December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: What happened with Cypherpunks?
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:33 AM 3/30/96 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >Sorry if it is an offtopic question... Has something happened with >this mailing list? In the last two weeks I received only one article. > >My system log indicates that no messages have been received by our >machine. When many of us at Netcom went a week without a feed, I tried to find out what was going on. The best explanation I could get was:\ >From: David Lesher <wb8foz(a)nrk.com> >Subject: Re: cipherpunk mail at Netcom.com >To: frantz(a)netcom.com (Bill Frantz) >Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 10:18:44 -0500 (EST) >Cc: stewards(a)ix.netcom.com >Reply-To: wb8foz(a)nrk.com >X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] > >The problem is toad.com is broken. >It refuses to pass mail to an MX address, so it's hacked to >ALWAYS pass mail to mail12.netcom.com, I think it is. > >If it used MX's, it would be poll about 15 machines at netcom, >until it found one accepting connections. > > >-- >A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com >& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX >Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 >is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 > The following comment also applies: >X-Sender: stewarts(a)popd.ix.netcom.com >X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 >Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 00:10:53 -0800 >To: frantz(a)netcom.com (Bill Frantz) >From: Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> >Subject: Re: cipherpunk mail at Netcom.com > >No denial of service attack involved; netcom and toad are slightly >incompatible with each other and they do this every six months or so. >Of course, I'd blame that on netcom :-) >#-- ># Thanks; Bill ># Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com >+1-415-442-2215 ># http://www.idiom.com/~wcs > > If your problem is behaves the same as the one we at Netcom experienced, after about a week, it goes away and ALL the pending mail descends on your mail box. In my case it was over 1000 messages. Good Luck - Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

Re: Sun patch pulled
by Casper.Dik＠Holland.Sun.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>I noticed that Sun's latest libc patch (101759-04) is empty. Previous >>versions contained the complete U.S. version of libc, including the >>tres-dangerous DES and crypt functions. In the current rev only the >>README remains, presumably because: >> EXPORT INFORMATION: This patch includes code which performs >> cryptographic functions, which are subject to U.S. export >> control, and must not be exported outside the U.S. without >> prior approval of the U.S. government. Prior export approval >> must be obtained by the user of this patch. >The 101759-?? patch is missing from the Feb 1996 SunSolve Patches CD. However >if one pops in the November 1995 Patches CD there is a nice little copy of >the 101759-03 patch which also comes with the above warning and the DES >enabled libraries. The wide distribution of the DES enabled libc.so was a mistake, as it made DES code available world wide. Now it's no longer even available from our patchserver in the local office in the Netherlands. The "Doemstic" libc patch is only required for thsoe sites that have installed the "U.S. Encryption kit". If you can't get hold of the patch through official channels, it *is* possible to take the international version, take the DES modules from your U.S. Encyption kit and build a new libc.a and libc.so (the latter utilizing the files form /usr/lib/shlib.etc). It's a lot more work, but unfortunately Sun can't distribute the library the easy way. Casper

1 0

Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:52 AM 3/29/96 -0800, jamesd(a)echeque.com wrote: >On Thu, 28 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote: >> > Escrowing encrypted keys makes them useless to subpoena, and in >> > fact it helps the key owner because the escrow agent can (and, in fact, >> > must!) be obligated to inform the key owner if his key is requested. > >At 05:49 AM 3/29/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >> I thought I would take the time to let everyone know that this is >> baseless as well. Most jurisdictions forbid third parties to reveal >> prosecution inquries to the principal for which they are holding >> documents or other information. A VERY few have laws on the books that >> require this disclosure. Switzerland is no longer one of them. > >If you had actually read the article that you criticize you would >have noticed that the "must" was enforced by cryptographic >protocols, not by the blunt sword of the law. I do think it's interesting how Unicorn so easily falls into these mental ruts. He thinks only in terms of what the government wants and what it does to get it, not what other people want and what they can do for their own benefit. One useful function that CP can and should provide is to disseminate ideas about future crypto developments, ones that do not merely encrypt and decrypt files and messages, but also incorporate encryption into systems so that government attacks on them ("legal" as well as surreptitious) are guaranteed to be fruitless. This will require coding, but it will primarily require enough imagination to figure out ways around all the tactics normally used to force people to give up information to the detriment of citizens. Ironically, this will make people like Unicorn useful, because whether or not his morality is intact he may have plenty of examples of how government abuses its position. However, he doesn't appear to have the mental wherewithall or inclination to turn those facts into sketches of effective countermeasures. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Party! (Boston)
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Shostack & Eric Hughes invite you to the third occaisonal Cypherpunks, Cypher-Anarchists, info-terrorists, smart-drug dealers, photoshop pornographers, e-money launderers, provocateurs, undercover agents and fellow travellers Post Computers, Freedom, and Privacy party Saturday, 8:00 PM 14 Central Terrace Newton MA 244 5243 Directions: BY CAR, FROM THE NORTH, SOUTH, or WEST: (West: Take Mass Pike/Rt 90 to exit 14, 128/95. Get off onto Rt 30 just before you would otherwise get on 128/95) Take Rt 128/95 to Exit 14, Rt 30 East, aka Commonwealth Avenue Take a right onto Lexington Street at the fourth light There will be a Mobil station on your left. There's a green sign pointing left labelled "Waltham 2". There's a green sign pointing right labelled "Auburndale Center". (If you pass a Star Market, you've passed it.) Go over the bridge At the end of the bridge, take a right onto Central Street. Take an immediate left onto Central Terrace BY CAR, FROM THE EAST: Take Commonwealth Avenue / Rt 30 West Left onto Lexington Street at Auburndale, just after the Gulf station. (If you see the Mariott Hotel, you've gone too far.) Go over the bridge At the end of the bridge, take a right onto Central Street. Take an immediate left onto Central Terrace PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MBTA or Bus to Riverside Station (End of the D Line) Call us to be picked up, or... Exit the station onto Grove Street and take a left Staying on Grove Street, walk for about three quarters of a mile Central Terrace will be on your left If you get to the bridge, go left onto Central Street before the bridge and your next left will be the other side of Central Terrace Commuter Rail to Auburndale Station (Worcester Line) Cross one of the the bridges over the Pike. If you are at a traffic light, go right and then left onto Central Terrace. If you are not at a light and could go straight onto Woodland Road, take a left and Central Terrace will be your third right.

