December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

e$'s (mini-rant)
by jeff＠Molasar.BlackMagic.Com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<begin mini-rant> The Internet Economy Must Be Grass Roots (or, why can't we mint coins YET ?) Just a few thoughts. Being a small business, here are some of the things we THOUGHT we'd be able to do by now with anonymously transferable digital tokens (e$'s) that I'm amazed we still can't do. 1) Issue tokens backed by services our site offers, or the services of our consultants, etc. Obviously, this isn't intended for general use (though we certainly wouldn't care if the currency was traded to organizations who would accept it for it's value)- it's intended to be traded with those people on the net that we do business with on a regular basis, rather like a ledger system, but slightly different (Even an online system that wasn't anonymous, a ledger, would be better than what's out there right now, which is NOTHING). 2) Run our own mint- obviously, it's to our advantage to run the mint, we want to make sure it's secure, it's responsible for keeping value in OUR COINS, something of great importance to our reputation. Businesses want to issue all kinds of currencies- state currency is only ONE FORM of value. We want to mint coins and distribute them freely in some cases, to advertise our services, to attract new customers, etc. We want to mint "coupons" that have the same effect. We want to mint coins that are actually licenses for use of products that we want to distribute, licenses people can TRADE, licenses that hold their value past site-by-site use. We want to be able to issue coins that we can optionally expire, optionally have anonimity, and optionally can or can't be transferred (some uses of these token systems are not served well by anonimity or by transferability). The possibilities are only endless if there is a transport, if there is a mechanism. Not in theory, but in PRACTICE. When I played with the Magic Money software, my only thought was "YES!" but then it "went away" ? It went away because it was difficult to use, which I'm sure would have been resolved (obviously, it would have needed extensions for network transport with email transport as an option but not a necessity). It went away because the inventor of the original scheme holds the patents (which I have no problem with, obviously, but aren't there any competeing ideas ? or does the inventor plan to "let" us mint our own currencies in the future ?). That this mechanism is being restricted to some "higher purpose" of a universal cash system, beginning (and ending I suspect) with backing by state currency makes me down right mad. There are a million and one uses for this mechanism that nobody has even THOUGHT OF yet, and there are plenty that people HAVE thought of- but the mechanism isn't available to the public, it's being used instead in a very narrow way. And in my Not So humble opinion, the way to Internet Economy isn't from the top anyway, it's from the people who provide the value in the first place, it's from the businesses who desperately want to get moving but feel their hands are tied. I have communicated with every author of "e$" type systems that I know of, and they all had very big plans for their systems, were all looking for sponsorship and talking to banks, and everyone of them completely FAILED to even ANSWER email from me when I asked when we could use their mechanisms for minting our own currencies and running our own mints on the Internet (I take that back, one of them answered, they just said, in a word, "no"). And I find that ANNOYING, mostly because it's just putting things off-- years now and we're not much closer to "Internet Economy" than we were when we started. It's gotta be grass roots, it's gotta be free (or cheap), and most importantly, it's gotta be SOON. History has show in endless repetition, that the only standards on the Internet are free standards. The Web would have never taken off if both the thing that "lets the user access the system" (the client) and the thing that "allows distribution of content" (the server) hadn't been available freely-- and the mint software in any of the proposed token systems are just that, content distributing servers. Every single person on this planet is a business. All good things start with the individuals (especially on the net, as we've seen OVER and OVER). The world is full of things that were "good", but were too propietary, they fill the backrooms of many a code shop. In the words of a very common-sensical post I saw just a few days ago, "... because of a Betamax attitude, I'll follow the market to VHS." The only thing lacking right now is a VHS to follow, but beware, the need is so high, there will be one ... In short, give us the mechanism! Once it's available, sit back and watch the net soar ... just like it always does ... The most recent application of this type of mechanism that I saw, or at least it could have been an application for it if there WAS a mechanism, was a group of organizations that wanted to trade certain types of information among themselves-- they wanted it to be based on merit, that is, those individuals/organizations who PROVIDE data also GET data from the system. It was a perfectly contained closed economy that desperately needed a token system as it's heart, but alas, there wasn't one. Trying to remain patient. <end mini-rant> Woowoo! Spring is here! :) Jeff. -- Simply Be.

