December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Strange Sounds of Silence
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Feb 11, 1996 14:06:45, 'tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May)' wrote (among other things): > >I rarely understand the points "tallpaul" makes, but this one is especially >confusing to me: > I'll close on this point. >At 7:59 PM 2/11/96, tallpaul wrote: > >>I do seem to observe strange sounds of silence from lib'bers on the >>cypherpunks list about the legislative body who passed the law, although >>they must know about the law since they blast the "libera;" to "socialist >>statist" President who signed it. >> >>I seem to observe similar sounds of silence from people who get upset at >>ostensibly liberal Tipper Gore's godlike powers to implement, as a single >>individual, some form of record labels while remaining silent about the >>conservative forces supporting Gingrich clustered around fundamentalist >>christianity who were calling for censorhip. > >As a card-carrying "lib'ber," it seems to me that I have written more than >enough articles denouncing the CDA, making fun of it and Congress, etc. And >so have numeous other "lib'bers" on this list, including (but not limited >to) Bill Stewart, Duncan Frissell, Jim Ray, Rich Graves, Sandy Sandfort, >Vince Cate, and others too numerous to mention. > >tallpaul must be reading a different list than I am reading if thinks those >he dismisses as "lib'bers" (in his other posts, and this one) are somehow >in league with the Christian Right in supporting censorship. > I suspect that T.C. May and I are reading the same list just as I suspect that Alan Pugh and I are living in the same country with the same shared press corp. But I do not dismiss people as "lib'bers;" I merely call them that. I have noticed that a large number of libertarians are fans of Rush Limbaugh and chuckle a lot when Rush refers to women like Andrea Dworkin and her supporters as lib'bers. I also find that the people opposed to Drowkin & Co. are upset at her use of demagogic language, private dictionaries, and the like. So am I, and started long before Rush got his TV shows. I am, however, equally (if not more upset) by what I perceive as similar demagogic etc. behavior by many libertarians. In short, I do not seek "to dismiss" libertarians as "lib'bers." I am not a magician and do not believe that complex issues go away through magical chants (around which T.C. May has correctly written.) But I do call them "lib'bers" much as Ruch Limbaugh uses the term in other areas. Do some people not like this? I imagine so. Do they have the right to complain? Absolutely, and I support their right to so complain. Do they really have a right not to be styled "lib'bers?" No, I do not think they have that right. Put another way, what is sauce for the goose cannot be slander for the gander. I do not believe that all lib'bers are in league with the Christian right; I am distrubed, however, by the large numbers of lib'bers who strangely never mention the existence of the fundamentalists in the ultra-conservative ultra-private-property camp. I am equally concerned with some leftists who consider every example of authoritarian behavior as "fascism" as I am with 'ib'bers who lump everyone who argues for social responsibility as a "socialst statist." One difference I see is that I am willing to criticize both groups while many (but not all) lib'bers are again strangely silent at least the "statist" side of the equation. I am sorry that T.C. May frequently has problems understanding my posts. Both of us frequently use sarcasm and rhetorical hyperbole to make our points. Witness his excellent _reductio ad absurdum_ post on warning labels for every group around the orld who believes that his or her personal folkways and mores are deserving of unique consideration. However, this in itself does not reduce the confusion. Let me then offer a possible compromise to reduce the confusion. If T.C. May makes a special effort to better identify sarcasm when people such as myself use it and rhetorical hyperbole, I in turn will make a special effort to be more sarcastic and more hyperbolic in posts containing both. --tallpaul Internet sports fan: Go Big Red! Smash State!

