December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: crosspost re remailers
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:30 PM 5/14/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote: > > I'd have thought that a remailer going down > > because of political/legal pressure would raise more of a ruckus. At 11:02 AM 5/15/96 -0700, Bill Frantz wrote: > I thought the statement that remailers are supposed to be ephemeral > and common was the answer. Exactly so: Some nyms are valuable, most are valueless by design. All remailers should be valueless by design. The penet.fi remailer design is unsatisfactory precisely because it penet.fi is valuable, hence a target. If it gets shut down a lot of people lose their nyms, causing much inconvenience. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1

RE: Why does the state still stand:
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Hal [on the idea of companies operating fully anonymously] It might be interesting to make a list of all the problems people can think of why this idea won't work, paired with proposed solutions and workarounds - sort of a mini FAQ for this important (some might say ultimate) cypherpunk model. ..................................................................... I think this is a much needed discussion - in particular as it comes at a time when Uni is is "somewhat disconcerted" at the defeatist attitude of some cypherpunks and since TCMay is getting ready to read us the Cypherpunks Bill of Rights regarding the subsidizatoin of other's people's cyber existence (heh). 3 problems which immediately come to mind: . What if someone, hired on one occasion but fired at another, decides in anger to "turn coat" and report everyone to the IRS (or other fine government agency)? . What if a company does not pay as expected - other than adopting Assassination Politics, what method could an employee use towards getting their expected remuneration for work done? . Wouldn't everyone need to have two jobs (or source of regularly accepted cash), in order to be able to pay for services where suppliers do not accept virtual cash transactions? (TCM has mentioned before about the need to pay for some things in tiny quantities - like quarters for a phone call, etc.) .. Blanc

4 3

crosspost re remailers
by hkhenson＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry to send this in blind. Over a year ago I switched from watching the "mutitions" R&D works to being an observer/participant on a small "test war." Once in a while, I send in a report. If you have comments which you want me to see, email them. Thanks, Keith Henson ******* Subject: Re: <<< Repost the NOTS everywhere! >>> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship References: <4ml2cv$c52(a)utopia.hacktic.nl> <4mrsf0$esn(a)news.bridge.net> <4ms9na$l24(a)Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4msu79$jdi(a)news.bridge.net> <henriDr5rpD.CqD(a)netcom.com> <4nae9i$bf7(a)news2.texas.net> Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Distribution: inet Hoyos (hoyos(a)millenium.texas.net) wrote: : henry (henri(a)netcom.com) wrote: : : >What I find disturbing is certain people who were visibly outraged by : : >Steven Fishman's "outings" are supportive of the remailer abuse, _as_well_ : : remailer ABUSE? how is it remailer ABUSE to use them for their : : intended purposes. : Remailers exist to destroy copyrights? I always thought they were around : to ensure a certain amount of anonymity, not to permit people to destroy : copyrights and get away with it. Hoyos, you *can't* destroy copyright, period. Trade secrets are another matter, and I suppose you can make a case that the ability of a certain powerful cult to extract money or labor from the gulible has been reduced. I know some of the people who wrote the first cypherpunk remailers. They have been watching the uses to which the remailers have been put. The long drawn out battle between the CoS and the Net has been of as much interest to them as the performance of large guns at the front was to Krup. I can't speak for all of them--actually, I can't speak for *any* of them, but the ones who have said anything about the recent uses of the remailers do not seem unhappy. There may be some discussion related to this on the cypherpunks mailing list. But if you sign up, be prepaired for a flood. Keith Henson Crossposted to cypherpunks

7 10

Re: (Fwd) New Anonymous Remailer
by David E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Do we se a problem here? No? Then read on... > > > You may be familiar with anon.penet.fi, which give you an > > anonymous account. > > > Our service allows YOU to choose what the return address will be! > > > Please write for more info. > > Well, well, well. Let's see: > Yes, we are familiar with anon.penet.fi... And all of the better > options available. Heh... it gets better. I very foolishly sent off for more info; among their requirements: you pay $5 a month for the service; you can't receive mail, only send it (which anyone can spoof for free!); you can't send to anyone in the domain of *.whitehouse.gov. Would somebody please just mailbomb or spam these hosers into oblivion, please? dave ---- David Smith Box 324 Cape Girardeau MO USA 63702 http://www.prairienet.org/~dsmith dsmith(a)prairienet.org Reality is only for those lacking in true imagination... Send mail w/'send pgp-key' in subject for PGP public key