1 0

Summary of NIST GAK Meeting
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Pat, We received today by snail mail from NIST a March 5 "Summary of the Proposed 64-bit Software Key Escrow Encryption Export Criteria Meeting" on December 5, five-pages, "prepared by an outside observer from Martin Marietta Systems, Inc." You've probably got a copy as well. If you've not already done so, and if you like, we'll be happy to scan it and send over for your Web site. Let us know. John

1 0

Re: protection on IoMega ZIP drives
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:08 AM 3/23/96 +0000, Deranged Mutant wrote: >On 23 Mar 96 at 3:00, Ed Carp wrote: > >> Has anyone tried SFS? It should work on the zip drive, though I've not >> tried it (yet)... > >If I recall some recent threads on alt.security.pgp (or sci.crypt?), >SFS doesn't work on ZIP drives (since ZIPs use the parallel port...). > >[Or do ZIPs use Scuzzies and the people who had problems were just >too lame to figure out that they had to load the driver before SFS?] There are two versions of the Zip drive. One is SCSI and one is Parallel faking scsi. The big problem is with the zip drivers. There is some sort of incompatibility between SFS and the zip drivers. (I hacked on it for a couple of hours with no luck.) Win95 makes the problem worse, as it is difficult to judge just when the driver for the zip drive loads. (I have a number of complaints about the zip drive drivers. Lack of documentation is one of them...) Sometime I will have to fire up SoftICE and see exactly what the conflict is... --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon

1 0

Re: protection on IoMega ZIP drives
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 23 Mar 96 at 3:00, Ed Carp wrote: > Has anyone tried SFS? It should work on the zip drive, though I've not > tried it (yet)... If I recall some recent threads on alt.security.pgp (or sci.crypt?), SFS doesn't work on ZIP drives (since ZIPs use the parallel port...). [Or do ZIPs use Scuzzies and the people who had problems were just too lame to figure out that they had to load the driver before SFS?] Rob. --- Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" (not in quotes) to <WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com> for a copy of my PGP key.

2 1

Re: NT's C2 rating
by Rick Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Regarding the comment: >> Basically, I'm now questioning the C2 rating of Windows NT. The >> entire security layer is modular to the Kernel. As a modular >> driver, it can be removed, rewritten, and replaced. C2 is no big deal. It means you have the typical security measures that can be disabled or bypassed by a trojan horse. You're not doing serious protection till you put in mandatory protections like what appears in B or A level systems. The big deal is that few vendors have tried to get NCSC evaluations. Rick. smith(a)sctc.com secure computing corporation

1 0

New Encryption Software-Encrypt Image & Text Files (fwd)
by wendigo＠pobox.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Thought y'all might find this interesting ... if not funny. : Press Release from Antelope Productions, Inc : : Subject: New Encryption Software; Quick@Crypt : : : Antelope Productions, Inc. is releasing our new encryption package : called Quick@Crypt that has several advantages over any other : encryption software available on the market. Now more than ever, : there is a need for security in transferring sensitive information : through the Internet and networks worldwide. There has not been a : universal way for people to send all types of files easily, : inexpensively and securely through the Internet or networks UNTIL NOW. : All other encryption software available on the market requires a : separate license for each site (the sender as well as the receiver). : With Quick@Crypt you may freely distribute the decryption program. : Only the encryption side requires a licensed copy of Quick@Crypt. : There is also no limit on the password size and there is no : restriction on overseas use. : : You will find pricing of Quick@Crypt a real bargain, given the : pricing and functionality compared to other available encryption : packages. Our price is only $99.95 plus $5 shipping in US plus state : sales tax in Texas, New Jersey and Florida. Quantity discounts are : also available. : : Installation is performed easily on any Windows or Windows 95 system. : Memory requirements with as little of 2 MB of RAM (I tried it on a : Tandy portable with 2 MB!). We also have a version to work in DOS. : There is a floating toolbar that always remains on top of your current : open window. Quick@Crypt's floating toolbar gives you four options. : 1. Encryption-You have a user friendly screen to select the drive, : directory and files that you want to encrypt. Chosen files for : encryption are grouped together and compiled into a single executable : file with an assigned password you enter. There is no limitation on : the password size. Overseas distribution of the encrypted files is not : restricted. File encryption often takes less then ten seconds. 2. : Decryption- Allows you to select the drive, directory and file you : want to decrypt. The password is requested once you select the : encrypted file. Decryption is performed in Windows or Windows 95 with : the freely distributed decryption module. Decryption module is sent : to each receiver with no licensing requirement. Decryption of the : executable file may also be performed at the DOS prompt with no : additional software. 3. Help- A user friendly system for all of : Quick@Crypt's functions, along with an index and glossary. 4. Exit : : For more information, wholesale quotations, or ordering, please email : your requests to schek(a)airmail.net (Walter Chek), Subject: Quick@Crypt : < Inquiry> : - -- Mark Rogaski <wendigo(a)gti.net> 100,000 Lemmings GTI GlobalNet System Administrator Can't Be Wrong! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMVMsog0HmAyu61cJAQHGGAQAxa1n7zXlD49TH7SlQTRGlRdEp2QGmvTt Vcdp/9VrbXqNIhSHQC5yxT7rc7SDOS2mvyFx9kz4rraiBOEMt5wZpGHkExpXMFHS T8mrHHrONEUjLDiiGZSLWtCPTjd0OZ4Qp/251OJxT8kZ9P/Sdmx3NueG6dlMFMpm m5qz167wK3M= =0+8d -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

