December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Anonymity and Intellectual Capital
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I suggest that arbitration is well suited to >pseudonymous commerce, and propose the use of an old device - the >unincorporated, or deed of settlement, company. First of all, this is a damn fine post. Outstanding! The first thing that strikes me about all this is how time seems to be "unwinding" as far as centralization of power, or anything else, is concerned. I've ranted about all this here and elsewhere, how falling semiconductor prices, public networks and strong cryptography beget the reemergence of bearer certificates, this time in digital form (of which ecash is only the prima facie example, the existence proof) and what I call, for lack of a better term, a "geodesic", instead of hierarchical, economy. We're seeing in this "unincorporated company" idea the devolution, the surfacting, of concentrations of information, and thus power, back out to individuals, and with that, responsibility, and of course, freedom. Truly marvelous. Hope there's more where that one came from. Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA (617) 958-3971 "Reality is not optional." --Thomas Sowell The e$ Home Page: http://www.webstuff.apple.com/~vinnie/Rah >>>>Phree Phil: Email: zldf(a)clark.net http://www.netresponse.com/zldf <<<<<

1 0

Re: e$: Come aaaannnndddd Get it!
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:18 PM 11/16/95, Robert Hettinga wrote: >At 8:57 PM 11/15/95, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >>------------------- >> I will as soon as someone comes up with a _fully_ private digital >>cash system and starts using it for something. As I understand it, Chaum's >>ecash system is not one (i.e., non-privacy to the sender and of amounts to the >>bank). If I'm incorrect, please tell me and I'll set up an account with MTB >>immediately (if there's a text-based interface). > >Ahhh. Next year in Jeresalem... > >Tell me, are you actually selling something on the net yet? How many >customers do you have? Bob, let me do a minor vent here. You are critical of E. Allen Smith's viewpoint, and essentially question whether he has anything to sell. Not much of an argument. Especially when folks are urging that "people put their money where their mouth is" and get MTB accounts. Me, I don't plan to sign up for various reasons: 1. I'm not selling anything, and won't sign up just for "moral support." (I tried this once before, getting an AMIX account early on, and that system offered more of a chance for a 2-way market. Still, a waste of my time.) 2. I wish Mark Twain Bank well, but the success of the kinds of digital cash we hope to see will not likely hinge on the success of one particular operations, such as MTB. 3. The success of BankAmericard (later renamed Visa) came when real customers and real shops started to use it, not when early pioneers set themselves up as clearinghouses and whatnot. I have more interesting things to do, personally, than to be a pioneer so I can then have nothing to sell, and little to buy....when "interesting markets" start to appear, I'll look at it again. In any case, I wish all the pioneers well, and am happy to see Lucky Green's involvement. But when you urge people to be pioneers, and they express reservations or doubts about the system, attacking their motives or implying they have nothing to sell anyway is not too helpful. Just my views, but, then, I don't have any customers either. --Tim May Views here are not the views of my Internet Service Provider or Government. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

.Sig Heilarchy
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

.SIG HEILARCHY REVEALED >Logically, a pseudonym is simply a public key. However you may want >to give it a human-readable name so other people may more easily refer >to it. If you decide to do this, I suggest that you do not name the key >on its first post because there is a high probability that you will decide >to disgard the key. If you name it and throw it away, then you have >unnecessarily cluttered up the limited name space. > > - a new entity, as yet unnamed "Cluttering up the namespace" is a growing problem. Fortunately, the InterNIC has taken on the important task of registering pseudonyms, and will coordinate the issuance of new pseudonyms with the Postal Service. [The issuance of these items is temporarily on hold due to the Government Shutdown (tm).] The fee for this will likely be quite reasonable, in the $300/year range, consistent with SAIC's plans for other emerging markets. The InterNIC also sees great promise in collecting fees for .sig blocks, tentatively priced at $10 per line per year. As SAIC Chairman Bobby Ray Inman points out, this is the easiest way to control the proliferation of long .sig blocks. --Klaus! von Future Prime, a Sanctioned Pseudonym [.sig removed by order of the InterNIC .Sig Heilarchy until Herr von Future Prime sends us his past due amount]

1 0

Re: (CANADIAN PRESS REPORTS)
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, 18 Nov 1995, jim bell wrote: > >anonymous writes: > >> I still feel such a sense of violation with what LD did, such an > >> utter sense of helplessness at the character assassination I've > >> suffered at his hands, > > > >So use PGP, sign your messages. Simple solution. > > Absolutely! Anybody who uses anonymous remailers to post to public areas, > and does not use digital signatures to prevent spoofing when it is obviously > needed, is a fool or worse. Most people believe THAT a digital signature is evidence that I am who my signature _says_ I am when it really doesn't do that at all. It isn't reliable at all. Unfortunately, I've learned the hard way NOT to do that. Digital signatures don't prevent spoofing. In fact, I think that thinking something is secure when it isn't leads to even more trouble, and could even lead to many tragedies. In a nutshell, here's the problem. If someone takes my pgp secret keyring and my password, then they can sign a message *digitally* so that people believe the spoofed message is really from me. In fact, since most people tend to rely on a pgp message far more than a non-pgp message, most people would be absolutely convinced that the message was in fact from me. Signing with PGP is just not a solution. Alice de 'nonymous ... ...just another one of those... P.S. This post is in the public domain. C. S. U. M. O. C. L. U. N. E.