2 1

distributed keys
by Matt Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone heard of an algorithm for managing keys automatically in a distributed system? For instance, if some low level security were to be implemented in a a networking stack where authentication was to be implemented, you would want to have each node have it's own signature so that signature checking can take place when one node connects to another node. The trick is then getting every node's keys distributed to every other node. Here are some ideas that I had, but neither is very desireable: - Manual distribution. User configures every node's key into every node. Configuration becomes a major hassle and mistakes are a pain to debug. An advantagous side effect is the user can configure which machines can talk to which machines if they're feeling particularly facist. - At connection time, each node determines whether or not it has the other node's key. If not, a symmetric key is generated via DH and public keys are exchanged. The problem comes in if someone is spoofing the machine to begin with. Then you'll have the wrong public key. Chicken, egg. Egg, chicken. - Having a certifying node which every other node has the public key to and who has everyone else's public key. Requests are made of this server. The trick is making this server secure and forcing the user to devote resources to this endeavour. Thoughts? -- Matt Smith - msmith(a)unislc.slc.unisys.com "Nothing travels faster than light, with the possible exception of bad news, which follows its own rules." - Douglas Adams, "Mostly Harmless" Disclaimer: I came up with these ideas, so they're MINE!

3 2

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

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 15-MAY-1996 18:59:01.44 >For these a company running at a constant net operating loss could be >formed to purchase cars for resale (funny how no one ever buys them) and >manage property (which no one seems to ever lease). But won't such a company run into tax problems? In other words, the IRS is going to look with some suspicion on a company that keeps showing no profits (and thus no taxes) but keeps going anyway. They're going to think that the owners are making a profit anyway but concealing it - which is the case. I'm not sure how to handle this one, other than not owning major property (rental et al). -Allen

2 1

[NOISE] Re: Edited Edupage, 9 May 1996
by mccoy＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Doug Hughes writes: > "Jean-Francois Avon" <jf_avon(a)citenet.net> wrote: [... regarding the unfortunate poor who Mr. Avon hates...] > >You got to choose to do what is needed to live a better life. And > >most of them ain't doing what it takes. > > Are you saying those poor people in rural West Virgina only live > there because they are not trying hard enough to get out? Yes he is. They are poor and it is all their fault. [flame-bait approaching...] There are two kinds of libertarians, those who hate the poor and those who don't. I always seem to meet the former, I am beginning to suspect the latter don't exist. [...] > >> Education is one > >> thing (perhaps the only thing) that deserves to be subsidized in > >> this country. > >I think that it should not be subsidized. > >If you feel like subsidising education, then by all means, do it. > >But why should you stick a gun in my back to do the same? What if I > >do not want to do the same as you? > > > Then you will be living in a country with lower education standards, > increasing illiteracy, and a pretty pitiful base with a declining > socio-economic structure. Are you arguing that people are not equal > and those with more money should of necessity get better education? Yes, he is. It is times like this that I must count myself among the pitchfork and torch wielding mob, if only because I have been cursed with a small amount of compassion for those who were not as lucky as I. BTW Mr. Avon, the reason we, the unruly mob of collectivists, socialists, and [insert libertarian/anarchist buzzword here] should stick a gun in your back and make you cough up money for education is because we can. If you don't want to do so, they why don't _you_ move? Are your feet cast in concrete blocks? Welcome to the real world. jim

3 2

Fingerprinting annoyance
by remailer＠2005.bart.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

in connection with a character and fitness report i have been asked to supply a review board with a set of my fingerprints i have never been fingerprinted before i am not very keen on the idea now of course refusing will attract suspicion short of getting someone else to put their fingers in ink for me does anyone have a cute method by which to obscure my prints on those cute little cards without it being obvious? i can fill out and manipulate the card myself i just need a working method. is there no privacy advocate who can help me?

