December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by anonymous＠freezone.remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> And I would ask whoever DID post the PGP key under my name, to please > issue a revocation certificate. > > > 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. > > Pretender. I'm the real no-pgp Alice. 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

Re: Netscape gives in to key escrow
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jeff wrote: > sameer wrote: > > http://www.cnet.com/Central/News/govt.html > > Bad. Very Bad. And I was almost starting to like Netscape. > Please don't give up on us yet. [...] > PS - you won't find a LEF(sic) in the soon to be released SSL Version 3 spec... > Jeff Weinstein - Electronic Munitions Specialist I've been trying to figure out the boundary conditions of the speech - what's the best and worst interpretations that can be placed upon it. I was not at the show. Worst: Netscape will put GAK into every server and browser it sells or distributes. Best: Out of context, misinterpreted quote, referring to the Fortezza support in the newest version of SSL. Fortezza (and the earlier, related Tessera) are PCMCIA cards with Clipper chips. Clipper, as we know, *is* escrowed. There's a lot of interest within the USG for using Web-based technologies for distributing information, some of it confidential. With a Fortezza-based laptop and a Fortezza-enabled browser, a government employee would be able to securely obtain text and graphics info while out in the field - for example, a social worker looking up case histories while at a client's home, to choose a fairly uncontroversial example. At a W3C meeting a few months ago, some NSA employees demoed a Tessera enabled Mosaic client and server. Netscape (and other SW companies) would like to sell to the USG - it's a big market. Adding support for USG supported security systems expands that potential market. Jeff, this does not let you or Netscape off of the hook. A *lot* of people are wondering just exactly what Jim was alluding to,. and would like to see a full, in-context quote. speaking only for myself (whatever that is worth :-) Peter Trei trei(a)process.com

1 0

Re: The future will be easy to use
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Jon Lasser writes: >> However, if you have optional linking of ID and name, shippers will only >> ship to keys with such attributes. Because just ID and address, it could >> be a "hit and run" type attack shipped to a safe maildrop. At 03:19 AM 11/30/95 -0500, Futplex wrote: >People who steal credit cards prefer to order goods to be delivered somewhere >they can grab them. Presumably all of us seek a ecash and echeque system somewhat better than a human readable sixteen decimal digit number: Indeed, what I had in mind was 1024 binary bit number -- we should be working to a world in which a self generated secret PGP key performs the functions that a credit card number does today. (Often this is just the front of the rightful owner's >home, while Holly the Homeowner is off at work.) But that's just another >reason to cut down unauthorized credit card charges, not a reason to restrict >what a rightful cardholder can do with the card. I _want_ to be able to have >stuff delivered to arbitrary locations, and I _don't_ want to give that up >just to make it tough on thieves. > >James Donald writes: >> This argument makes no sense at all: I am going to attack my >> enemies by paying people to send books, computers, and stuff >> to them? > >Ordering hardcore porno videos to be sent to, say, somewhere in Tennessee >might work pretty well in our sadly repressed society. > >-Futplex <futplex(a)pseudonym.com> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