2 1

Re: negative reputation (was: WRITTEN CODE)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:53 PM 11/18/95 -0500, a new entity, as yet unnamed wrote: >Logically, a pseudonym is simply a public key. However you may want >to give it a human-readable name so other people may more easily refer >to it. If you decide to do this, I suggest that you do not name the key >on its first post because there is a high probability that you will decide >to disgard the key. If you name it and throw it away, then you have >unnecessarily cluttered up the limited name space. > > - a new entity, as yet unnamed Here's the new entity's key, signed :-) I haven't added it to the PGP key servers; I'll leave that up to you... -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.7.1 Comment: PGP available outside U.S.A. at ftp.ox.ac.uk mQCNAzCuftgAAAEEAL35udZ/l0s590SjtzSM9eAepxAGe9Mp38ZoTsvfmNQh008W sLtiYKmSYKBPuuRZIpYBZEjLZry5p6xHUpsKuflNXy7sdeHBviU+x8J57ip4DLx2 +tlv4dtjLKxzVGEqEfWOb3oRHCJ1t2IgV5A9RBzp2SXke56pTo2Fr67QcvwZAAUT tBxhIG5ldyBlbnRpdHksIGFzIHlldCB1bm5hbWVkiQCVAwUQMK61KfnzJsm1fsvF AQGJeAP/c0DO4e1y4SIpLAF9vJwqr6ewFHWopHJRprWUUyBhH+TRehOQLPgocwR/ 7lOILgfizrLshu5W5fOyY+pjBVj6LssF8dILMe81I5LjlDT58NVtkfPDdkHNxFpf fgEmJlKYYfsCrXDlwn0RAFwzLC1x+1okAoixhvLWx7ygr1rpyKA= =PED/ -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, Freelance Information Architect, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # Phone +1-510-247-0663 Pager/Voicemail 1-408-787-1281

1 0

Re: CANADIAN PRESS REPORTS (was Re: CSE gets flak on TV)
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Alice here (the real one) ... On Sat, 18 Nov 1995, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > I hope everyone realizes that Detweiler is probably arguing with > himself, three levels deep. I must admit that the levels he stoops to > in order to draw attention to himself are pathetic. Why don't you just > stick to posting as Vlad Nurzi? Its more dignified. Deitweiler certainly is getting around ... but I'm beginning to have my doubts whether it is Deitweiler who is spoofing me. And Deitweiler might be Vlad Nurzi or whoever, but it seems that whoever is spoofing me -- whether it is Detweiler or not -- is privy to certain "facts" ... verifiable facts ... some of which are very worrisome. And its not just whatever news is breaking over the wire. anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com writes: > > > > Here is the TRUE unedited story for the list which Deitweiler felt he > > had to TWIST to the nth degree. His attempt at making mountains out > > of mole hills will not succeed with this one. > > This story truly is a non-starter. Big deal. It really has no > relevance to this international list. This is simply a Canadian matter. I take this last comment back. It was premature. I think that this is in fact very relevant to this list. And it's not just a Canadian matter. My little spoofing-shadow, Mr. Mystery-Writer, seems to not only have a juvenile sense of humour, but seems to have a handle on some pretty sensitive information. His information isn't limited to how Canada was able to outbid the United States on a wheat deal with China, but his information encompassess matters of an order of greater significance, especially when Mr. Mystery-Writer wrote: > And that's the fleshed out version of the story. > > I'm just sorry that our Prime Minister is in such a bad position because > of the timing of this "Jane Shorten's" revelations. She also revealed > that Canada spied on Japan. > > To think ... Canadian Prime Minister Chretien is a guest of the Japanese > people today. Talk about some awkward moments. I mean, what on earth do > you talk about?? > > George Bush and Sushi?? Whoever it was who wrote this, they took a real swipe at a former President of the United States. This is very, very serious. Joking about Japanese / American relations is very black humour and is one thing, but taking an open swipe at a former American President is grossly inappropriate and was completely another, I thought. But, ironically, Mr. Mystery-Writer had incredible foreshadowing skills. > Let's see ... over the last couple of days, we've had one provincial > Premier resign over "BingoGate" -- kickbacks from bingo games, another > premier is under some pretty heavy fire for some insider trading in a > company he promoted in Hong Kong, (actually his wife got stock she never > had to pay for), while Canada in conjunction with the normally very > neutral Swiss have frozen accounts pertaining to about $20 million or so > in kickbacks from Airbus Industries to a "senior Canadian politician". > > And all these stories ... coincidentally ... broke back to back. This to me was the kicker ... especially in light of news which just broke tonight. Mr. Mystery-Writer was trying to throw a clue. And boy, what a clue it was. It wasn't the former President of the United States that he was speaking of ... it was the former Prime Minister of Canada. It was reported today that former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney has launched a $50 Million pre-emptive lawsuit against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Department of Justice for their possible future allegation or possible future charge of taking kickbacks from Airbus Industries while the former Prime Minister held public office. This is one heck of a newsflash ... especially considering the co-operation of the normally secretive and discreet authorities in Switzerland. Can you imagine if former President George Bush had in fact launched a $50 Million pre-emptive lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice, because they were investigating him for something?? Or if George Bush tried to stop a news story through libel chill? My shadow was right (even if he did announce before the wires, did), Canadian politicians are beginning to drop like flies. Let the "Jane Shorten" Film-Fest begin. Can you pass the popcorn? Alice de 'nonymous ... ...just another one of those... P.S. This post is in the public domain. C. S. U. M. O. C. L. U. N. E.

