December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:36 PM 2/13/96 -0800, Bill Frantz wrote: >At 8:15 PM 2/13/96 -0500, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: >>That may well be true, but speaking as someone who's worked on U.S. >>Presidential campaigns, that kind of protection is expensive, >>time-consuming, intrusive, and unlikely to be extended. > >I assume that both Declan and Jim Bell agree that people high in the >government will be immune because they already enjoy this level of >protection (limitation one). So the only people we can hit are the cannon >fodder, not the ones who gave the orders. It has always been this way with >war. Actually, I think the primary targets will be either the middle level manager types, or the ones who have attracted a substantial amount of bad publicity by "following orders." Lon Horiuchi (the sniper who shot Vicki Weaver) for example, would be a excellent example of a person who'd try to claim, "I was just following orders." Okay, maybe he was, but so was Adolph Eichmann. Once the tax collectors/enforcers were targeted, the rest of the government wouldn't be able to operate, and would collapse. >If, after a couple of the Waco people had been hit, I was given the >responsibility to protect them I would proceed as follews: > >(1) Gather them and their families onto some Army base and step up the >patrols. Now I have them safe. And, of course, you've just ruined their lives. Think about it. By doing this, it is made absolutely, completely, and abundantly clear to them that THEY are considered "the enemy" and that their lives are forever put at risk. Previously, government employees could hold their heads up high and be proud of their "public service." Now, if they're discovered, they have to disappear. Does this treatment sound familiar? Their job description and circumstances will more closely resemble that of a Mafia enforcer than a proud public servant. They'll have to teach their children to lie about what their parent does, rather than risk getting exposed. Who, exactly, would want to work for the government under such circumstances? Remember, we're not just talking about a tiny fraction of their number; if the most egregious ones were hidden the ones that were less secure would be killed in their place. Remember, the only reason the government can even afford so many employees is because taxes are collected; what happens when literally every IRS agent resigns to avoid the bullet or bomb? The remainder, the "less bad" ones, couldn't be paid. At that point, government collapses. >(2) Train and release them thru the witness protection program. Cost >$20,000/person (if I remember the article John Young posted a pointer to >correctly. (Thanks John)) This is probably about the same as the cost of >their training, so it makes economic sense. Except that you can't do this for every government employee, and who's going to want to work for the government if it is made clear to them that someday they'll either be killed, or discovered, or they will have to "go underground" to survive. Not a very good prospect. And what happens if they think there's a fairly good chance that my system will succeed? Most people want to be able to retire with a pension; what's the prospect for collecting a pension from a demolished government?!? > >(3) Make sure that the names/faces of the cannon fodder in future actions >are not available to make it harder to target the guilty. > >Bill Then they'll target the "names," the ones who show their faces. See how this works? If the only way you can maintain the government is to keep them all absolutely anonymous, then that government has FAILED. Furthermore, this system's anonymity allows disgruntled public employees the chance to collect money by "turning in" their bosses to the public's ire; if the personnel list for the government is nominally a secret, it will "leak" eventually and those on the list will be followed, confirmed, and targeted. I'm not a betting man, but if I were forced to place a bet, your position doesn't have a prayer.

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> This would hose 93% of the subversive stuff on the 'net. I guess I've gotten turned around on this -- last week I was arguing your position. But: China's problem is internal, not external, and it's political, not sexual. Let's assume that they can build a successful firewall -- despite the fact that the people here on this list who design and install such firewalls for a living don't believe that the Chineese plan is feasible. Let's assume that they can prevent people from grabbing photos from playboy.com. So what? Who's in a position to formulate devastating criticisms of China's government? Americans? Or people who live under the system and understand it? And what's subversive, anyway? Breasts enhanced with silicon and airbrushing, or plain honest talk about liberty and government? Any net that lets the Chineese people publish and talk to one another is going to create problems for the government. On top of that, the firewall isn't even going to keep out foreign traffic. The firewall model doesn't work for internal security -- it assumes that the people on the inside are trustworthy, and it focuses on protecting the internal net from people on the outside. The Chineese have to deal with people on the inside trying to subvert the wall by building illicit links via telephone lines or satellite channels. Let's put it another way. Suppose a company has a strong firewall installed by a first rate security consultant. If an employee who has access to the internal net puts a modem on his machine and lets anyone who wants to dial in and connect to the internal net, what good does the firewall do? You can't come in over the Internet, but you can come in over a pots line. Either way, you've got your access. For what it's worth, I have a friend who just got a job with Apple's operation in China. According to him, Hong Kong is fully wired, but mainland China only has about 5,000 net accounts outside of government or acadamia. All 5,000 of those accounts seem to be served by a single 64kbs connection to the outside world, which suggests that they're email only.

