December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Netscape, Corporations, and GAK Support
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:09 PM 11/30/95, Timothy C. May wrote: >To secure Net communications, the government will need to have access to >private data exchanges > ^^^^^^^^^^ >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sorry about the misaligned text and emphasis marks--it looked OK when I was composing the message, but some hidden characters must've been present when I cut-and-pasted the Clark text. I think you all get the gist, though. --Tim 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

CyberDog?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:16 PM 11/30/95, Vinnie Moscaritolo wrote: >You know, one possible solution lies in the direction of Apple's CyberDog. >It is based on OpenDoc and should be portable to windoze, I hate to say Rah >told you so but... > >Even with all the ITAR silliness, even if on the contigincy that Apple >can't provide a SSL or whatever in thier HTML part, YOU can always write >your own HTML part, (its just not that complicated) in the Cyberdog >environment and override the Apple CyberDog HTML part. > >This looks like a great opertunity for some Cypherpunks to write code, and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >code that people DO care about.. a CypherPunk CyberDog part to replace the >Apple HTML viewer with one that has hooks for an encryption API (GSSAPI?) Go for it, Vinnie! Let us know how it works out. Being at Apple, I presume, you're in a position to do what you suggest. The problem of course is that many, many pieces of code "need" to be written: several projects mentioned on this list frequently could use more coders. Integrating the casual work of volunteers is usually hard to do. If the idea is really a good one, and will result in an interesting product, then probably the best approach is for someone to do more than just volunteer some free time: he should set out to build a product he can sell or at least get some recognition for. (A la Eudora, Stuffit, Red Ryder, etc.) I'm a Mac user, but am taking a wait-and-see approach to this "CyberDog" (dumb name!) thing. If it works out, great. But until OpenDoc (and the alphabet soup of object standards like Ole, Bento, DOE, SOM, etc.) appears in real products and demonstrates usefulness, I don't see a rush of folks moving from Windows and Unix platforms to the Mac to develop it. If CyberDog is really a decent Web browser--and I've heard some good things about it, admittedly from Macintosh partisans--then many of us will probably use it. --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

Re: Netscape gives in to key escrow
by Corey Bridges 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Speaking for me and not Netscape: I am not in favor of governmental key escrow. Getting that news yesterday made for the worst day I've had in a while. However, I think that history will look back on this period and snicker. "They thought they could pull off key escrow? Yeah, right." I think that things are going to get pretty ugly over the next few years, but ultimately, it's too late. The genie's out of the bottle. I'm not going to say "Don't give up on Netscape." Do what you feel you should. *I'm* not giving up on Netscape, however. We haven't adopted this as a company position, and besides, I think I can do more good on the inside than on the outside. In a related matter, there was talk a couple days back about creating a PGP plug-in for Netscape Navigator. I've actually been thinking about that for a couple months, but I make a much better writer than a programmer. (And if you've ever read any of my books, keep your jokes to yourself.) Anyway, if people out there are interested in doing the real work on such a product, I'd be more than willing to help with the documentation, UI, and other things where I have a modicum of talent. I'd also put a copy of it on my home page and hype it internally. In an unofficial capacity, natch. Corey Bridges Security Documentation Manager Netscape Communications Corporation 415-528-2978

1 0

Re: GAKzilla & British MPs
by KJC＠cityscape.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > >On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, KJC wrote: > >> for ages - I give up!.- BTW- after 'Britland' MPs posted hear a while back > >Interesting, that must have been during one of my sanity vacations from the >list. Do you remember approx. when or maybe what their names were? >Might make it easier to hunt it down in the archives. >Thanks. > >You know it's really strange, the only people around here I've found >interested in crypto and aware of sci.crypt and this list were government >spooks. I even sold my 1st edition Applied Crypto to one. >Friendly people, but totally discouraging. > >> I thought _maybe_ we'd hear more.Will the last one to leave Grate Britain >> please switch out the lights! >> kc >At least you have better weather. > > I think it was around March '95. Adam Back(?) cross-posted an email from sci.crypt (written by Chris Smith and concerning Cambridge(U.K.) MP Anne Campbell).At some point Campbell posted to the list herself(?) Sorry,I'm not very clear on this but for some reason I always thought she wasn't the only MP involved. Yadayadayada... they're a bit like London buses- nothing for hours then 3 or 4 arrive at the same time... I've posted this to the list 'cause maybe someone can update the story... I'd _still_ like to know if there has been any discussion(by MPs) since then Sorry about the bandwidth kc p.s. Weather better now its been sold to the French.