1 0

Reposted from Usenet: Freedom Knights
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

These two Usenet articles have little crypto relevance (one sentense that I put in). Still, those who believe in free speech should be interested. From: dave(a)jetcafe.org (Dave Hayes) Newsgroups: news.admin.censorship,news.admin.misc,news.admin.policy,news.admin.net-abuse.announce,alt.culture.usenet Subject: An Alternative Primer on Net Abuse, Free Speech, and Usenet Followup-To: news.admin.censorship Date: 28 Mar 1996 03:54:04 -0800 Organization: JetCafe - A Non-Profit Internet Service Provider Lines: 454 Sender: dave(a)kachina.jetcafe.org Approved: dave(a)jetcafe.org Distribution: world Expires: 27 Apr 96 04:53:59 Message-ID: <freedom-faq-1-828014039(a)jetcafe.org> Reply-To: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org (Freedom Knights of Usenet) NNTP-Posting-Host: kachina.jetcafe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Summary: This posting clarifies and defines True Free Speech Keywords: FREEDOM, CENSORSHIP, NET-ABUSE, NET-COPS X-URL: http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Posted-By: auto-faq 3.2.1.4 Archive-name: freedom-faq Revision: 1.6 Posting-Frequency: Posted once each month An alternative Primer on Net Abuse, Free Speech, and Usenet Dave Hayes dave(a)jetcafe.org ------------------------------ Subject: 0. Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1.1) What this document is 1.2) Prerequisites 2. Background 3. Basic Definitions 4. Basic Philosophies 4.1) Declaration of Free Speech 4.2) What is 'True Free Speech'? 4.3) What is 'net abuse'? 5. Frequently Debated Strawmen (aka Windmills) ------------------------------ Subject: 1. Introduction 1.1) What this document is This document represents an ongoing attempt to educate people about true freedom of speech among the emerging cyber-communities. There is a companion document to this, the USENET Site of Virtue FAQ, which should be read AFTER this document. 1.2) Prerequisites If you don't know what Usenet is, you're reading the wrong document! Go look in the newsgroup news.answers for appropriate introductory documents. There are many, and each has their own point of view. In order to understand the discussions here you should be familiar with USENET in general, and have a reasonable amount of experience posting and/or reading news. If these documents are not in news.answers or news.announce.newusers on your site, they can be had by anonymous ftp from rtfm.mit.edu in the directory /pub/usenet-by-hierarchy/news/announce/newusers. If you have a WWW browser, the following URLS should help you out: <http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet/> It helps to be familiar with news administration, how news works in general, and have kept up in some discussions on news.admin.*, but this is not totally mandatory for understanding this document. Finally, you should believe that no expression, however annoying, profit-oriented or counterproductive, should be prevented from being distributed. If you do not believe in this way, this document will only make you angry. (If that's what you want, then read it.) ------------------------------ Subject: 2. Background For a long time, I've been a loud advocate of free speech in most of the USENET related administration groups. I've participated in a few net.political actions to ensure the freedom of speech that we'd like to enjoy. For my efforts, I've been publically branded a loon, insane, idealistic, moronic, obnoxious, wacko, a kook, and other expletives which I'd rather not go into. Many times, I've repeated the same arguments over and over, all of which relate to this ultimate goal of absolute free speech. Well, after several years even a loon such as myself gets tired of repeating the same stuff over and over. It had been suggested that I write a FAQ of sorts on my ideas, and I felt the time was right, so here it is. Herein lies the heart of my arguments, and questions with answers about them. The companion document, the USENET Site of Virtue FAQ describes a new credo that willing USENET participants can actually adopt and use if they so desire. I implore you not to adopt -any- credo (even this one) or philosophy just because someone you see does so as well, for these credos only work for individuals who have personally and honestly decided that these are good ideas. Use your own judgement and take your power back from those who wish to steal it from you. ------------------------------ Subject: 3. Basic Definitions Here are some definitions which you'll find apply to things in this document, and most of my arguments. Beliefs - Networks of assumptions about the way things are. Ethics - Rules of conduct which appease and satisfy one's own true self. Directly opposed to Morals (see below) Lawful Speech - That speech which does not conflict with Morals Morals - Rules of conduct which appease and satisfy a governing, social, or communal entity. ------------------------------ Subject: 4. Basic Philosophies 4.1) Declaration of Free Speech We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Humans are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Unhindered Communications, Unregulated Exchange of Ideas, and Freedom of Speech, that to secure these rights the Usenet is instituted on networks of the world, that when any administration of Usenet becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to institue new administration, laying its foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Free Communication. [With much thanks to the Declaration of Independence] 4.2) What is True Free Speech? True Free Speech is that speech which is hindered by nothing other than the speaking individual's own ethics (see definition above). Where True Free Speech exists, no external party may restrict someone else's speech, for any reason, period. Speech, in the above definition, does *not* restrict another's speech. It can't. It takes a person to *act* on that speech to restrict another's speech. That person, then, would be the responsible party. A news admin setting up a news server to act is one way to create the illusion of speech-restrictive speech. The litmus test for True Free Speech is speech that makes you -want- to silence another person. If that speech is not silencable by you (whether you want to or not), you have a state of True Free Speech. 4.3) What is net abuse? Any action that stops a properly configured transport system from performing its normal store and forward services. The key words are "properly configured". For that definition, you'll have to see the "Site of Virtue" FAQ. 4.4) What is Censorship? Censorship is the restriction of communicated ideas based on their expression style or their content. On Usenet, this is defined as reading or parsing anything but certain specific headers of a news article to determine whether or not to delete it from the news spool of a news server. By this criterion, the following RFC 1036 headers can NOT be interpreted in any way, in order to avoid censorship: Sender: From: Subject: NNTP-Posting-Host: Approved: Also, any invokation of the "Usenet Death Penalty" by aliasing a site out of one's feed is considered blatant censorship. Unless a clear newsfeed redundancy problem can be identified, such aliasing is considered censorship. ------------------------------ Subject: 5. Frequently Debated Strawmen (aka Windmills) This section contains the many frequently debated arguments (with "Dave Hayes" like answers) over free speech issues. If you find yourself embroiled in a debate with a control freak, the information below should help you out. If you find yourself embroiled in a debate with me, you might want to save time and read below. - Free speech is all well and good, but what is to prevent unreasonable users from committing "net-abuse"? The strawman here is that someone else is defining "net-abuse" quite differently than I do above. Any label of "net-abuse" is based on an arbitrary standard of conduct held by a person or group of people (even mine). There is nothing that says that this standard of conduct is the one true and right standard of conduct. People's standards vary. You, as a free person, have an unalienable right to a choice as to whether or not to adopt any standard of conduct. This is based on your ethics, not their morals. Thus, if someone labels you "unreasonable", that's not your problem...it's theirs. I'm not saying you should now go out and kill someone. I'm merely stressing the importance of ethics, internal codes of conduct which you will not violate (because -you- wrote them), in determining whether or not you did something wrong. - But there IS a general consensus on what net abuse is! Most news admins have adopted it. Don't let anyone fool you into believing that there some written consensus on or standard of net.abuse. There isn't, and if it claims to be, you can determine the invalidity of such a claim by observing just how many people argue about it. Without a consensus, it's quite arbitrary as to what people will claim abuse is. If someone has written up something, think about whether you agreed to abide by it or not before the fact when you are called to task on some violation. It is the root of dishonor to hold someone responsible to a code of conduct they didn't know about. Not only does this not work, but it's damn unfair. You may get localized consensi who decide to act not unlike the street gangs in LA or the legal gangs in American Federal Government, armed with scripts and authority, they attempt to bully people into submission into their way. This does not mean that there is a consensus. You can't expect 50,000 or more who come to a consensus on an issue this complex. Typically, the label of abuse is used as a wedge to stop someone from posting something that isn't liked, but this isn't always the case. Sometimes, people are genuinely trying to help things out. Such people should be reminded of the arbitrary nature of their standards, and of the wide variety of people on the net. - We can't allow free speech. What if something extremely damaging is posted? This strawman can easily be debunked by recognizing who is defining 'damage'. See above, as this is the same as saying something is "net-abuse". The true test of freedom of expression is when the advocates of True Free Speech are confronted with expression that they find they would like to silence. If this test is passed, the expression remains a thorn in their side. The thorn serves a great purpose as a reminder of the true freedom they have. If this test is failed, the entire philosophy of True Free Speech soon crumbles, and true freedom of expression becomes a bad thing in the eyes of the people who tried. "After all, people will abuse anything if given the chance", they'll say. We already have true freedom. We just keep agreeing to give it up. - But there really are damaging things that can be posted! You didn't listen above. Let me try another way. Here are some commonly dredged up examples of "damaging" information: * recipes for strong encryption * pornography and obscenity * recipes for making chemical, biological, and atomic weapons * recipes for making counterfeit money Dr. Dimitri Vulis said it really succinctly: "Posting such information to Usenet doesn't force anyone to use it to take some illegal action. And even if publishing such information by itself violates your local laws, it's up to your local law enforcement agents to silence you, not the Usenet Cabal." - There is no cabal. Anyone saying this is obviously a kook. Ah, and if there was a "secret society", what better way to hide it than by denying it and causing those who do not to look foolish? A "Cabal" of usenet has been identified. This Cabal is defined as: "Those net citizens, including some usenet administrators, who by their own consensus reality, set themselves apart from and superior to usenet users and use this illusory superiority to restrict or censor any usenet user's attempts at communication through usenet." The Cabal generally works in concert with each other over their own private channels of communication. You can tell a Cabal member by the arrogant holier-than-thou way that they refuse or block your attempts at communication, regardless of external perceptions of reasonability about those attempts. Just to be clear, I have no reason to believe that these people are acting out of deliberate malice. It's simply a trait of human beings to abuse positions of power and respect to their own ends. In this case this trait is damaging the freedom of usenet. - If a lot of people complain about someone, there must be something that person is doing wrong. Just because a mob comes to your door and demands to lynch someone, doesn't mean that the someone in question did anything worthy of being lynched. Usenet has become mob-oriented with several issues, most notably the famous C&S spamming, demonstrating the new jargon term "cybermob". Mobs are generally ignorant, dense, and single-minded. They have a tendancy to be generated by emotional issues, with subsequent loss of sanity for most involved. Do you really want to trust the judgement of someone else to this phenomena? Yes, once you become a sysadmin, the rest of the Usenet community will expect that you are prepared to discipline your users when they engage in whatever they decide to call net-abuse. Hopefully, by then, you will have grown past that. And what does this discipline really accomplish? Usually, nothing. - Someone is defaming me. They should be silenced. Forget USENET, what if these people were to say the same things in person, or to other people while you are not present? Again, Free Speech requires that people have the *ability* to defame you. Remember that you also have the ability to defend yourself. If such defamation gets too intense, see your lawyer, and attempt to get the defamer to agree to stop. - Free speech means the ability to say what you want. It does not guarantee you _where_ you want to say it and _how_ you want to say it. This is a definitions strawman. If you can't say something where and how you want to say it, is your speech truly free? Would you like some arbitrary person telling you where and how you can say certain things? I can see it now: "Sure you have free speech, at 3AM on channel 145 for 2.5 minutes." Anyone using this argument has no understanding or desire for free speech, by the very fact that they use this argument. Free speech, as defined in this document, guarantees that you can say anything, anywhere, and anyway you want to. - USENET operates on certain principles. Create your own net if you don't like the way it runs. This is a political hostage strawman. The arguer is attempting to convince you that everyone else likes things the way they are, and that everyone else is in control of USENET. If you are running a site, this is patently false. USENET is a collective anarchy, where site admins have authority over their part of the collective. You have absolute control over your site to run it any way you want to. If you aren't running a site, don't waste your breath arguing with these people. Find a Site of Virtue to post from, and support Sites of Virtue. That way, we -will- create our own net. - If you argue for free speech, people aren't going to take you seriously. This is an emotional hostage strawman. The arguer is attempting to play on your need to be taken seriously to coerce you into doing things their way...or they won't take you seriously. There are others who won't take you seriously if you cave into these coercions. Still, others won't take you seriously at all. If we become affected by everyone's impressions of us, we will certainly be candidates for an insane asylum. I would think that you don't really need to be taken seriously by anybody who would attempt to coerce you in this way. -But this is Usenet, a place where speaking is a privilege, not a right. That all depends on your site admin. If you are at a Site of Virtue, speaking is a right. -Freedom of speech does not mean yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater. Patently false. Yes, it does mean that. Practically, if you hear someone yell "FIRE!" then you have some decisions to make. Are you going to believe that person or not, especially when you see nothing? If you do believe this person, are you going to run for the door like a crazed animal, or quickly make your way to the exit in a civilized manner? Whichever you choose, it's -your- choice and -your- responsibility. It is -not- the responsibility of the person who yelled "FIRE!" that -you- chose one direction or another. Any other decision strips your power away from you. - It's wrong to force me to read your trash. Given that people have to manually select articles from a menu, it's hard to imagine someone forcing their fingers to press certain keys in a certain order, so that people are forced to read anything. Indeed, the entire concept of force becomes ludicrous when one recognizes that one can simply close one's eyes and not read anything presented to them. This does bring up a point, however. There -is- a place for censorship. Your personal newsreaders. - But who gave you free speech rights on my computer? YOU did when you loaded the news transport software. According to RFC1036, making a news server and getting a feed allows the transport of messages between your news server and another. If you do not specifically filter messages, those messages are allowed by implication. - You can't think like that. Your reputation will suffer. The value of a set of words is contained within the set of words, NOT in who said them. It is a common mistake of most human beings to judge the validity of a set of words mostly upon the reputation of the messenger. ------------------------------ Subject: Revision History $Log: freedom-faq.1,v $ Revision 1.6 1996/03/13 22:56:11 dave Added Dr. Vulis suggested changes: Approved line = censorship, examples of speech commonly considered damage, other misc. Revision 1.5 1996/03/04 00:03:59 dave Added definition of Cabal Revision 1.4 1996/02/28 21:53:33 dave Changed libel back to defamation. Revision 1.3 1996/02/28 00:32:34 dave Changed "slander" to "libel", as the latter is more appropriate for USENET. Revision 1.2 1996/02/19 08:16:15 dave Tightened up the definition of TFS, added a definition for Censorship, added a few words here and there for da flow. Revision 1.1.1.2 1996/02/19 07:52:11 dave Initial Import -- >>> Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org <<< You need not wonder whether you should have a reliable person as a friend. An unreliable person is nobody's friend. From: dave(a)jetcafe.org (Dave Hayes) Newsgroups: news.admin.censorship,news.admin.misc,news.admin.policy,news.admin.net-abuse.announce,alt.culture.usenet Subject: The USENET Site of Virtue FAQ Followup-To: news.admin.misc Date: 28 Mar 1996 03:54:57 -0800 Organization: JetCafe - A Non-Profit Internet Service Provider Lines: 420 Sender: dave(a)kachina.jetcafe.org Approved: dave(a)jetcafe.org Distribution: world Expires: 27 Apr 96 04:54:52 Message-ID: <virtue-faq-1-828014092(a)jetcafe.org> Reply-To: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org (Freedom Knights of Usenet) NNTP-Posting-Host: kachina.jetcafe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Summary: This posting describes how to run a USENET Site of Virtue, Keywords: FREEDOM, KNIGHT, HONOR, VIRTUE, CENSORSHIP X-URL: http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Posted-By: auto-faq 3.2.1.4 Archive-name: virtue-faq Revision: 1.5 Posting-Frequency: Posted once each month The USENET Site of Virtue FAQ Dave Hayes dave(a)jetcafe.org ------------------------------ Subject: 0. Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1.1) What this document is 1.2) Prerequisites 1.3) Internet Resources 2. Basic Definitions 2.1) What is a 'Freedom Knight'? 2.1.1) How does one become a Freedom Knight? 2.2) What is a USENET 'site of virtue'? 2.3) What is a USENET 'newsreader of virtue'? 2.4) What does "content-based" mean? 3. The Freedom Knight Code of Honor 4. Technical Issues for a Site Of Virtue 5. Policy Issues for a Site Of Virtue 6. Technical Issues for a Newsreader Of Virtue 7. Other Frequently Asked Questions ----------------------------- Subject: 1. Introduction 1.1) What this document is This is the USENET Site of Virtue FAQ. It represents an ongoing attempt to implement true freedom of speech among the emerging cyber-communities, including standards of conduct and technical implementation issues relavent to operating a site which supports true freedom of speech. A companion document is "A Primer on Net Abuse, Free Speech, and Usenet". It is suggested that you read that first, as it describes the philosophies behind a Site of Virtue. 1.2) Prerequisites If you don't know what Usenet is, you're reading the wrong document! Go look in the newsgroup news.answers for the documents "What is Usenet" and "How to become a USENET site". In order to understand the discussions here you should be familiar with USENET in general, and have a reasonable amount of experience posting and/or reading news. If these documents are not in news.answers or news.announce.newusers on your site, they can be had by anonymous ftp from rtfm.mit.edu in the directory /pub/usenet-by-hierarchy/news/announce/newusers. You should be familiar with news administration, how news works in general, and have kept up in some discussions on news.admin.*. Finally, you should believe that no expression, however annoying or counterproductive, should be prevented from being distributed. If you do not believe in this way, this document will only make you angry. (If that's what you want, then read it.) 1.3) Internet Resources There is a mailing list which most of the freedom knights subscribe to. The list address is "freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org", and subscriptions should go to "majordomo(a)jetcafe.org". For those who do not know majordomo, put the word "help" in the BODY (not the HEADER) of a mail message and fire it off to "majordomo(a)jetcafe.org". If that didn't clarify what you are supposed to do, and you want to subscribe, put the words "subscribe freedom-knights" in the body of a mail message to "majordomo(a)jetcafe.org". There is also a WWW site, this is http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet and this is the Freedom Knights site on the net. ----------------------------- Subject: 2. Basic Definitions 2.1) What is a 'Freedom Knight'? A Freedom Knight is a person who: -Conducts themselves in a manner consistent with the Freedom Knight Code of Honor -Works in an honorable fashion to ensure the persistance, defense, and existance of Sites of Virtue These standards are completely voluntary standards, in other words there will be people who claim to but do not adhere to all of these standards. Such non-adherence is not a bad or good thing, nor is there any punishment or reward associated with adherence or non-adherence. Rather, these standards are put here merely to point the way to how a Freedom Knight "should" act, to be worthy of the name. It is said that you will know a person by their actions. More directly, if someone finds someone who claims to be a Freedom Knight, and they do not observe these standards, chances are that they aren't *really* a Freedom Knight. Keep in mind, this is no reason to judge a Freedom Knight's actions. A Freedom Knight is responsible to no one other than themselves. Russ Allbery <rra(a)cs.stanford.edu> sums up the credo of the Freedom Knight with regards to this issue. He was asked "Why won't you be decent?". Here is his response: >Because I have no desire to become so, for becoming "decent" requires >that I accept a standard of society, that I order my beliefs and >reactions in order to fit someone's standard of acceptable and >unacceptable. That I cannot do, for my individuality is the gift of >my Creator and is not something that I will give up lightly, easily, >or for the sake of social acceptance. *I* *am* *myself*, and I will >not change for you, ... or for the people who claim they are >disappointed in me because I do not meet their internal models of what >I should be like. 2.1.1) How does one become a Freedom Knight? Contrary to what many would like to hear, there is no established body of judges who proclaim a USENET citizen a Freedom Knight. This is a completely voluntary and self-policing position, requiring no one but oneself to proclaim knighthood. Becoming a Freedom Knight is as simple as adopting the Freedom Knight Code of Honor, then sending a simple message to the Freedom Knights mailing list (see section 1.3) proclaiming yourself as a Freedom Knight. Subscribing to the list is recommended, but not required. Remember, it is your actions which show you to be a Freedom Knight, not your proclamations. 