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 07:28 PM 2/13/96 -0500, Rich Salz wrote: >Okay, so how the hell did Microsoft get export approval for this? I mean, >this is the classic crypto-with-a-hole; a service-provider interface (SPI) >with DLL's means "plug your crypto here". This is usually considered an >"anciliary" device in ITAR language, and therefore export controlled. I >mean, how long until you see MSWord with "full privacy" option? > >Word I've heard is that the office of Export Control has had a lot of >turnover and "nobody knows anything" anymore. At the risk of blowing my usual horn, I would argue that one advantage in vocal, common, and loudly hostile talk against government is that they have begun to understand how unhappy we are with them. To make an analogy with late-1700's France, the sound of a guillotine being tested probably had a remarkable effect on the upper strata of their society; likewise, dicussions of how we can all chip in and bump off the whole lot of the bastards might remind a few of they key government players that they are not immune from eventual retribution. Resulting in "a lot of turnover." If we make a "reasonable assumption" that most of those government employees aren't stupid, and they discover that the prospect for Crypto-Anarchy (trademark owned by Tim May?) is good, it seems reasonable to assume that they'll want to avoid being around when THE END comes for their employer. Jim Bell Klaatu Burada Nikto -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMSF8vvqHVDBboB2dAQExXQP+JHO6P80VfXE1+x5JmstA14dg+wlmXBK2 +8UYUnD7IpK2QzIKoEbmot2/WfUK/9zzOiuRuXvzc6FxfscRm7xNzNO28vviTN5U osVNgm72t/R2jZspMPr+cYE3GcxDIcQvTEOth5Tz9J9q7TfI4+NPl68fN7sqEOsG m44PPIy6F2I= =m3hQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:48 PM 2/12/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > I have changed the subject header (despite its destroying threading >with the way my mailreader works) so that Perry et al can more easily filter >this out. I have concluded that Assasination Politics, since it is a possible >development of true anonymnity, etcetera, is a proper discussion topic for >cypherpunks - while not cryptography in and of itself, it is a possible result >of cryptography. I'm glad some people see that. This may, in fact, turn out to be one of the most important products of modern, public-key cryptography. >From: IN%"frantz(a)netcom.com" 12-FEB-1996 03:24:07.29 > >>Again, absolutely. Hell, I can't even devise a filter that will let me >>filter out Jim Bell's rants while letting me see his reasoned arguments on >>anonymous assassination. (I would love to have him address the Salman >>Rushdie issue, a man who is still alive despite a considerable announced >>price for his head. There appear to be limits to who can be subject to >>assassination for pay.) > > Actually, that's an argument for non-misusage of Assasination Politics. >If the person hides, there's not much one can do about it. But a hiding >law enforcement agent can't be out violating people's rights. Bingo! That's why this system will be so effective; it will DETER bad behavior on the part of the government and its agents. >(I will mention >that whether a right is violated or not is essentially a matter of the >perceiver - under any system, whether governmental or not. All ethical >arguments assume either some degree of common ground that can be argued from, >or the finding of logical inconsistency). Those who do so via the net can be >taken care of via the other mechanisms discussed here. It's just that the >physical part is a possible net weakness. > Moreover, just because _some_ rights-violaters (not that Rushdie was >one) aren't killed doesn't mean that all of them wouldn't be. A system doesn't >have to be 100% efficient to be effective. Yup; it's interesting that Franz didn't see this... Maybe he just didn't WANT to see it! > However, the Rushdie case does bring up one problem I have with >Assasination Politics as currently constructed. While people are unlikely to >patronize a general/non-discriminatory organization, a more particular but >non-libertarian one is still possible. For instance, if the Christian >Coalition put together an organization, anonymously, what would prevent them >from offing everyone who was a major leader against them - such as a doctor >researching new abortion techniques, or