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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. Bill

3 2

none test
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

12890 87221 56907 00458 94225 40838 75693 98239 87802 85834 98347 49857 21349 12038 14896 09343 87458 98589 32759 74545

1 0

Re: Getting a copy of the Jim Clark speech
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:43 PM 11/30/95 -0600, Frank Stuart wrote: > I'm working on an "obnoxify" program to convert > normal html documents into documents that look > normal to non-netscape browsers, but are too painful to > read with netscape (</BLINK>, <FONT SIZE=1>, etc.). > I think tomorrow evening would be a good time to decide > whether or not to distribute it. Is there any way one could set up a dirty pictures web page in such a fashion that it would be difficult, painful, and impractical to get at the pictures through that page with a netscape browser? --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

5 4

UK Labour Party policy on encryption
by Richard Martin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [see http://www.poptel.org.uk/labour-party/policy/info-highway/content.html for full text] > It is important that privacy is rigorously protected over the > new networks, for both personal and commercial reasons. We do > not accept the "clipper chip" argument developed in the United > States for the authorities to be able to swoop down on any > encrypted message at will and unscramble it. > > The only power we would wish to give to the authorities, in > order to pursue a defined legitimate anti-criminal purpose, > would be to enable decryption to be demanded under judicial > warrant (in the same way that a warrant is required in order > to search someone's home). > > Attempts to control the use of encryption technology are wrong > in principle, unworkable in practice, and damaging to the > long-term economic value of the information networks. There is > no fundamental difference between an encrypted file and a > locked safe. A safe may be effectively impregnable in that the > effort taken to open it would destroy the contents. An > encryption algorithm, similarly, may be effectively > unbreakable. Notes. I've taken this entirely out of context*; cpunks will be glad to find that the same document manages to hit at least two of the horsemen of the infocalypse. A few paragraphs earlier is the standard "must protect women, children, and ethnic minorities" (paraphrased) argument. Labour seems likely to form the next government. And even if they don't, their stated policy might be a good thing to take to the Tories, saying something along the lines of, "Labour has a clue, where's yours?" [Note that I was unable to find the Tory point of view.] I found this stuff from Anne Campbell MP's home page. http://www.worldserver.pipex.com/home/anne.campbell * for brevity's sake. richard Richard Martin I DON'T SPEAK FOR ALIAS|WAVEFRONT Alias|Wavefront - Toronto Office [Co-op Software Developer, Games Team] rmartin@aw.sgi.com/g4frodo@cdf.toronto.edu http://www.io.org/~samwise Trinity College UofT ChemPhysCompSci 9T7+PEY=9T8 Shad Valley Waterloo 1992 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBML5COB1gtCYLvIJ1AQFZ1wP+Ox2fbOKsEbtl06GZugpB8ecHl5cGYHSQ 7sBro0QFr2v4KZOV6X435LXmAqSV8ML+BmVsT/1bnfUzsxeIQErhC0q1kQeA+hAX h21SYfW6hN3h2L9aOtLr/1FDZkKAcXGDNFkvq/weKQdxCbtTw0Nl1ZQym3oaYdhT MrjKi85fU44= =CeYH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: e$: Moof! (Hettinga Speaks at Apple)
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 28 Nov 1995, Robert Hettinga wrote: > God help us all. > > I've been invited to the CyberDog Coding Retreat next week at Apple > Computer in Cupertino. Getting flown out there is cool. Hanging with the > more clueful Mac Internet types and getting to kibbitz and watch (I like to > watch!) them code OpenDoc parts for the internet from 8AM to midnight plus, > subsisting on Dew and Pizza is really way cool. Even getting some > mac.cypherpunks in the door to code cypto parts is extremely cool. But... Mountain Dew and Pizza?? Ohh, waita minutae ... this is California. That means it's probably smoked salmon, with avocado and mayonnaise pizza. Yum. Seriously though ... I'm green with envy. I'd love to attend something like this, but logistics would be a nightmare. First, I'd have to get clearance from the US government for that. And I think I'm on their "undesirable" list, and would need to get some type of waiver to clear immigration. Problems, eh?? I tried to call the Consul-General this afternoon, actually to inquire about that and got put on perpetual hold and forced to listen to some long recording. Then I was told that if I wanted any information at all, I should call a 1-900 number. A 1-900 number?? Too rich for my blood. I guess that Foggy Bottom, really is worried about their budget issues, aren't they? I guess they really want me to use my quarter for pretty much everything. > They've asked me to give a "talk". All by myself. In an auditorium. With an > audience, I mean. With publicity. I feel like Hoffman in Rain Man... > V-E-R-N, Verrrn... More to the point, I feel like I'm tempting fate, > here... Oh, I hate large groups, unless I have prepared text. > Sooo. I've been told I can have friends in the audience. That's cool. As > many friends as I want. That's even cooler. I can even have reinforcements > up on the rostrum. That's extremely cool. Cool. About reinforcements on the rostrum. I know, I really wouldn't inspire any confidence in the audience, at all. I'd probably go off into some strange side track on the nuances of something completely irrelevant and loose the entire audience while talking. I'm really one of those people that doesn't always have facts, and figures, and symbols readily at hand. It's a cognitive thing. Sort of like a database inquiry. Alternatively, if I do focus on an issue. YIKES!! My Aunt Danielle always warned me about my tendancy to use nuclear weapons when simple artillery would suffice. I tend to come on a "bit" heavy at times, unless I actively self-censor. It really is a constant battle on that front. > So, while I work on the "reinforcements up on the rostrum" part, *please* > come and help me explain this stuff to the rest of the Apple community. I'm really not sure I'd necessarily want to break "bad news" to people, reinforcements or not. I saw this yesterday, at a presentation that I was at. It was horrible, and I wasn't even presenting. I was in the audience -- an invited guest. I sorta kinda pissed on someone's campfire, and after that no-one wanted to talk to me. Shoot if looks could kill ... I'd be worried about reputations and popularity, and what this all means "long-term", beyond the time-line of the presentation. I know that explaining some of this might severely limit future opportunities. I think I read that somewhere recently ... that "consultants with blood on their hatchets" usually don't get very far. But it's your talk, I guess. Just my $.02. > Cryptoanarchy. Right here in Cupertino, folks. > > See you there... 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.

