't think so. The radio stations were fined and/or threatened with license pulling but no one was put in stir. And since net access is not licensed, there's nothing to pull. DCF

1 0

Re: A Cyberspace Independence Refutation
by jim＠bilbo.suite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Well, that's the way the net is *now* - but it wasn't always > so. I remember the days when the net was composed of a > *lot* of point-to-point UUCP connections eventually > winding up at the backbone. > Don't forget FIDONet. Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

1 0