December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FAST
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"llurch(a)networking.stanford.edu" "Rich Graves" 18-MAY-1996 09:07:35.05 >On Thu, 16 May 1996, Bill Stewart wrote: >> ================================================================== >> This message was posted from the anonymous remailer at www.jim.com. >> Send any complaints to webmaster(a)www.jim.com . >> Please don't post any copyrighted material longer than fair use quotations. >> And did you know that Scientology's highly overpriced documents say that >> "<random paragraph quotation>" >> =================================================================== >Once I was more or less done laughing and got off the floor, it occurred >to me that this could provide a revenue stream for anonymous remailers. >You'd charge advertisers sub-pennies for these little trailers. I >understand that Sameer is getting very little Ecash for his >remail/by-www.html, but maybe if he sold advertising space? It's an interesting idea. One wonders if EFF would be interested in such a sponsorship? One could even add, say, an ACLU promotion to the end of messages without getting cash from the ACLU - this might encourage them to give more backing in case of a legal dispute. (You scratch my back, I scratch yours... I'm not meaning to be offensive to the ACLU, BTW.) -Allen

1 0

Re: Sendmail Question (was: SMTP Server for sending to anonymous remailers?)
by John Deters 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:42 PM 5/19/96 -0400, you wrote: >At 12:09 AM 5/19/96 -0700, you wrote: >>If you use popmail (like Eudora), then just tell it the server to use in >>"SMTP Host". >> -Lance >I have been following this with no little interest. Using Eudora Pro when I >attempt to replace host: smtp1.abraxis.com with *SMTP Host*, I receive the >message *Attempting to resolve host: SMTP Host*, and dat's all until I stop >the send command. > >Thanks > >Alec Alec, What he meant was that you should replace the contents of the SMTP server's field with the address of the first remailer in your chain. For example, if I wanted to send this through the Holy Cow remailer, I'd put this in the SMTP server field: haystack(a)holy.cow.net Remember, though, that several things OUT OF YOUR CONTROL have to happen for your mail to be anonymised successfully. First, if you are behind a "firewall" (i.e. doing this at work through your work's net connection) your firewall may be implementing what is known as a "proxy." That means even though you're using the SMTP protocol, you may not be *directly* talking to the SMTP client of the remailer. It may "look" like you're able to SMTP out to whoever you want to send mail, but in reality, the firewall can intercept your request, and "pretend" to be some other SMTP server. It then accepts your outgoing mail, and forwards it to the real destination. Abraxis sells firewalls. Also, your firewall may be configured to not pass SMTP out at all, but rather to require you to send any SMTP traffic directly to it. That means you can not change your SMTP server to anything outside of your local net. In either case, firewalls are certainly capable (and employers within their rights, but that's another useless thread) to log and/or read your mail. Anonymity lost, at least to your employer. Finally, the anonymous remailer may (or may not) have some kind of logging turned on. I don't know why they would (what's the value if they do) but if some law enforcement agency orders them to discreetly monitor traffic, you lose again. Unless you PGP encrypt your mail to the remailers before it leaves your machine for the big bad net, someone else can read it. And, no matter what, persons unknown can tell that your machine sent some message to the remailer. (This is known as "traffic analysis".) Therefore, I'd *highly* recommend not e-mailing anything illegal over the net, remailer or no. -j, annoying, yes. Illegal or harassing, no. -- J. Deters >From Senator C. Burns' Pro-CODE bill, which I support and you can find at: http://www.senate.gov/member/mt/burns/general/billtext.htm " (2) Miniaturization, disturbed computing, and reduced transmission costs make communication via electronic networks a reality." +---------------------------------------------------------+ | NET: jad(a)dsddhc.com (work) jad(a)pclink.com (home) | | PSTN: 1 612 375 3116 (work) 1 612 894 8507 (home) | | ICBM: 44^58'33"N by 93^16'42"W Elev. ~=290m (work) | | PGP Key ID: 768 / 15FFA875 | +---------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

Re: Is Chaum's System Traceable or Untraceable?
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:10 AM 5/19/96 -0400, Simon Spero wrote: >> > (On the other hand, I have had a longstanding faith that the system can be >> > made to be both payer- and payee-anonymous. Moneychangers, for example.) .. >This scheme can't be used with the ecash API, and I believe is not looked >on kindly when applying for ecash licences. It makes you a lot more >vulnerable to traffic analysis There are at least two reasons for wanting payee anonymity - general privacy - criminal activities, e.g. ransom, where payee doesn't trust payer. In the latter case, the facts that collaboration is required, special software is needed, and licenses are violated are not really a problem - the Bad Guy can give the payer the code along with the ransom note, and doesn't care about the license. Traffic analysis is a concern, but you're probably not going to collect ransom from the same person on a regular basis, and for blackmail, you can keep changing the payment address, and you're a bit less worried about the payer's location being noticed than if you were collaborating in something like tax evasion. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 # goodtimes signature virus innoculation

