December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: CAPITALISTS' SUCK
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 20 May 96 at 4:07, Dave Harman wrote: [..] > ! >Dave Harman writes: > ! > > ! > CAPITALISTS' SUCK > ! > ! What witty social commentary. > > Information wants to be free. Information doesn't want to be free (or anything else) anymore than the stapler on my desk wants to be free. The day that abstract qualities like "information" or "color" have desires would be an interesting day indeed. And that has little to do with who or what the capitalist down the street is sucking. --Mutant Rob

2 1

Hiding remailers behind nymservers...? (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 18:53:15 -0700 (PDT) > From: Steve Reid <root(a)edmweb.com> > Subject: Hiding remailers behind nymservers...? > > This 'middle-man' remailer... What does it really accomplish? Sure, the > operator is hidden, but that's only because of his/her nym at c2.org... > AFAICS, the 'middle-man' has just taken the liability off himself and put > it on the unhidden remailers. Why not just use the existing unhidden > remailers??? > The first thing it accomplishes in my mind is establishing pre-meditation to conspire to the commission of a felony. Jim

1 0

Re: The Crisis with Remailers
by Matts Kallioniemi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:08 1996-05-21 +0200, bryce(a)digicash.com wrote: >The "minimum ecash payment" is not known at this time, >although we think it might be greater than 2^-32 US Dollars How do you create such tiny payments? When I try (2.1.5a MT) to pay $.001 I receive the warning "Too many digits after '.'!" and even though it's just a warning I can't do the payment. Assuming that you had a client that allows tiny amounts, how would you represent a tenth of a cent in binary? To to it exactly would require an infinite number of coins... Matts

2 1

Re: The Crisis with Remailers
by Marcel van der Peijl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> How do you create such tiny payments? When I try (2.1.5a MT) > to pay $.001 I receive the warning "Too many digits after '.'!" and > even though it's just a warning I can't do the payment. > Assuming that you had a client that allows tiny amounts, how would > you represent a tenth of a cent in binary? To to it exactly would > require an infinite number of coins... The minimum denomination for each currency is (sort of) configurable. For instance, for Belgian Franks the minimum is 1 (and no '.'). If a bank requested a currency capable of handling a mimimum of 0.00005 we could make that happen real easy. Note that with the maximum coin size 2^15 times minimum amount, the maximum coin would get a lot smaller, so that it would become more impractical to pay large amounts in that currency. On the longer term we can of course even change - the 2^15 maximum - maximum number of coins per message (currently 75) if the requirements were there. // Marcel van der Peijl, DigiCash bv, http://www.digicash.com/~bigmac/ // ----------------- insert subliminal message here ------------------

1 0

Re: The Crisis with Remailers
by Matts Kallioniemi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 15:34 1996-05-21 +0200, bryce(a)digicash.com wrote: >Well how do we represent 0.01 U.S. Dollars in Mark Twain >Ecash(tm)? Easy-- we take a few bits of data, interpret it as >an unsigned binary number, and then say "this number is how >many U.S. pennies this coin is worth." Now we're back to pennies again. I was more interested in your earlier claim of tiny payments, on the order of $2^-32. >Actually it can sometimes get more complicated than that, and >there are some details about how the forthcoming ecashlib >handles this to be found at "http://www.digicash.com/api". Will the api make it possible to create coins of arbitrary value? Is the mint software (and the bank accountants) capable of doing floating point arithmetic? Matts

2 1

NIST Draft Key Escrow Paper
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Forward] From: Elaine Frye <elaine.frye(a)nist.gov> Subject: draft key escrow paper May 20, 1996 Note To: Key Escrow Distribution List From: Ed Roback, NIST Subject: Release of DRAFT Key Escrow Paper FYI, today the Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Cryptography Policy released a DRAFT paper entitled "Enabling Privacy, Commerce, Security and Public Safety in the Global Information Infrastructure." The DRAFT paper discusses a voluntary draft key management infrastructure, supported by private sector key management organizations, that would permit users and manufacturers free choice of encryption algorithms, facilitate international interoperability, preserve law enforcement access, and, most importantly, provide strong system security and integrity. FYI, the paper was released by the IWG co-chairs Ed Appel (NSC) and Bruce McConnell (OMB). Comments on the draft paper are being solicited. No deadline is specified. At present, I do not have an electronic copy of the draft (25 pp). Copies are available through the OMB publications office at 202-395-7332. I anticipate that the document will soon be available widely on the net and will forward you a web address when available. ***************************************************** Elaine Frye Computer Security Division National Institute of Standards and Technology Bldg. 820, M.S. Room 426 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001 Voice: 301/975-2819 Fax: 301/948-1233 *****************************************************