1 0

Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09:54 AM 2/11/96 -0500, John Young wrote: >It's hard to tell the difference between "Assasination >Politics" and government-sponsored provocateurism, a >well-documented practice to stigmatize anarchical and >anti-authoritarian ventures. I deeply appreciate your quandary. Needless to say, _I_ know which I am, and what my motivations are. But there are a few clues which might assist you: 1. Most "government sponsored provocateurism" is given substantially more publicity than the meager amount I've managed to acquire on FIDOnet, USENET, and CP. You can well imagine that if the government were trying to use an "Assassination Politics"-type scenario to drum up support for Clipper-type and FBI-wiretap ideas, they'd do a better job getting the word out. 2. I think I've tried to make it clear that I believe that this idea is technically inevitable; it will occur REGARDLESS of the efforts which attempt to resist it. If this were "government-sponsored provocateurism," I would have added something to the effect that "This is going to happen unless [fill in the blank with something the government wants to do to us...]". 3. "Watch this space" If you still have any residual doubts, and think I might be in league with the government on this, wait a few months. You'll be astonished. >However, it takes guts and thick skin to advocate overthrow of >authority, knowing that reasonable people will think you're a >nut seeking celebrity martyrdom. Well, it's not like I'm SEEKING martyrdom, but the possibilities have certainly crossed my mind. Some people have suggested, and only partially in jest, that I may be one of the system's first victims. They may be right. Nevertheless, I was undeterred, as evidenced by the fact that I published the essay anyway. >Happily for the careers of agent-and-anarchist back-stabbing >back-scratchers, there is no easy way to know for sure which is >which, or even if there's any difference when the media >juggernauts are provocateuring both roles for melodramatic >infotainment. My idea has already resulted in an article in the Asahi Evening News newspaper, an English-language newspaper for residents of Japan. A copy of this article was mailed to me a couple days ago. It may also result in a (I hope positive) screenplay. FAR more exciting that "The Net." Jim Bell Klaatu Burada Nikto Something is going to happen. Something...Wonderful! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMR6EVfqHVDBboB2dAQH6IgP+MjeXW5l7MxBJxjjFN35Rc6xBS+l924Re byW467mj3BQ1Iz9g/UBVnleMUBzx+6mseBFZ+aYqjdrzFOMAo/F8Qys9HgD96I1o TLJ+dziKzpNPj4GmrYhliFaF8sifZgbatEIfnu4WFz1jT6rqxwbkTh49xxz2crjC JKSskpxXoMA= =XPh3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Attitudes toward the government...
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Ray wrote: >"Americans hate the IRS, and if the only way they can get rid of it > is to elect somebody who is communicating directly with the Planet > Xorgon, then so be it." -- Dave Barry [on Steve Forbes]. 2/9/96 Not just this, but another data point about the current sentiment about Washington: In a movie theater today there was a preview of the upcoming movie "Independence Day," showing a flying saucer hovering over the White House, then destroying it. The audience cheered and clapped. I'm not sure this would've happened in, say, the early 1950s. (However, like the early 1950s, the producers of this upatriotic drivel may have to answer to the House Un-American Activities Committee, to explain their Indecent portrayal.) --Tim May (P.S. "Broken Arrow" was a fun flick. Sort of like "Fail Safe " on "Speed.") 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."

1 0

re: Regulation of citizen-alien communications
by A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> Gov does have the right (in fact the duty) to regulate communications >> between citizens and non-citizens/sites in other lands >(not wishing to start a flamewar) Why do you think so ? "...provide for the common defense" "To regulate Commerce with foreign nations..." "...or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." There are the bytes - try reading them in context. Warmly, Padgett