1 0

Re: SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FAST
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What countries are noticeable for being anti-Scientology? They would appear to be good locations for special-purpose remailer ultimate-output ends. -Allen

2 2

5 MINUTE CYPHERPUNKS SURVEY
by Sally D. McMillan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi! Im writing a paper for school on E-commerce and would like to include a brief section on the role of Cypherpunks in E-commerce. If you would, please email me your responses to the following questions. Some of these questions are broad, but please limit your response to each question to 0-100 words. Also, I am NOT attempting to stereotype the Cypherpunks, but am instead interested to learn whether there is a shared view among them. THANKS! PS- PLEASE RESPOND TO MY EMAIL DIRECTLY by FRIDAY, 5/24/96 : 103007.3426(a)compuserve.com 1. Would you call yourself a Cypherpunk? (Y, N, Not Sure) 2. What is the role of Cypherpunks in the DEVELOPMENT of secure E-commerce transactions? 3. What is the role of Cypherpunks in the MAINTENANCE of secure E-commerce transactions? 4. Why do Cypherpunks care about E-commerce? (Please limit to 100 words or fewer.) 5. What is a punk? What is a Cypherpunk? Can you distinguish between those who are up to no good, trying to crack security and those who try to crack security in order to maintain it? Do Cypherpunks, in your opinion, fall into either category? 6. What is the greatest security threat to E-commerce transactions? 7. On a scale of 1-10, how dangerous is it to give your credit card number to a vendor over the internet? (Please provide one number only for this answer.) 8. On a scale of 1-10, how would you rank your own knowledge of E-commerce and related security issues? (Please provide one number only for this answer.) May I quote part of or all of your answers in my paper? Would you like to be referenced by name, email address, or as Anonymous? Please provide pertinent details. THANK YOU FOR FILLING OUT THIS QUESTIONNAIRE! Please forward your responses to me at: 103007.3426(a)compuserve.com

1 0

Re: New Remailer (hidden)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cool. I've got a test message going now. Does your remailer accept PGP-encrypted email? It's really critical for high-security applications, at least for first remailer hops, but your key's not on the MIT keyserver. BTW, how do we know you're not a plant? :-) Aside from having an interesting nym, you've probably got the first remailer that makes it difficult to tell who's running it. You could be Sameer, or you could be Louis Freeh, but we don't know. At least folks like Xenon were known to be real people.... Even if you _are_ a plant, of course, we can still use your system, but I'd want to do encrypted email through other remailers on one end or the other. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 # goodtimes signature virus innoculation

1 0

Re: anonymous companies
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 18-MAY-1996 11:16:57.48 > At 06:42 PM 5/16/96 -0700, Wei Dai wrote: > > Solution: smart contracts. This is Nick Szabo's idea of building > > contractual obligations into cryptographic protocols so that the parties > > have no choice but to fullfil them. But again we don't know whether this > > will actually work for this problem. >But what happens when there are nuances or circumstances which contracts >do not anticipate? This "complete" reliablity is also a curse for >flexibility which fast moving entities need to survive. That's an argument for combining them with escrow agencies. If the escrow agency is less likely to need to intervene, then they'll charge less... the principle of insurance company risk estimation. -Allen

2 2

Re: Why does the state still stand:
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"jimbell(a)pacifier.com" "jim bell" 18-MAY-1996 02:54:47.09 >On the other hand, the government also has enormous "obligations" that keep >it close to bankruptcy. It wouldn't take a great deal of interference in >its ability to collect taxes to put it solidly in the red based on current >receipts. And remember, if the individuals who populate government could be >persuaded that their tenure would be forcibly shortened if they didn't >resign, they wouldn't stick around. Once that cohesiveness of jointly >sucking on the government tit is eliminated, I think they'll cut and run. >These people are working for a fat paycheck and the promise of a retirement >package, and it wouldn't take much convincing to show them that they won't >get either for very long. I'm convinced that's why so many Senators and While quite a lot of people in the government are working just for the paycheck, there are also some idealists - and some who are working for a "power paycheck" rather than a "cash paycheck." I'm willing to bet that that's the case with the NSA and its _general_ opposition to cryptography. You'll have three basic groups: A. Those who are idealists. This can be divided into two categories. 1. Those who idealize the power of government, such as via a devotion to democracy. These oppose cryptography because it weakens the government. 2. Those who are primarily interested in protecting America from everyone else. These promote cryptography, and need to be supported. 3. Those who (stupidly) believe in the US government enough to "just follow orders," as the Nuremberg phrase goes. If you can get the type 2 idealists in power, these will do the right thing. B. Those who want power. These oppose cryptography because they will lose power if it is widely implemented. C. Those who are just there to get a paycheck. These will act in most situations about like an idealist of type 3, but when push comes to shove won't be willing to back it up seriously. I'd appreciate feedback from anyone who's dealt with the intelligence community more than I have (not particularly difficult) to confirm or deny the above classification system, and give some idea as to the proportions within the NSA, government in general, etcetera. -Allen