a geneticist (such as myself) doing >gene therapy work they found offensive? The patrons would know that _they_ >wouldn't be targeted after all... I would appreciate a response from Jim Bell >on this subject. > -Allen Your question was actually a two-parter. I will separate it below and comment on the pieces: >For instance, if the Christian >Coalition put together an organization, anonymously, what would prevent them >from offing everyone who was a major leader against them - "Who needs leaders"? Think about this, carefully. The current political system is based on the idea that if you don't like the way things are being done, you have to publicize your unhappiness, to organize, and for that you normally "need" leaders. With "Assassination Politics," _leaders_ will not only not be necessary, they might be the prime targets for unhappy people! But this will work both ways: "Christian Coalition" LEADERS will be targets themselves if they publicly advocate the killing of abortion doctors. > such as a doctor >researching new abortion techniques, or a geneticist (such as myself) doing >gene therapy work they found offensive? I wish there was some sort of "perfect, easy solution" to this dilemma, but it's possible there isn't. Ultimately, anybody who does anything that angers enough people, ENOUGH, will be a potential target. I don't think this is a major admission however; society has ALWAYS been this way. In the early 1600's in Salem, women were killed simply due to false accusations that they engaged in 'witchcraft." Governments have prosecuted (and persecuted) people for violation of what we now call victimless crimes. In the pre-1960's South, being black was a de-facto "crime": They could be arrested, tried, and convicted on a pretense. Over 60% of prison cells are filled with people who sold chemicals (drugs) to willing buyers. I think it's clear that there are ALREADY plenty of violations of rights going on; at most, you can claim that "Assassination Politics" is "imperfect" in the sense that it doesn't completely solve this problem. But since I do genuinely believe it will eliminate war, militaries, governments, taxes, and other evils, I think we'll end up with a far better society than we have today. >The patrons would know that _they_ >wouldn't be targeted after all... I would appreciate a response from Jim Bell >on this subject. All is not lost, however. I contend that society would likely IMPROVE to the point where the kind of behavior you want to avoid will not commonly happen. Wishful thinking? Well, consider a point which was driven home to me a week ago at a dinner with my parents, sister and brother in law, and my two nieces, ages 4 and 9. We were eating spareribs, and my father (age 65) commented that such meat used to be considered trash meat, and "only the niggers bought it." (BTW, my father was not and is not a bigot, quite the opposite; he used this terminology to relate the general opinion during the time frame he grew up in; he used this terminology to reflect on and deride that public opinion back then.) My older niece looked mystified, and said she hadn't even HEARD the term "nigger." (and she's substantially above average in vocabulary and intelligence for age 9, BTW) While I am not going to claim that bigotry is dead in the younger generation, I think it's clear that it went out of style in the 1960's and progress has since been made in eradicating most of its more egregious effects. In short, in that issue, society has improved, if by no other method than waiting for the bigots to die off naturally and develop a new generation of more tolerant people. Call this "political correctness" if you wish (and I'm about as much an opponent of "political correctness" as you'll find) but the fact is that things are getting better with regards to race relations. Similarly, I think that once public advocacy for killing abortion doctors and others was deterred (by judicious use of Assassination Politics, for example, even if a given example of such use might be considered "wrong" because it was a violation of "free speech") pretty soon it would be hard to gather much enthusiasm for such bad acts. Few people would risk calling publicly for that; the next generation will "never" hear such a thing, etc. Is it unreasonable for me to suggest that over time, the faults you fear will tend to disappear?