2.2) What is a USENET 'Site of Virtue'? This is a site run by a Freedom Knight which meets specific technical requirements, as specified below. 2.3) What is a USENET 'Newsreader of Virtue'? This is newsreader (usually found on sites run by a Freedom Knight) which meets specific technical requirements, as specified below. 2.4) What does "content-based" mean? "Content" is defined to be the Body of an electronic message, and/or the Subject: line of an electronic message. You are considered to be making content-based decisions if you have to read and parse Content to make your determination. Examples of content-based: -Inappropriate posting (you have to read the message) -Identical messages over several newsgroups (only if you read the messages) Examples of NOT content-based: -Running the Body through a program to determine size -Making a cryptographic checksum from the Body ----------------------------- Subject: 3. The Freedom Knight Code of Honor (1) A Freedom Knight will never enforce the application of -any- content-based standards on any other net.citizen, unless that conduct directly and immediately renders their server's transport software incapable of performing its normal store and forward operation. In particular, with regard to USENET this means: a) A Freedom Knight -never- issues cancel messages, except for his or her own postings. b) A Freedom Knight never removes a newsgroup from their news server unless that newsgroup directly results in breaking one or more software systems used to distribute or read news. An example of this is long newsgroup names that break newsreaders. c) A Freedom Knight will refrain from feeding another site newsgroups that it does not want. d) A Freedom Knight will never disable any user they have authorized to read or post news from their site for content-based reasons. e) The only time a Freedom Knight may punish or suspend a user's access is if that user directly attempted to shut down the news server's normal "store and forward" operation. Mailbombs from the net as a result of postings do not count as direct attempts. f) A Freedom Knight will never take action against a user due to complaints regarding the content of the body of any of their user's posts. (2) A Freedom Knight will always operate in such a way as to provide maximal unmoderated content on their news server. Any news site that a Freedom Knight operates is run as a Site Of Virtue, if the ownership of the site is willing. In particular, with regard to USENET this means: a) A Freedom Knight carries all unmoderated groups that they can get a feed for, regardless of content or origin, unless those groups serve no other purpose than to directly limit freedom of expression (e.g. alt.cancel, control, alt.nocem.*). b) A Freedom Knight actively solicites multiple feeds, technical considerations permitting. c) A Freedom Knight will feed any other site, technical considerations permitting. d) A Freedom Knight honors all newgroups and ignores all rmgroups, regardless of origin. The exception to this is if a newgroup message contains special characters that will damage the active file or most newsreader's .newsrcs. e) A Freedom Knight does not honor ANY cancel messages in any way shape or form. This includes Supercedes: or any other attempt to delete postings from the news server. The only way a Freedom Knight may honor cancel postings is if they are strongly authenticated to be from the originator of the postings. 3) A Freedom Knight, realizing the need for personal responsibility, will: a) take each and every step necessary to ensure the security and reliability of their own site, b) read news with a newsreader of virtue, c) have "mail shields", d) control their own posting habits by their own internal code of conduct, without calling undue attention to such control. ----------------------------- Subject: 4. Technical Issues for a Site Of Virtue In order to be a Site of Virtue, you need to be able to handle large amounts of traffic, and be relatively immune to minor abuses of net posters. The technical criteria for a Site of Virtue are: 1) Maintain free newsspool space that is no less than 3 times the nominal 24 hour news traffic. 2) Internet connection must be of T1 speed (1.5 MB/sec) or greater. 3) The operating system must be a virtual-memory, multitasking system capable of handling large (>100) amounts of network connections at the same time. 4) The server must have a resident copy of the source code to the news server software you are using, and be able to build and modify the software. Other notes: If you are looking to set up a reasonably fast server, emphasis on a wide I/O channel is a must. On the newsserver side, I recommend INN, modified with Dave's Cancel Patches so that cancels can be safely ignored. NNTPLINK feeds are preferred as they are faster. In order to be accessible to the rest of the Usenet community, you should make sure that as news administrator you are accessible to e-mail, as usenet(a)your.host.name and postmaster(a)your.host.name. For that reason, Your "mail shields" should be installed on both these addresses. As site administrator you should probably read news.admin.*. Reading these groups will keep you informed about the myriad of standards people categorize as "net-abuses", and help you understand what is wrong with the several emerging consensus opinions about net-abuse for yourself. ----------------------------- Subject: Policy Issues for a Site Of Virtue The policy issues for a Site Of Virtue are: 1) Honor all newgroups that do not break newsreading software, regardless of origin. 2) No unauthenticated cancel messages are honored, and optionally not propagated. Only cancel messages authenticated to be from the author of a message are honored. 3) All newsgroups, save those which would be inappropriate due to regional or national boundaries, are carried. Sites Of Virtue should feed each other, as appropriate. ----------------------------- Subject: 6. Technical Issues for a Newsreader Of Virtue In order to be a Newsreader of Virtue, a newsreader needs to be able to find interesting threads in a large amount of traffic/noise. The technical criteria for a newsreader of virtue are: 1) The newsreader must allow the user to specify patterns matching subjects or authors which the reader will then refrain from displaying to the user. 2) The newsreader must present articles by subject/author on a menu to be selected by the user's for reading. 