9 20

Re: Why does the state still stand:
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

James Donald writes a very interesting essay but I want to clarify one aspect. Let me quote just the summary: > So guys, that is the plan: We destroy the state through higher mathematics. > We do this by replacing the current institutional mechanisms of corporations > with cryptographic mechanisms. This will give more people the opportunity > to evade and resist taxes. I think the intention then is to create "fully anonymous" companies. These would be organizations whose principals and employees are known only by pseudonyms, even to each other. Their only contact is electronic, via an anonymous network. And the employees are paid in anonymous ecash, which they don't pay taxes on since it is unreported income. These companies produce products or services which they offer for sale across the net. They accept payment in ecash, either from end users or from other companies. Such companies would be illegal, with everyone involved subject to criminal penalties for tax evasion (and no doubt a myriad of other violations). But because the anonymity is protected cryptographically, the government is helpless to learn the true identities of anyone involved. The companies continue to successfully sell their products and services, advertising and recruiting openly from anonymous sources, and there is nothing the government can do about it. This is, I think, the model we have been talking about for several years on this list. There are obvious and non-obvious problems which many people have brought up over the years. It is still not clear to me that it can really work in this form. Still it will be interesting to see when someone actually tries to do this, to see how it works. James mentioned the issue of groupware to allow these people to coordinate their efforts. That is an interesting aspect that we haven't considered much. One trend which may be relevant is the increase in telecommuting. Once people are accustomed to working mostly from home, interacting with co-workers and management by email, they would be good candidates for recruitment by the anonymous firm. It might be interesting to make a list of all the problems people can think of why this idea won't work, paired with proposed solutions and workarounds - sort of a mini FAQ for this important (some might say ultimate) cypherpunk model. Hal

2 1

Re: SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FAST
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The problem that I think the Scientology postings raise is that the remailers cannot really be used to post copyrighted material. That is what got the netherlands hacktic remailer shut down. This shows, BTW, that being outside the United States is no guarantee of immunity. Most Western countries support copyrights. Maybe the operators can try to plead that they are like "common carriers" and should not be blamed for what people post. Still it is going to take deep pockets at best to prevail in this dispute, and it isn't even clear that the remailer will win. Maybe the lawyers on the list could comment on legal liability of a remailer used to repeatedly post copyrighted material, whether Scientology scriptures or Microsoft Word binaries. I don't see how it can happen. (This ties in, BTW, with my posting yesterday about problems with the "anonymous company" concept. It is not clear that any of the technologies we have discussed will allow continuous, long-term and reliable broadcasting of illegal material.) Presently all the remailers operate for free, which makes it even harder to justify taking the chance of facing an expensive lawsuit. On the other hand, at least if no commercial gain is involved the operator might escape some forms of damages if he loses. A for-pay remailer which is posting copyrighted material could be in even more trouble, it seems to me. Again, legal opinions would be welcome. This was the basis for my suggestion that remailers may have to stop supporting posting of messages, and instead be used for private mail between consenting individuals. Granted, this would probably eliminate 99% of non-cover remailer traffic. But I would argue that as long as the core functionality is there of letting people communicate with each other anonymously and consensually, we would still offer an important service. After all, what is the purpose of anonymous remailers? It isn't really to allow harrassing and abusive messages to be sent to one's enemies. And it isn't to defeat intellectual property laws by proving that no one can stop this material from being posted (remailers can't succeed in doing this, as I said above). Rather, I view remailers as a natural extension of encryption. Encryption hides the contents of the messages you send from eavesdroppers. But they can still see who you are communicating with. Remailers extend privacy protection beyond "what you say" to "who you say it to". When used with pseudonym servers and some of the extensions we have discussed here over the years (maildrops, etc.), they can allow the anonymous two-way communication that is needed for real privacy. This has nothing to do with tweaking Microsoft or Scientology by posting information they own. If people want to do that, they need to find another method. Maybe they can get usenet shut down if they try hard enough. I don't know how that battle is going to come out. But I don't see the remailers as playing an important role there. Hal

7 7