1 0

Edited Edupage, 16 May 1996
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"educom(a)elanor.oit.unc.edu" 16-MAY-1996 23:29:38.03 >AOL TEAMS UP FOR E-COMMERCE >America Online has cut deals to license encryption, digital signature, and >electronic transaction and funds transfer technologies from a variety of >companies, including CyberCash, IBM infoMarket, RSA Data Security, Terisa >Systems and VeriSign. "These new relationships will provide the building >blocks for a secure electronic commerce platform," says AOL's VP of product >marketing. The online service plans to integrate the electronic commerce >technologies into both its online service and its Global Network Navigator >Internet access service. (Investor's Business Daily 16 May 96 A9) Well, at least they're making moves to get cryptography to the AOL masses.... although somehow I suspect that they'll roll over and play dead for any and all GAK pressure, and won't use any variety of truly anonymous digital cash. >ATTEMPT TO BLOCK USE OF CANADIAN SATELLITES >MCI Communications, AT&T and EchoStar Satellite all have filed additional >complaints this week with the FCC about proposals made by rivals >Tele-Communications Inc. and TelQuest Ventures that cite Ottawa's refusal to >allow American companies to beam their programs into the United States as >cause for the FCC to deny the application. (Toronto Financial Post 16 May 96 >p3) An ex-FCC official says the American regulator is unlikely to approve >the use of four Canadian satellites by US-based TelQuest Ventures and >Tele-Communications Inc. to beam signals to the American market unless >Canada's market is opened up to U.S. services. (Montreal Gazette 15 May 96 G3) One wonders what the FCC would do if they weren't US-based companies, and if it weren't from satellites from such an interlocked-with-the-US country as Canada. -Allen >Edupage is written by John Gehl (gehl(a)educom.edu) & Suzanne Douglas >(douglas(a)educom.edu) Voice: 404-371-1853, Fax: 404-371-8057. >*************************************************************** >Edupage ... is what you've just finished reading. To subscribe to Edupage: >send mail to: listproc(a)educom.unc.edu with the message: subscribe edupage >Jack Kerouac (if your name is Jack Kerouac; otherwise, substitute your own >name). ... To cancel, send a message to: listproc(a)educom.unc.edu with the >message: unsubscribe edupage. (If you have subscription problems, send >mail to educom(a)educom.unc.edu.)

1 0

(Fwd) Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry Vlad Z. Nuri, but this message was intended for Cypherpunks, to be cc'd to you. Unfortunately, I wrongly addressed it. To CPunks: the reply that should have hit CPunks: ============================================================ To: jf_avon(a)citenet.net Subject: Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace Date sent: Sun, 19 May 96 19:52:45 -0700 From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri(a)netcom.com> there is no ethical basis for killing. please kindly keep your trash out of my mailbox I've evaluated all sides of the story, and am not influenced by corrupt machiavellianism ============================================================= -------Original Message Follows ------- From: Self <Single-user mode> To: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri(a)netcom.com> Subject: Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace Reply-to: jf_avon(a)citenet.net Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 01:59:00 On 18 May 96 at 12:43, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: > maybe talk to Jim Bell some more. perhaps > eventually you will perfect the method of perpetrating the perfect > killing!! I really do admire you, because killing people without > getting caught is surely a great unrecognized art, and one of the > most unappreciated and misunderstood. something that has only been a > dream to the blighted wretches prior to our glorious new phases of > cyberspatial technology, which makes human morality completely > obsolete. I think that you are writing way out of context. First, wether or not the AP scheme is used for the control of government, as Jim Bell pushes it, does not mean that it will not be implemented for other purposes, such as killing successful businessman or your neighboor's son who is screwing your wife (noticed that she smiles all the time since a while? ) . Second, everybody like Jim Bell who is pushing the AP scheme is doing so on ethical basis: that the coercion the government imposes on to the individuals by regulations, and guns backed taxation justifies the killings. I have to see yet any cypherpunks who seems to agree with AP that envision another use than govt control. Third, you will notice that even Jim Bell discusses issues of anonymous transactions and businesses that, if conducted properly, makes the AP scheme irrelevant. So, it seems that AP is only a tool instead of being an end in itself. Fourth, you lack some basic psychological insight: intrinsic murderers do enjoy the knowledge of the details of their actions and the derived perception of power. AP prevents that by anonymising everything: a donator cannot know if he caused the death of somebody (unless he spends several tens of grands himself, but then, there are other, more satisfying ways for a power seeker to fullfill his passions...) . You seems to oppose the proposed violence entailed by AP but you positively blank out what everybody who reflected on AP put in the opposite pan of the balance, i.e. the ethical standards of contemporary govt actions. And you'll also note that the anonymity issue generate more interest from more CPunks because it (hopefully) will acheive the same goal without any killing. Until you accept to evaluate both side of the story, your recriminations opinions are as evident as the magnetic monopole... jfa DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee; Limoges porcelain, silverware and crystal JFA Technologies, R&D consultants; physists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 Unsollicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at US165 $/h Any sender of such material will be considered as to have ac- cepted the above mentionned terms.

5 6