3) Articles presented on a menu must either be consolodated by Subject line, or threaded by References line. On the reader side, we currently recommend NN or (S)TRN. Gnus 5 has also been recommended by some, this author hasn't looked at it yet. ----------------------------- Subject: 7. Other Frequently Asked Questions - I need a written policy for a site of virtue. What policy should I use? For external browsers of your policy, add this: "If you find a posting from this site offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to us and we will demonstrate." For internal users of your site, add this: "USENET is interacted with at the reader's own risk. The postings found here are usually locatable at sites all over the world. We take no responsibility for the validity or appropriateness of articles posted or read on this newsserver. Postings are the sole responsibility of the poster." - How long should the articles' expiration times be? On most sites, disk space will limit the expiration times, and you will have to spend some time fine-tuning them on a per hierarchy or group basis. It's often best if the "large file" groups -- those carrying binaries for example -- expire more quickly than others. Lastly, its best if a low-volume group has its expiration time set long enough that the Frequently Asked Questions list (FAQ) and any other periodic postings in the group are always there. Well-managed FAQs are supposed to come with their own expiration times, and you should configure your site to honor these. - What are "mail shields"? There are two types of mail shields: 1) Absorptive - These take bogus mail and delete it. 2) Reflective - These take bogus mail and send it back somewhere along with an optional message. There are also two types of triggers on mail shields: 1) Threshold - These keep track of author and subject and when more than N messages are recieved with the same author or subject, the shields go up. Usually N is up at 1000 or so. 2) Disk Space - These keep track of available disk space, and when that gets too low it triggers the shield. These triggers are most used with "reflective" shields, as there are other reasons than flamage to lose one's mail capability. In general, Reflective Disk Space shields are the best choice as they are the most multi-purpose. It is often good to have something similar to "procmail", by which you can filter out annoyances from your mailbox. Also. the MH mail system coupled with SED, AWK, or PERL provides excellent filtering capabilities. Again, Gnus 5 has been recommended. ----------------------------- Subject: Revision History $Log: virtue-faq.1,v $ Revision 1.5 1996/03/10 09:26:24 dave Changed Russ Allbery's email address by request. Revision 1.4 1996/03/04 00:04:25 dave Added 2.1.1 about how to become a Knight Revision 1.3 1996/02/28 20:52:33 dave Added Russ Allbery's very nice expression of self responsibility. Revision 1.2 1996/02/19 08:05:52 dave Tightened up some of the definitions and codes, added Gnus 5 as a possible newsreader, and clarified a paragraph pertaining to moral superiority. <grin> Revision 1.1.1.2 1996/02/19 07:52:13 dave Initial Import -- >>> Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org <<< People sell talking parrots for huge sums. They never pause to compare the possible value of a thinking parrot. -Mulla Nasrudin --- Dr. Dimitri Vulis Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: What backs up digital money?
by jeff＠BlackMagic.Com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mar 29, 10:32am, Hal wrote: > Subject: Re: What backs up digital money? > From: jeff(a)BlackMagic.Com (Jeff) [snip] > Another factor that arises is that if some token does catch on and > circulate widely, it could be subject to regulation. I understand that > in Las Vegas, some people started using casino chips as money. You > could buy things with them, and they were accepted since people knew > they could be turned in for cash at the casino. But the Feds cracked > down and brought the practice to a halt. (I will ignore for now the > question of whether such a crackdown could work on the net, but it would > at least be a barrier to the acceptance of such tokens.) Absolutely- that's certainly the case with anything that "catches on", not just ways of transfering value. If you get big and popular, there will be regulation, thus if life. see: the Internet itself. > The idea of your "market square" token, which represents a basket of > other tokens, is interesting, but it seems like you're basically > re-inventing money. I don't quite understand the specifics of your > proposal, where the market square token is based on the "market value" of > the other tokens. In what units is this market value expressed? It > seemed like what you had instead was a set of relative prices, where each > token was worth a certain number of each other kind. I don't see how you > can get a unique market value for each token out of that system. It > doesn't seem like the relative value idea really works, anyway, as it > suffers from the barter problem that there will be too few people who > want to trade their shoe tokens for fruit tokens. That was what > motivated the transition from barter to money in the first place, or so > the story goes. In that particular dream-land I was saying that the "market value" of the token follows the trade value of tokens on the exchange- that is to say, if X tokens are being traded for .5 Y tokens and 2 Z tokens, then X, Y, and Z can all be expressed in terms of a common 'A' value. That A is the basis of the market value I was talking about. What is a "dollar" if not expressed in terms of it's purchasing power. The only thing that makes the dollar, or yen, etc, special is it's universal acceptance in whatever marketplace you happen to be trading. I don't think there is any real problem with the idea itself, the implementation in my opinion would be darn near impossible though and would be dependent on the "lack of something better", which a pupular digital cash scheme has already eliminated. But now I'm just repeating your point ... > If your overall point is that even without digital cash, we would end > up with some form of electronic money eventually anyway, I think it is > true. Entrepreneuers abhor a vacuum, and if the need is there it will > be met. But the fact is that we are likely to have digital cash before > all these other things, so I don't really see the whole scenario coming > to pass. I do think a lot of your specific applications are > interesting, though, and hopefully there will be many more creative > uses of this technology. I know Eric Hughes a while back was talking > about a way for players to transfer wealth between MUD games using a > token based system. There are a lot of game possibilites. Agreed- but what system did Eric Hughes use to implement his idea ? I've yet to find one that isn't buried in patents/controls. Which leads... To my "point" if I had one, and back to my mini-rant ... nobody has any CLUE what these tokens could be used for eventually. This is an entirely new mechanism, one in which unique values can be transferred between people without losing their value to something as simple as duplication. Who knows what could happen if the technology were open to the public- I have big doubts that my car's head lights will be buying electricity from it's powerplant (with the electrical systems overhead charge of course), but I don't think it's unreasonable to think tokens could be passing all around the net for priority bandwidth, or CPU cycles, etc. So if there is a point, it's that we JUST DON'T KNOW what could happen, what this totally new capability could be used for, and we won't unless we have access to it and all the net.developers get a shot. This sounds like I'm complaining and whining like a child for one simple reason- I am. This also sounds like interesting stuff with a lot of potential for one reason- it is. In all of these threads, I forgot to make it clear that I have the UTMOST respect for the people who design and implement these token systems, and crypography people in general. In the end, if nobody wants to give the end user a way to put value into these tokens, so be it- I didn't invent the system(s), all I can do is bitch and moan about it. But if someone came up with a radically new process for creating microchips, they would NOT just patent the process and sell the chips, they'd license and sell the process as well. I'll shut up after this, even I'm getting sick of hearing me-- these tokens systems may be the only good transport of a dollars value, but the transportation of dollars is not the only good use of these token systems. > Hal >-- End of excerpt from Hal Jeff. -- http://www.blackmagic.com/people/jeff Simply Be. SKYDIVE!

1 0

Re: National speed limits and expansion of federal power...