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Howdy from Australia. I am in the process of doing some research for an article on our present bandwidth difficulties in Oz. As a side issue, I wanted to cover the "overhead" factor inherent in the TCP/IP (v4?) protocol which I understand is reduced under the proposed IPv.6 protocol. I'd also like to discuss the "unfriendly" manner in which web browsers such as Netscape hog resources by sending multiple port access requests. Can anyone point me towards recent papers which deal with these issues? TIA Mark ___ Mark Neely - accessnt(a)ozemail.com.au Lawyer, Professional Cynic Author: Australian Beginner's Guide to the Internet Work-in-Progress: Australian Business Guide to the Internet WWW: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~accessnt

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> It seems that there a market demand for a stealth-capable product. > Many peoples here seems to discuss it. And for the time being, AFAIK, > this type of products are used by a specific class of peoples, most of > which knows what 'stealth' means. > > So why is it that they design a program that would not permit the use > of a feature considered desirable by it's customer base? The big question I have for you is, what do you mean by "stealth" PGP? Do you want a PGP message which doesn't say to whom it is encrypted? Or do you want a PGP message which does not even acknowledge that it is a PGP message? If what you want is the former, then that can fit under the PGP API fairly well. If you want the latter, it will not. The reason is that PGP, by definition, is a self-describing packet format. Without that description there is no general way for the PGP library to discover what kind of message it is parsing order to perform the proper operation to open the message. OTOH, if just the keyID is missing, the library will happily try all the keys on your secret keyring until one succeeds or they all fail (I'm not sure if this is implemented, but it fits quite nicely under the API). The other question I have is: who do you think the "customers" of PGP are? If you think the majority of PGP's customers are the crypto-privacy activitst types, you are highly mistaken. PGP has hit the main stream, and is being used by many non-crypto-aware people. Probably more of them than there are of us. If you want to discuss this more, let's take it to private email, please. -derek

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:33 PM 2/13/96, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >Tim, you don't work for a living. Some of us do. You might try to >think back and remember what it was like in the days when you still >did something every once in a while and had a limited amount of time ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >available in which to do it. > Perry once again resorts to insults. Constantly belittling the efforts of others suggests deepseated psychological doubts about his own contributions. Shows you the reaction I get for even responding to him. My mistake. Perry should learn how to use mail filters, then he can simply filter out all the stuff he doesn't want to see. Or, simply hitting the 'delete" key in whatever reader he is using...surely typing "D" 20 or 30 times a day takes far less time than writing one of his perrygrams? --Tim May 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: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:36 AM 2/13/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: > >You mention the issue of Rushdie, as if it is some sort of refutation of my >idea. Quite the contrary; I think it actually supports me. > >How so?, you ask? Well, let's consider any potential assassin who might be >interested in this "contract." Aside from the obvious moral issues involved >here (Rushdie has, presumably, done nothing to warrant his death), the truth >is that such a potential assassin would see a number of problems that would >strongly dissuade him from attempting to kill Rushdie. > >1. There is no way he could be assured that he could collect the award >anonymously. His name would certainly "get out," and then he would be >subject not merely to "the law," but also anybody who wanted revenge for >Rushdie's death. > >2. There is no way he could be assured that he would actually receive the >award. (How would he prove HE did it?) > >3. That's because there is no way he would enforce this "contract" should >the offerer refuse to pay. These points would not affect a devout Iranian Muslem. To him the death warent has already been issued by legitimate authority. It is not even clear that money would be his princple motivator. I must respectifully disagree with Jim in this case. I believe that Rushdie has not been hit because the protection he enjoys is sufficent to repel the potential assassins. Note that he has an advantage over the US president (who probably has as many potential assassins) in that he does not need to make public appearences. Adding money to the pot will attract rational (and amoral) people who will then make a determination based on (1) profit, and (2) risk, which includes getting caught or killed. It seems to me that Secret Service levels of protection can protect a public figure against even Assassination Politics. Bill

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

At 2:04 PM 2/14/96, Robert Hettinga wrote: >Perry and Tim, > >Why don't you two have sex already? The tension around here is getting >unbearable... And why don't you stop cluttering up the list with supposedly cute stuff like this? The couple of fairly short messages I've written in response to comments by Perry are *as nothing* compared to the tons of verbiage in the Jim Bell flame wars, the VZNUri/Detweiler flames, and even the Black Unicorn vs. Netscape battle. (If anyone can point to examples where I have engaged in protracted--more than a couple of short messages--flames, please send me pointers to these examples in private mail. I claim no especial morality, but I do think I've stayed out of ongoing flame wars. I haven't even commented on "assassination politics," even though it's just a watered-down and poorly-thought-out version of what I wrote about in 1988...easier to just delete the ramblings.) And yet people like Bob and Uni feel compelled to throw their two cents in about what a spectacle this is. Get real. --Tim May 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."

2 1

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