2 1

Re: A Cyberspace Independence Refutation
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:54 PM 2/11/96 PST, strata(a)virtual.net wrote: >Oh, let's start right off pretending that >a) the net is an independently funded entity with no government >infrastructure No pretence. It is, and it has been for some time. Your other arguments casually dismiss the very real power that large numbers of able people with good communications can exercise, have just exercised very recently. Nation states are a new creation. In the past many different kings ruled many different bits of one nation, and one king often ruled parts of more than one nation. Today nation states are almost universal, and people can no longer imagine what a nation is, other than a nation state. But the net is a nation, and is not a state, and nationalism is a force that governments usually cannot withstand. What makes a government strong is its cohesion, but the state cannot create its own cohesion. When states attempted to confront nationalism, they often lost cohesion and vanished altogether, like a string of sand. The "Nation state" is in essence a tactic for avoiding this hazard. Governments are acutely aware of this problem, and act very cautiously in the face of such threats. Many people seem to imagine that a government innately and naturally has cohesion, that it is naturally one thing, naturaly capable of acting coherently and cohesively as an individual can. On the contrary, governments maintain their cohesion with difficulty, and continually act, or refrain from acting, in fear that they might lose it. In an all out knock down battle between a particular government and the internet, in a state where a substantial proportion of the middle class was on the internet, the government would be in serious danger of evaporating like a jellyfish in the sunshine. The government can get away with a substantial amount of harassment and restraint, but has only limited power to act without itself being acted on, to change the world without itself suffering change. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

1 0

Re: The Emotional Killer (or out of the frying pan and into the electric chair?)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:59 PM 2/11/96 -0500, tallpaul wrote: >I want to write on the theme posted to the list in the message below where >J. Bell wrote "It is their ACTIONS that I feel violate my rights; that is >what justifies my seeking their deaths, should I choose to do so." > >First, one thing that marks the sane adult from the child and the floridly >psychotic adult is the sane adult's knowledge that "feelings" and "facts" >are two different things. > >It is one thing to "feel," as J. Bell or all of us might, that our rights >have been violated. > >It is another thing to maintain, as J. Bell uniquely appears to do, that >the "feeling" gives him the right to seek another person's death. You're clearly confused. I was responding to an accusation that I was defending seeking somebody's death simply because of a disagreement of OPINION. My comment was intended to remind the reader that it is the ACTIONS of a person which justify the self-defense; not simply the disagreement. You falsely imply that a person can't be correct in his assessment that his rights were, indeed, violated. > >This and other posts by J. Bell and other lib'bers lead me to believe that >their claimed interest in human freedom for everyone is little more than a >cover for a set of authoritarian expectations that they can do whatever >they want, free from any control, responsibility, or accountability. Since you just got through misrepresenting my position, probably intentionally, it's pretty hard to take the rest of your opinions seriously. >The argued centrality of J. Bell's "feelings" over other people's lives is >something that puts him in the god category. (Thankfully J. Bell is not one >of the dreaded tax collectors or "socialist statists.") You're wrong yet again. Let's see, tallpaul needs a logic lesson: Let's suppose I _believe_ my rights are being violated. While that, in itself, does not guarantee that this is CORRECT, on the other hand it doesn't mean that it is INCORRECT, either. You're falsely implying that I was ignoring the issue of correctness; I wasn't.