cypherpunks at ietf
by Bob Bruen, MIT Lab for Nuclear Science 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I thought the following mail might be of interest. It's not my doing. Bob ========================================================================= From: SMTP%"MEYERUSA(a)aol.com" 30-NOV-1995 10:25:39.59 To: BRUEN CC: Subj: Re: DISCUSSION FOR IETF DALLAS Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 08:49:15 -0500 Sender:ietf-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: MEYERUSA(a)aol.com Message-ID: <951130084914_120843907(a)mail06.mail.aol.com> To: rgm3(a)is.chrysler.com cc: ietf(a)CNRI.Reston.VA.US, SteveCase(a)aol.com Subject: Re: DISCUSSION FOR IETF DALLAS THE WWW MUST BE CONSUMER FRIENDLY IF IT IS TO SURVIVE. THE AVERAGE CONSUMER THRU A PC, OR A "DEDICATED WEB TERMINAL ON TOP OF THEIR TV SET", MUST BE ABLE TO USE THE WEB IN THE FUTURE TO: 1. SEARCH FOR CONSUMER GOODS; ORDER CONSUMER GOODS. 2. USE THE WEB FOR TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS AND E-MAIL 3. DOWNLOAD TIME SHIFT AUDIO & VIDEO 4. DOWLOAD MOVIES, SOFTWARE, AND P.P.V. EVENTS 5. HOOK ON-LINE TO VIDEO & AUDIO THE WWW AND THE ON-LINE SERVICES MUST BE ABLE TO DIAL OUT TO THE CONSUMER ALSO. OUR BIGGEST FUTURE PROBLEM IS THAT WE CAN NOT LET BILL GATES, NOR THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES, NOR THE CABLE TV COMPANIES, NOR THE MADISON AVENUE ADVERTISING AGENCIES GET CONTROL OF THE WWW. OUR CURRENT PROBLEM IS THAT THE AVERAGE CONSUMER CAN NOT COMPLETE AN ACCURATE SEARCH ON THE WEB. COMPANIES MUST BE ABLE TO PROTECT THEIR TRADEMARKS AND SERVICE MARKS, AND TO EMBED EVERY POSSIBLE KEYWORD IN THEIR SITE SO THAT IN THE FUTURE A CONSUMER COULD ENTER AT THE SEARCH LINE: "SHOW ALL DEALERS IN BALTIMORE THAT SELL CHRYSLER MINI-VANS" AND AN ACCURATE SEACH OF THE WEB WILL BE RETURNED. AT THIS POINT SO MANY CYBERPUNKS HAVE EMBEDDED SO MUCH GARBAGE ON THE WEB, THAT YOU CAN NOT COMPLETE AN ACCURATE SEARCH. OUR COMPANY HAS BEEN ASKED BY THE NEW YORK AUTO SHOW TO CREATE THE MOST HIGHTECH VIRTUAL REALITY MOTION SIMULATOR THEATRE FOR THE 1996 NEW YORK AUTO SHOW. DURING OUR RESEARCH, WE ENTERED "NEW YORK AUTO SHOW" IN OUR WEB CRAWLER (AMERICA ON-LINE). YOU COULD NOT BELIEVE ALL OF THE GARBAGE THAT WAS RETURNED FROM OUR SEARCH. ADDITIONALLY FOR EXAMPLE, IF ON AMERICA ON-LINE YOU NEED TO SEND AN E-MAIL TO DONALD TRUMP OR TO AOL'S STEVE CASE, WHEN YOU SEARCH THE AOL MEMBER DATABASE, WHO IS THE REAL DONALD TRUMP OR THE REAL STEVE CASE. IN SUMMARY, WHAT NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED AT IETF IN DALLAS NEXT WEEK IS A STANDARD THAT PROTECTS TRADEMARKS AND SERVICE MARKS, AND ALSO A POLICING AGENCY THAT WILL DETERMINE THAT DONALD TRUMP IS AT DONALD TRUMP@, CHRYSLER IS AT CHRYSLERY@ BILL GATES IS AT BILL GATES@, ETC. BUT MORE IMPORTANT, WE NEED TO CLEANUP THE TRASH THAT THE CYBER-PUNKS ARE PLACING ON THE WEB. ED MEYER

1 0

Re: The future will be easy to use
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Rich Salz <rsalz(a)osf.org> > > There is, of course, no way to interpret the semantics of this electronically. At 10:11 AM 11/30/95 EST, Carl Ellison wrote: > Of course not. In the end, a human needs to make the decision based on > ASCII text. For those ascii texts that belong to a small and commonly used set, we can set our computers to automatically follow certain policies, and to bring to our attention "special case" texts that lie outside this set. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

2 1

Re: e-cash gambling
by nobody＠flame.alias.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sameer, Ian, and then Tim wrote: <many different snips throughout> >> Any enterprising cypherpunks in gambling-friendly >>jurisdictions interested? I figure it would make ecash take off.. and >>you'd get rich. >> >Does anyone know what jurisdictions allow lotteries/gambling? > >Here's an off-the-cuff idea: > >[Disclaimer: The following post is a gedanken experiment. It should not >be interpreted as condoning or encouraging anyone to break any >laws, no matter how stupid the laws are.] > >Personally, I have long had great _hopes_ for using crypto for >non-sanctioned gambling, but I'm pretty skeptical that many people will do >it. For one thing, anyone knowledgeable enough to be comfortable with the >crytography knows that gambling when a house cut exists is a lose. (And >gambling with no house cut is, at best, a wash.) And then Allen wrote: >How about gambling on something other than random numbers? Idea Futures >are one instance, as is sports gambling for those interested in that sort of >thing. [I am posting anonymously, but about a half-dozen of you will know who I am. Please keep it confidential. I have posted (anonymously) a while back on this subject, and I am aware of the lame, hard to use college site which does something similar to what I will again suggest.] I would like to see e-cash gambling on US Presidential elections/primaries [as is currently done in London & Moscow]. There was an interesting W$J article that pointed out how the odds in these gambling houses track the results of elections more accurately (from thousands of miles away) than Gallup & Roper ever have, (and without calling me at suppertime)<g>. The W$J article appeared right after Clinton's victory over Bush. A web-page in London giving the odds in easy-to-read form would be nice, and might quickly lead to demand for actual gambling from "this side of the pond." This could be accomplished through anonymous remailers & strong crypto. It would accomplish the cypherpunk goals of setting important information free through use of our technology, it would encourage gamblers to learn about strong crypto, and it would use crypto for something besides child porn or drugs, which will be good PR for us. There will, of course, be lame arguments about this "demeaning the integrity of the process," but I think Letterman and Leno could be trusted to handle them without our help. ;) <obalice(s) -- please, make it stop!> <obNutscrape & clipper II "cold, dead neurons.">