1 0

MixMaster fair use
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, Perhaps I am confused about what MixMaster's license allows. I have joined the confusing part (for me anyway)... README.no-export : All the files in this archive contain crpytographic code which is restricted by the ITAR regulations on munitions. These files may only be retrieved by US citizens, and only on condition of agreement not to export any of this software or dats, and to extract a similar agreement from any person they may transfer it to. To access the export-controled materials on this site, you must agree to "THE AGREEMENT" below. If your email address ends in one of the following: .edu .com .edu. .gov .mil .org .net .us .ca Do this by sending "THE AGREEMENT", exactly as it appears, to mix-request(a)jpunix.com If it does not, but you qualify to retrieve Mixmaster under "THE AGREEMENT", then send mail to perry(a)alpha.jpunix.com, explaining your situation. In either case you will be sent a message containing the name of a hidden directory in which you will find the controlled software. The name of the directory changes frequently, so you must get the name each time you want to access the hidden directory. -John A. Perry 5/6/95 -------------------------------------------------- THE AGREEMENT: I am a citizen or national of the United States, or of Canada, or have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States under the Immigration and Naturalization Act. I agree not to export Mixmaster, or RSAREF or any other software in this archive, in violation of the export control laws of the United States of America as implemented by the United States Department of State Office of Defense Trade Controls. Before I download Mixmaster, I will read and agree to the terms and conditions of the RSAREF license (in ftp://ftp.jpunix.com/pub/rsalicen.txt) I will use Mixmaster solely for non-commercial purposes. ---------------------------------------------------------- Directory name last changed at: Wed May 1 09:00:01 CDT 1996 End README.no-export What confuses me is the part above that states that I agree to use Mixmaster for solely non-commercial use. This is NOT GNU or copyleft. Jim Choate

1 0

Remailer extensions
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, In pondering the last few days of discussion it occurs to me that a test might be possible. In short: Is it legal for a business to anonymously remail physical mail? The process I propose is as follows: 1. Some party mails an envelope to 'Remailers-R-Us'. 2. Inside that envelope is the real mail addressed and stamped along with say a $1 money order for processing. 3. The people at Remailers-R-Us simply take the dollar and deposit it in the bank while depositing the letter they received in the local mail drop. Now the Remailers-R-Us obviously can't open the mail since that would be tampering. To this end I make reference to some comments I made about a year ago regarding the results of encrypting every stage of the remailer sequence. To wit, the only way to guarantee protection is if the remialer is not able to read the actual contents of the mail, even if they were so disposed. I would also like to point out (the obvious I admit) that the founding fathers apparently embarced anonymous distribution via their 'publius' handle. It seems to me that a federal prosecutor would have a hard time claiming there was no precedence for such actions. Such a claim to my way of thinking would be fundamental in any attempted prosecution for anonymous remailing. Also, as far as I can find out, there was no persecution of the newspapers for printing this material anonymously, they apparently were not held to task for the content. This seems to indicate that English commen law of that day (and its descendants here today) embraced anonymous speech as well. Jim Choate

1 0

Re: MixMaster fair use
by Rev. Mark Grant, ULC 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 21 May 1996, Jim Choate wrote: > What confuses me is the part above that states that I agree to use Mixmaster > for solely non-commercial use. This is NOT GNU or copyleft. Isn't that because it uses RSAREF? AFAIR the RSAREF license says you can't use any RSAREF applications commercially without paying license fees. Mark

1 0

Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
by Rev. Mark Grant, ULC 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 20 May 1996, Rich Graves wrote: > On Tue, 21 May 1996, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: > I like the "knock-knock" approach, though it would of necessity impose > load. If someone has an anonymous message waiting, send them a simple note > with instructions on how to retrieve it. I have a partial implementation of this for Mixmaster if anyone wants to try integrating it into the main code. It works (or worked) for single packet messages but I never finished the multi-packet code. Of course, if Mixmaster is being rewritten anyway then it won't be much use. AFAIR it also relies on the 'In-Reply-To:' field in the header working correctly. Mark

1 0