1 0

Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 02:17 AM 2/11/96 -0600, Alex Strasheim wrote: >> If Perry is REALLY sincere about objecting to the NON-crypto part of AsPol, >> he should demonstrate this by writing notes which are focussing on the >> crypto aspects, rather than just complaining. > >What's the proper procedure for complaining about the assasination part >of "AsPol"? You could start out by saying something like, "I don't believe in the idea of self-defense: People shouldn't defend themselves when they are attacked." Is this what you really believe? >In general, it doesn't bother me when the list goes "off topic" -- I don't >read the stuff that doesn't interest me. But when you start talking about >violence, you have to expect that people are going to react negatively. Except that most of the people who would complain seem to make a convenient distinction about violence done by individuals in self-defense, and the threat of violence by government agencies. In other words, statists don't want us to defend ourselves against government action. >We have to say, "that's nuts" -- otherwise people will think that we're >unbalanced sociopaths. Is it "nuts" to want to defend our own property?!? > >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. >I apologize in advance for not getting the joke if "AsPol", like Blacknet, >is tongue in cheek. I haven't been following the topic closely. >I hope you're not serious. You're obviously not very perceptive. First, it's DEADLY SERIOUS. But, moreover, I believe it's INEVITABLE. It didn't even matter that a person named "Jim Bell" happened to write the essay; the system was coming no matter what happens. Depending on how you look at it, I didn't "invent" anything; I merely "discovered" a reality that was on the way. I need do nothing to see the system implemented; it'll happen somewhere, sometime, and it'll spread inexorably throughout the world. Jim Bell Klaatu Burada Nikto -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMR71pfqHVDBboB2dAQGu0AP+KPFdgwOBRbovQNMji2XSEEPabAIVwFPs mBtGNK3f+PEdVHQAWYwoFw+o9Wjd3nqWW1KZcN4/BHRa5X5s4EOe56tTmpHVbh4G 2a4V3zJrSOm5ocs9fNkYUOxc8ekwxCS9LeJ2dUke0QkfQ5s1GELW4zxB3I0eBVnC GXV/Gv6b6kE= =0HHg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: A Cyberspace Independence Refutation
by lmccarth＠cs.umass.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(I agree with nearly everything in Strata's "Refutation" essay. In particular, I find his comments on the net.pundits' hypocrisy about net.bias and prejudice to be extremely accurate.) James Donald writes: [...various points about "cohesion"...] > In an all out knock down battle between a particular government and the > internet, in a state where a substantial proportion of the middle class > was on the internet, the government would be in serious danger of > evaporating like a jellyfish in the sunshine. I'm afraid I'm not willing to take this on faith. Strata made some good observations about the tangible vulnerability of the net-as-we-know-it to government intervention. If you'd like to try to rebut some of his arguments a bit more specifically, I'd be very interested in reading about it. -Lewis "You're always disappointed, nothing seems to keep you high -- drive your bargains, push your papers, win your medals, fuck your strangers; don't it leave you on the empty side ?" (Joni Mitchell, 1972)

1 0

Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> 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... > The "V-Chip" debate is a mirror of the one that occured when the cable > channels were starting to become popular. There was a big hue and cry about > kids getting to the "naughty" channels without parent concent. Seems most > people do not even learn how the lockouts work. (And are too lazy to learn.) You should check out your nearest H/P BBS or ftp-site... > You have to remember that most of the people arguing for TV filters are > looking for a way to make the "offensive" stuff go away for good. (Either [..] A very good point. One that makes me wary of V-Chips... --- "Mutant" Rob <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" (not in quotes) for a copy of my PGP key.

1 0

Odd rounds in Blowfish
by ab411＠detroit.freenet.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[ This is an article that I just posted to sci.crypt ] In describing Blowfish Bruce Schneier mentioned that it achieves avalanche after the 3rd round, and after each two subsequent rounds (5, 7, 9, ...). (I understand 'avalanche' to mean that each bit of the key has affected each bit of the data being encrypted. Do I understand correctly?) He also mentioned the possibility of decreasing the number of rounds in Blowfish from the current 16, in order to improve the speed. My question is, would it be sensible to do it with an odd number of rounds? If 10 rounds were a consideration, then why not go on to 11 to get the 5th complete avalanche? Or perhaps it would suffice to stop after 9 rounds, after the 4th complete avalanche? Is a whole number of avalanches a desirable feature? Would an odd number of rounds throw a spanner into the key schedule? Also, how would this relate to the modified algorithm, Blowfish-SK? I think I have now made my lack of expertise amply apparent. :-) [ ObNoise: does it take Nukes to end the jim bell/Alan Olsen flamewar? ] [ ObRating: this post is rated G because it does not contain the words shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, or tits. ] Hoping these are not stupid questions, -- David R. Conrad, conrad(a)detroit.freenet.org, http://www.grfn.org/~conrad Hardware & Software Committee : finger -l conrad(a)grfn.org for public key Key fingerprint = 33 12 BC 77 48 81 99 A5 D8 9C 43 16 3C 37 0B 50 No, his mind is not for rent to any god or government.

1 0