2 1

Re: Netscape gives in to key escrow
by Ravi Pandya 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If you're looking for an alternative Web browser for Windows, we just made ours available for free at www.netmanage.com. It's fast and reliable, and supports HTML 3.0, inline video, software distribution, VRML (NT version), Real Audio, TrueSpeech, etc. Ravi **** Home of Chameleon TCP/IP Applications for Windows and **** **** ECCO Personal & Group Information Manager for Windows **** Ravi Pandya Director of ECCO Engineering NetManage Inc 2340 130th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98005 206 867 3722 voice 206 885 0127 fax ravip(a)netmanage.com

1 0

RE: "Proprietary" internetworking protocols (was RE: The future will be easy to use )
by Pete Loshin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perry wrote: >Pete Loshin writes: >> I was simply observing that Perry's comment: >> >> "...an internetworking protocol [e.g. SKIP] used by only >> one vendor gets nowhere." >> >> is not necessarily true, and pointed to SSL and NFS as >> counter-examples. > >I disagree. > >First of all, NFS was not competing with other widely available >standards. Neither was SSL, for that matter. But it seems like every vendor who's written an S-HTTP browser/server is adding SSL for version 1.1. >Second of all, other vendors are committed to developing the other >standard. > >What good will it be to run SKIP when your Cisco router wants to talk >to you with something else? None, of course, just as rsh doesn't help me connect to a telnet server. My comment wasn't on the wisdom of SKIP, but rather on the specific statement Perry made about single vendors being able to drive certain protocols on their own (e.g., SSL and others). More interesting from the historical view (but lacking in crypto significance so I'll refrain from further posting on the topic) is the question of what other protocols have been put forth by single vendors and gained major market share. -pl

1 0

Re: [Rant!] Death by praise Re: Netscape gives in to key escrow
by KJC＠cityscape.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > >On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, Jay Holovacs wrote: > >> On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, Timothy C. May wrote: >> > Can Netscape continue to prosper? This latest issue won't kill it, >> >> I suspect this will unfortunately help. Stockholders are interested in >> profits, not principles. Co-oping with the feds will help Netscape get to >> the commercial market sooner, and most customers, sadly don't give a damn >> about privacy (or don't understand). > ><Rant mode on> >Clipper and family are vampires; shine some light on them and they're dead. >Witness the public ridicule of the FBI 1% scheme. Compare that to the near >mainstream silence about DT. The last round of Clipper was wonderful, for >a while in '94 we had Time sounding like Brock Meeks. > >If Jim Clark really does mean this nonsense then I hope he does a Dorothy >Denning and takes his show on the road (sorry Jeff). This is simply >easy fodder for journalists without a story, totally black and white >cheap shot at the gov. While people don't give a damn about their privacy, >they sure do get mad when they're shown how easy it is to take away. >They *hate* hearing the $ cost. > >Maybe some of the people on this list with higher profiles than myself should >start defending Clipper and GAK as loudly and stupidly as possible. I've >grown dead tired of trying to get anyone around me interested in pgp, >remailers and whatnot. Reverse psycho sounds a lot easier: > >"Noted counterterrorism expert Timothy May was quoted on Connie Chung Live >last night as saying "Clipper, GAK and CTHULHU666 are a hundred billion >dollar investment in your national security. Only through complete wiretapping >will we save our nation's children from violent cigarette smokers, tax >cheaters, unlicensed pit-bull owners, Tax 'n Spend Liberals, murderous Nation >of Islam Dope Pushers, audiophiles, christians, fat people, OJ and >jaywalkers on the infohighway." -USA Today" > >(Apologies. You may now killfile me with a clear conscience.) > >If you can't beat 'em, subvert 'em. > > > As a _very_ low profile member of this list I thought a futile gesture was needed at this point: *I agree with you* I've been trying to interest the BBC in the U.K. in pgp, clipper et al for ages - I give up!.- BTW- after 'Britland' MPs posted hear a while back I thought _maybe_ we'd hear more.Will the last one to leave Grate Britain please switch out the lights! kc ------------------------------------------------------ Fingerprint:OF 3B IE 6A 8D 14 EC 9B 75 9B FB A2 E8 35 FE Finger: .plan + public key -> af91(a)ftp.cityscape.co.uk http://www.gold.net/users/af91/kjc.htm "...and now...five in a row by Whitney Houston" ------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: The future will be easy to use
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, P. Rajaram wrote: > On Nov 29, 10:25pm, attila wrote: > > Subject: Re: The future will be easy to use > > OK, I have not seen it (like I said, I will get it) or read ipsec. > > > > However, despite the group ego, Sun _does_ listen and Sun does wish to > > be the leader. If the rest of ipsec group has a specific list, maybe it > > needs to presented higher up the pole. > > There are different groups within Sun. > The people pushing SKIP don't talk much with the group building IPv6. > that's a given. NIBM (not invented by ME) syndrome. That is what needs to stop. however, Sun has been playing the game recently of introducing an early product, then coming on with a more standard product. that does not change the fact the twogroups need to talk, and someone needs to coordiante resources. Nothing wrong if SKIP shakes out a few details as they implement, but then it needs to go to the standards.

1 0