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:52 PM 3/28/96, Deven T. Corzine wrote: >Other states don't intend to raise the limits. In Montana, you can now drive >at *any* speed legally, in the daytime. So if you want to go 100 MPH, head to >Montana... :-) Ah, Montana! Home of the Freemen, home of the Senator with the new crypto bill, home to growing numbers of movie stars (Santa Fe having gotten too crowded), and where you can piss into the rivers and drive as fast as you want. Guns, too. (And the guy who hired me at Intel lo those many years ago is now expanding his ranch in Montana...something like 30,000 acres, last I heard.) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" 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: What backs up digital money?
by jeff＠BlackMagic.Com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Regarding "What backs up digital currency/cash", a hypothetical situation just to see what you guys think. Can this happen ? I honestly have my doubts, mostly I see logistical problems (finding a mechanism, etc, if you recall my mini-rant just a few days ago). Anyway, these are some of the things I honestly feel would have to happen for a true Internetwork currency to take off, if that's even possible. Situation 1- You're a company, "Bug Boy Video" (my apologies to the real Bug Boy Video if it exists). This national video chain decides to get involved on the net and sees that there is a token standard- they figure they can get people to visit their website by offering a "web hunt". Anybody who can solve any of the puzzles gets a token worth, say, a free video, a 19.99$US value- just redeem the token. Token Backing-- 19.99$US video from Bug Boy Situation 2- You're a bank, "1st Netherworld". You use the same token system to make digital coins worth a penny each and issue them to your customers in exchange for 0.01$US - only to account holders of course. Now you have the "real money" to invest while the users of the system store and transfer these tokens around the net to each other (in reality I guess you use a net-cheque ?) Token Backing-- 0.01$US with 1st Netherworld Situation 3- You're a mining operation, "Money Pit". Your product is gold and silver refined to be 99.99% pure (24K in gold). You decide to issue some tokens on the net worth an ounce of gold and another kind of token worth an oz of silver. Some would call you a total nut corp, but they don't call you Money Pit for nothin. Token Backing-- 1 oz silver (approximately 7$US?) with Money Pit. 1 oz gold (approximately 490$US?) with Money Pit. Situation 4- Some group of hackers, "BizHack", decide to issue a private currency among themselves for the purposes of trading vulnerability information, services, etc. They come up with a standard, "an hour of work", and someone runs the bank. Anyone with currency can use it to buy goods and services from anyone who will accept the money. Token Backing-- 1 hour of service from a BizHacker. Situation 5- A bunch of kids on the net play this game, "Tragic: The Addiction", and they use rec.games.trading-cards.marketplace.tragic.sales to do their trading. Somebody gets the keen idea to set up a "holding company" that people can send their cards to and get a "token" out that represents the Tragic: card. They trade these tokens on the net until someone wants to redeem his/her "Black Lilly" token in for the real card that it represents. Some sort of redemption charge applies, of course. Token Backing-- Tragic: cards with holding company. Situation 6- You're a beer manufacturer, "Smart Foam", and decide to skip all the market middlemen and sell stock directly on the Internet. You set up your super-keen promo page and users buy stock directly from you. Now you hear about this other company that is doing electronic transfers of stocks on the internet in the token system, each stock represented by a single token. People trade them at will. You suggest to your buyers that they might want to look at the system as a way of trading your stock and offer to send the buyers stock directly to the exchange so it can be withdrawn by the buyer as tokens. As a beer brewery, we don't want to get in trouble with the SEC for offering the trading place for our own stock, we'll let somebody else have the liability. Token Backing-- One share of "Smart Foam" stock. Situation 7- (doubtful) You're running an exchange where people can send stock certificates to a third party bank and you'll mint them a token that represents that piece of stock so that it can be traded freely on the Internet. Your clients use your non-anonymous system so that trades can be tracked and reported, you make a few bucks at registration time, but don't charge for transfers (to cut out the brokers). You deal with the SEC directly to make sure all the exchange rules are being followed to the letter, and make the service as user friendly as possible- you are a place that people come to trade, a market square as it were. Token Backing-- A share of common stock in a particular company. Situation 8- (the "big mental leap") You set up a market square for tokens. In this online place the users can offer tokens for sale to the general public (other users) and the service acts as an "escrow" so that both parties have to make their transfers through the service. You track "prices" of the tokens, maybe users are on average trading 1 BizHacker token for 2 Bug Boys. Some sort of "trend" starts to emerge at your market. This BIG LIGHT comes on inside your head and you decide to issue your OWN token, this token is based on the MARKET VALUE of all the tokens that are traded at your exchange. You call them "market credits" and you "sell" them on your own market. Token Backing-- One market credit equals 1.5 BizHackers equals .5 Bug Boys equals 4 silver Money Pits equals etc, etc, etc ... the value changes constantly. Market tokens have now taken on a new characteristic, that they are going to be accepted much more widely because they can be used to purchase many more goods and services, they are accepted in the market which you have provided. Situation 9- Other people see how cool your market is going and decide to set up some of their own. These markets have their own clients, tokens backed by everything from stock, state currency, services, pizza coupons, car wash tokens, and Darla's special backrub tokens (worth 2 gold Money Pits each!) The bright idea pops up in somebodies head to link a few of these markets together and .... the rest is future. Followup- There are a lot of "trust" assumptions in this, but in the end the market always sorts things out. That's not to say a few people won't be holding valueless tokens on occasion or that people won't figure out ways to hurt the system, but thus is real life. Internet economy won't come from the top down, it'll come from little bits of trust that build up between people who do business together-- it'll come from that little group of consultants issuing their own "value tokens" backed by their personal service .. when they get together and issue a common currency which ALL of them will accept, that currency becomes more widely accepted in this new marketplace. It's in the best interest of everyone involved to retain the utmost professionalism when distributing tokens because they represent your good name and the name of those who join in. THIS is how trust develops, you can't dream trust up, trust just happens. An exchange fails if people stop trusting it, so they are by nature self- governing entities. Global currencies and Internet economies aside- even if "the big leap" above couldn't happen, I'd sure like to see some companies issuing tokens like they were gift certificates or coupons, those have good trade value if the name is well known (mostly for lack of something better to trade with I'm afraid). No mechanism can replace trust, trust just is. You trust the guy that fixes your porch because he's the guy you trust to fix your porch. You trust your consultants, your lawyers (maybe not them), and your accountant because they are the people you rely on, you just do. Anyway, just my 0.02$US/MTB -- Jeff. -----BEGIN ECASH PAYMENT----- oLmQgwABR6GgiqCukIFPkIECkIECkIEEkIEBkYQxW3hfkIQxbe1fkIFPkoFAlJQS snGvr60Cm0Ao6L2429ljPcC9l5SU1HRHyTS1iQ8W058T4A1+OICJq3GQgRCSji4w MiB0byB0aGUgbmV0koCUgJCBApGEAAAAAJCBAKGguKCrkIIBoZPgKKjPPXvwAl1Y kQBWxjFKp9zcfoRNDgsodlUqc5Vybk86UXpmsr2C853o6iZ5NPZ+DiZ0gEhooatU TZPoY016/rmyGspTixn9xievBxMW1FR34tARr6NgzyXyVU4AbxF0k+Ar2uqxO15E B6pDqYImuoZzUpMnkGo/vjm7k4nod576vB9F5DUSBMPLIeNm7kg6GuVDW0oPOou3 nbpkJ5AM5lItSJLMgsxel7LON6bjitnFHCLYdseV725AjkN49p7VE3SQgQKhoaE= -----END ECASH PAYMENT----- -- http://www.blackmagic.com/people/jeff Simply Be. SKYDIVE!