detweiling
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've been studying "detweiling" in old archives as this issue is raised here every so often. imho the lesson of detweiler has nothing to do with detweiler, but in fact more to do with his targets. effective "detweiling" would be impossible if it were not for the large egos of his quarry. he selects his targets carefully based on the size of their egos, presses their obvious buttons, and stands back to watch the fireworks ensue. the larger the ego, the more easy it is to do this. (i.e. larger fireworks/provocation ratio). detweiler took a lot of pride in how much reaction he could get with just a few posts or barbs. he is not really apparently responsible for ever actually mailbombing the cpunk list from what I can tell. he believed he was perfecting the art of playing with people's egos. a sort of depraved cyberspatial psychology experiment. the amusing thing about "detweiling" is the way that it is something like a bad, self-perpetuating virus among those with big egos. detweiler took great glee in starting the virus wherein these people with big egos blame all their obvious personal problems on him (i.e. atrocious lack of interpersonal skills). since the virus propagates not because of any action on his part, but because of the inherent psychology of those with big egos, it continues on this list even though there seems to be no evidence that Detweiler has had anything to do with this list for perhaps over a year. the cypherpunks is a rabid breeding ground for this detweiler virus, because of the vast array of throbbing egos. the flamewars are routine because of the immature psychology of many posters, esp. the more "prominent" ones. even anonymous or pseudonymous posters defend themselves because of their large egos, and those with big egos feel they have to defend themselves against anonymous or pseudonymous accusations, or take intermittent jabs at whatever hapless pseudonym-of-the-week is thought to be detweiler. imho from what I have seen (which is admittedly not everything, as the detweiler stuff is rather endless), detweiler is not really destructive in himself. but he is an amazing catalyst to those that already have destructive tendencies within themselves, and he tweaks them into erupting. in a sense it is almost a public service in helping people with big egos temporarily relieve their "painful flareups". but I see no sign that he has been anywhere near the list for a long, long time, and I think all the ranting and scapegoating of him is quite strong evidence of all the big egos and small minds that litter this list. there is nothing new about detweiler's approach. there was a classic greek who was put to death for the same reason: not provoking people by calling them names, so much as asking them questions that embarrassly exposed all their ego problems. his name was called "socrates" and he was put to death for refining his art beyond that which was tolerated by a power structure largely populated by those with the ego problems (power structures are always dominated by these types, it is like flies and dead meat, or moths and flames). the joke of course may be that detweiler could have been dead for a long time, and people here would still be blaming him for their problems. perhaps we have a new convenient substitute for Satan in the cyberspace age. "the detweiling made me do it." (hee, hee). "projection" was identified by freud in another century as a basic device of the ego, a pity that few in our modern era are aware-- or perhaps it is not such a pity from detweiler's perspective. <g> (p.s. I imagine quite a few people will accuse "me" of being detweiler. I assure you my amusement will at least exceed or match that which detweiler ever obtained.)

2 1

Re: New Beta Test of PGPfone available WINDOWS '95 Included!
by wlkngowl＠unix.asb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jis(a)mit.edu (Jeffrey I. Schiller) writes: >We have finally released a Windows '95 version of PGPfone. This release >includes PGPfone for Macintosh version 1.0b6 and PGPfone for Windows '95 >version 1.0b1. Note: The Macintosh version does not talk to earlier versions. >However the Macintosh and Windows version talk to each other! >Connections can be either via modem or the Internet. [..] Will there ever be a Win32s version of PGPfone? I have one of those systems with non-(MS)DOS partitions that MS-DOS/Wind95 doesn't like, so until MS can deal with the fact that people use other OSs, I'm staying clean of Win95.