1 0

Netscape's Delicate Balancing Act
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The market valuation of Netscape Communications is not specifically a Cypherpunks topic, though many of us interested in it, and/or use Netscape. But there are some issues about Netscape's future product plans which may affect market valuation, and which also could hinge on PR issues like Jim Clark's apparent support for mandatory key escrow. To wit, Netscape is currently valued at $5 billion or so, despite having essentially no revenues or profits (sure, it has a little of each, but not much). This is more than the market capitalization of many sizable, respected companies. Companies like General Dynamics, Apple Computer, CBS (which was just sold to Westinghouse for $5B). Granted, Netscape investors are betting on the come. (And contrary to what someone said, investors in companies like Netscape are not mostly interested in profits. Rather, they are interested in selling at a higher price, for whatever reason. This is also known as the "greater fool" theory: that no matter how high the price of a stock, there is some greater fool who will buy it a higher price. Of course, the corrolary to the greater fool theory is that there is usually a greatest fool.) So, can Netscape keep a $5 billion valuation? (And more to the point, can it double from where it is now, say, and sustain a $10 B valuation? I am skeptical, personally, but I've been wrong before.) What Netscape has to offer is based on a *public* standard, the Web and all the various pieces that so many companies are supporting. Netscape's _server_ market--which is said to be where the revenues are mostly coming from--is likely to face heavy competition. As is the browser, of course. (Spyglass Mosaic, Ravi's company, HotJava, CyberDog, MacWeb, and a bunch of others). Scenario #1: Netscape sticks to an open standard. Hard to see what keeps the valuation at $5 B with so many free browsers, free servers, low-cost servers, etc. (From the browsing side, "brand loyalty" is probably minimal: I've used several browsers, and currently use Netscape 1.1N for _some_ of my Web needs. I'll switch "on a dime" to another browser if it offers features I like. Others I have talked to feel the same way. I think "loyalty" to a particular browser is close to nil. Much less than loyalty to a text editor, for example.) Scenario #2: Realizing this, Netscape seeks to "differentiate itself" by proprietary technology. "'Nuff said." I can't see any means of "proprieterizing" the Web that Netscape could hang on to. Any good ideas will be quickly copied or reverse-engineered by other companies and groups. Unlike a chip company, with various and complicated secrets tied up in internal chip design data bases and in billion-dollar fabrication plants, what could a browser or server really keep secret? Unlike a company like Adobe, with various programs whose functionality can mostly be protected from copying by use of copyright laws, a Web browser that operates on public standard files in standard ways will be hard to protect. (Ironically, Netscape's valuation is significantly higher than Adobe's, and Adobe had something like $700 million in yearly sales and $100+ million in profits.) So, it is my thesis that "brand loyalty" to Netscape is ephemeral, that users will flock to the Next Whizzy Thing faster than you can say "price collapse." The connection with crypto and key escrow is that any bad publicity, any hint that Netscape is signing-on to be an agent for Big Brother, could hasten this conversion. While I would never, ever suggest to anyone that the sticker idea I devised a few years ago--"Big Brother Inside"--be applied here, I can imagine others will. Netscape is in a very delicate balancing act. Jim Clark may turn out to be the Karl Wallenda of the Web (with no Net to catch him). --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