1 0

Re: Crypto CD UpDate
by JR＠ns.cnb.uam.es 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Thoughtful comments, so I'll comment on Henry's comments: >At 6:10 PM 3/27/96, Henry Huang wrote: > >>I'd argue that having a slightly out-of-date CD-ROM is better than nothing, >>because: >> >>- It gives you an idea of what sorts of crypto applications are out there, > >True, but your later point about who the intended market is makes the point >I was making: the likeliest users pretty much know what they want and snarf >the most recent (and debugged) version off the Net. (I have little >interest, speaking as a user, in the zillions of variants of CryptDisk and >SmartCrypt and whatnot that get mentioned here....I really only want >"MacPGP" in its latest version, at this time, and for this the Web is >certainly fast enough for me.) > >And I suspect I am not that unusual. The faster access to a CD-ROM is not >too useful to most, as the time to install, learn, use, etc. a new crypto >program is many orders of magnitude greater than getting it by even a 14.4 >modem. > What I see most useful in the CDs I burned last fall for personal use is not just having access to the latest executables, but to have access to trusted source code. Just as it is nice to have Appl. Crypt. disk, it is -for me- to have sources for many interesting things around. I can then study any of them, pick a piece, get whatever at any moment without having to surf the net. Hey, I just got Appl. Crypt. 2nd Ed. yesterday. Meanwhile with the 1st Ed. and the code I had in my CDs I could very well manage with most things, protocols, algorithms... Of course, the version of Crypto++ I have there is outdated now, but the algorithms are still valid, and I still have much more algorithms there than the current version has, and I can always plug in or adapt a new one should I need to. Yes, I can always go to the Net for the latest sources when I need them, but when I don't, it's easier for me to go to my CD (but I have it always at hand over my desk). Still, the main problem I see is that users should have to trust the authors of such CD. Of course I trust myself and I had already reviewed most of the code I stored -or verified it somehow- and so my CD is good for me. But a good crypto "aficionado" should seriously consider whether to trust any executables (hell, any net-aficionado should think the same about Java applets, but that's another story). That reduces the interest of the CD to those who want source code to work with or to analyze. Or at least those savvy enough to use a compiler and possibly study source code. Unless someone stands behind the CD to assert its truthfulness. I may -or not- trust the people at unimi, but would I also trust a lot of intermediate people putting up together a CD-ROM? For that sake, and considering the costs of storage and removable storage media, I'd bet many people would find more useful to download their copies from the net (even once a year only) as I did. It's a nice idea though. If well put together and done, it could help raise concern and access to cryptography to the average user. In this case, many crypto programs, shells and so would be bundled with samples and say, exercises, for average people to play with. Well done, many teens would play with it, and possibly many serious users. A good documentation set explaining in plain terms what each package does, its good and bad points, and comparing it with similar packages both for the savvy and the merely curious would round up the bundle. I'd like to imagine such a CD distributed with a popular magazine (PCworld for example)and many kids playing "spy vs. spy" with their friends, trying simple algorithms and corresponding cracking programs, discovering which are best and which ar not... And possibly serious adults studying the reports and playing too, cracking their WP files, discovering how good PKZIP crypto is, and moving on to PGP and other systems... Descriptive plays for mimicking simple protocols and attacks with real world roll games and then with the computer. All guided by a nice tutorial with references to more technical reports for the interested. Maybe with several levels of explanations up to real crypto stuff and source code. But you won't find all that on any current archive. And writing all the additional stuff, together with compiling for several platforms, and rearranging information for a rational organization (not just a mirror) is quite a *lot* of work. That could pretty well be Applied Cryptography Nth Online Edition. Oh well, I don't lose anything by dreaming. jr

1 0

Re: Anonymous Cpunk Bashing
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:29 AM 3/30/96 -0500, Ted Garrett wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >At 01:06 PM 3/29/96 -0800, you wrote: >>The implication is that the people who oppose this "list of shame" are doing >>so primarily for PERSONALITY reasons, rather than on the issues. I would >>feel better about the whole thing if the people who volunteered for the list >>had engaged in some sort of serious effort to show that the placement of the >>other people on that list was unjustified. Lacking even the most >>rudimentary effort along these lines, I really wonder who (and what) these >>people think they're supporting. > >I think that sometimes, one's cumulative reputation must count for something. >Most of the people who are included in this 'list of shame' have contributed >enormously to the furtherance of the crypto field in general. Whether I conscribe >to their viewpoints or not on a given subject, it is rather easy for me to think >of something they have written which I use as a rather concrete reference. Thusly, >given a track record of open and noteworthy thought on the field, I find it difficult >to denounce, as an example, Bruce Schneier. Especially IF it's only a matter of >sharing a difference of opinion on a given bill or set of bills before our lawmakers. > >Considering the fact that I've not seen Mr. Schneier come out on either side of the >Leahy Bill or, He's one of the people I haven't seen respond to the Leahy bill, as well. However, I don't regularly read SCI.CRYPT or much else that he may put his comments on, and I don't recall if he commented here. That's one of the reasons to be suspicious of the motivations behind the "list of shame," however there's good reason to be even more suspicious of those who have rushed to debunk it by "standing behind" all those listed, with no distinction. I think it is obvious that at least a few people listed should have been listed, but the majority I simply don't know about. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of those anonymous messages deliberately loaded up the list with unworthy targets simply to disguise the ones who ought to be listed. > for that matter, many of the other bills currently before the congress, >it's hard for me to support mail-bombing him or many of the others on the list

1 0