2 1

Re: Thanks for the keys
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:00 AM 3/22/96, whitfield.diffie(a)Eng.Sun.COM wrote: > I would like to thank the gentleman, who identified himself only >as a cypherpunk, who fetched my keys out of the door of my wife's car >(I frequently leave keys sticking in the doors of cars), knocked on >the window, and handed them to me. That anonymity was successfully preserved demonstates the perfect forward secrecy of Diffie key exchange. Or something like that. --Tim "Not the Key Master" 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

Forward: Essay: Political-economy of the Internet
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 13:40:53 -0800 (PST) From: "Michael Strangelove" <michael(a)strangelove.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <cda96-l(a)willamette.edu> Subject: Essay: Political-economy of the Internet Here are the first few paragraphs from an essay on the relationship between of freedom of speech on the Net and the "statehood" of cyberspace. I am trying to define the role of values (ethics) in the new culture of online speech and am searching for sources/theories that will help explain the new value system of the Net within the larger context of global media culture. For the complete text of this essay, send the command GET POLITICS in the SUBJECT line of an e-mail message to Michael(a)Strangelove.Com Michael Strangelove The Political Economy of the Internet (Previously published in The Internet Business Journal, http://www.phoenix.ca/sie) -- Revised -- March 12, 1996 Copyright (C) 1996, Michael Strangelove. All Rights Reserved. Comments to the author at Michael(a)Strangelove.Com This document may be forwarded and archived on the Internet, so long as no changes are made to the text, Publishers take note, this draft is part of a book on freedom and speech and the Internet which I am working on -- contact michael(a)strangelove.com for table of contents (for publishers only). Introduction "There is a growing concern that the very existence of the Internet is a threat to the nation-state" (Globe and Mail, Feb 3/96, p. A1). Recently, the headline "Nations see Internet as threat to security" appeared on the front page of Canada's national daily newspaper, The Globe and Mail. Consider for a moment that more than two decades after its "invention" and three years after its integration into popular culture and the business process, the Internet has distinguished itself on two fronts. It remains the only mass media system to escape monopolistic ownership by media conglomerates (with no sign of this changing) and it is increasingly seen, correctly, as a threat to national security and sovereignty. Meanwhile, the business community throughout the world is gradually integrating the Internet into the core of its communication and marketing infrastructure. The inevitable outcome of these trends is that the communication infrastructure (including marketing, customer service, and financial transactions) of the business community is destined to conflict with the information policies of governments. One way of looking at the Internet is to understand it as an emerging nation-state, a state that, with each passing day, becomes more entwined with the fabric of the geo- political balance of power. The corporate world, particularly multinational corporations, and governments are soon going to have to come to terms with the statehood of the Internet. Political theorist Anthony Giddons writes that "significant power, within any type of organization, consists in the capacity to determine or shape policy." This understanding of power -- policy making -- is one that any manager, executive, or bureaucrat can certainly appreciate. Power-as-policy-making sheds light on the type of power the Net, (and more comprehensively, cyberspace,) wields. More precisely, the statehood of the Net is founded on its power to deny existing nations any concrete method to exercise direct, unilateral influence over the "policy" of the Internet. It is quite clear that, congressional saber-rattling aside, no nation has successfully legislated the information policy of the Internet. As a landless nation-state, the Net's constitution, or bill of rights, is its internal information policy -- no one group, community, ideology or nation is universally recognized to have the right to determine what values, art forms, beliefs, or private thoughts can or cannot be expressed on the Net. While this information policy is framed by pre- existing international treaties concerning copyright, thus far this unwritten but very real policy has not been further defined or amended by any individual nation's internal moral standards or legislature. Bear in mind that no significant content has ever been removed from the Net as a result of any one nation's information-policy making process. Indeed, just the opposite is the case -- every attempt at censoring content on the Net has lead to increased exposure of the censored or banned content and its further proliferation throughout the Net. Admittedly, it is theoretically possible for a government to censor material on Internet servers within its borders. Yet all previous attempts at doing so have simply resulted in the censored material migrating to the Net servers of other nations and remaining accessible via the Net to all. The dynamic of regional censorship being undermined by the international Net community is now almost a daily occurrence. This "end of censorship" in the international information sphere is not threatened by the possibility of a global information policy trade agreement on censorship. Any attempt to impose the freedom of speech standards of one nation on another will certainly be interpreted as a violation of national sovereignty. As a new form of borderless state, Cspace (Internet/cyberspace) has demonstrated sovereign power over its internal information policy. The front pages of newspapers around the world are demonstrating a growing awareness of this new political animal. But neither the global body politic nor the corporate realm have come to terms with the extent of the Net's sovereignty and the future impact of this "new wired world order". For the complete text of this essay, send the command GET POLITICS in the SUBJECT line of an e-mail message to Michael(a)Strangelove.Com

1 0