1 0

VB4 secure mail software
by Cybie＠cris.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To the guy who was interested in writing a secure mail program that worked with MS Exchange in VB4, e-mail me... I was also thinking of working on something like that, we could probably work together on this.

1 0

Re: (CANADIAN PRESS REPORTS)
by jimbell＠pacifier.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Detweiler wrote... >On Sat, 18 Nov 1995, jim bell wrote: > >> >anonymous writes: >> >> I still feel such a sense of violation with what LD did, such an >> >> utter sense of helplessness at the character assassination I've >> >> suffered at his hands, >> > >> >So use PGP, sign your messages. Simple solution. >> >> Absolutely! Anybody who uses anonymous remailers to post to public areas, >> and does not use digital signatures to prevent spoofing when it is obviously >> needed, is a fool or worse. > >Most people believe THAT a digital signature is evidence that I am who my >signature _says_ I am when it really doesn't do that at all. It isn't >reliable at all. > >Unfortunately, I've learned the hard way NOT to do that. Digital >signatures don't prevent spoofing. > >In fact, I think that thinking something is secure when it isn't leads >to even more trouble, and could even lead to many tragedies. > >In a nutshell, here's the problem. > WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! BIG "IF" COMING UP! BIG "IF" COMING UP!!! >If someone takes my pgp secret keyring and my password, then they can ^^ >sign a message *digitally* so that people believe the spoofed message is >really from me. In fact, since most people tend to rely on a pgp message >far more than a non-pgp message, most people would be absolutely >convinced that the message was in fact from me. Pardon me, but what was the point of that last comment? It is an obvious statement of fact that yes, IF IF IF somebody had a secret key AND password, he could duplicate a signature. Digital signatures allow a person to exclude others from being able to sign messages as if they are from him. True, a person could simply publish his secret key and password, at which point everyone could sign notes as if they came from him, but that wouldn't be "interesting" because most people would have no reason to do so. >Signing with PGP is just not a solution. It is, apparently, in the vast majority of possible situations. Why would you even try to disagree? Oh, yes, I forgot... you're Detweiler.

1 0

[NOISE] Review: GoldenEye
by David E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Just got back from the new Pierce-Brosnan-as-007 flick. It had a few typical "hacker" stereotypes, and a couple of interesting crypto relevant references. * Boris, the stereotypical hacker, was hacking through American banks. A screen had the words "Department of Justice" and the DoJ logo; underneath were the words "Clipper Chip" and a list of banks. * The archvillian's plan involved a massive money transfer and an EMP pulse; he very briefly explained the effects of what would happen if every computer in London were rendered non- functional. Possible crypto-anarchy bits. * Boris should learn the value of strong passphrases. His password for the massive mainframe which will be used in the archvillain's scheme is a five-letter dictionary word, which didn't change (and it was used on two different computers), and he revealed it indirectly (it was a word puzzle). * A few on-computer-screen references to "encryption". * Boris and the mastermind kept bantering about "breaking codes." * Boris' computer in Russia - in his apartment - has a domain ending in ".comp.math.edu"; when his screen lights up with the words "INCOMING EMAIL" he goes into a live chat (complete with graphics). Above-average action/adventure flick. The technical mistakes are forgiveable in the interest of dramatic license. Don't watch it for the techno/crypto bits, though. Watch it because lots of things blow up :) Dave----- David E. Smith, c/o Southeast Missouri State University 1210 Towers South, Cape Girardeau MO USA 63701-4745 +1(314)339-3814, "dsmith(a)midwest.net", PGP ID 0x92732139 http://www.midwest.net/scribers/dsmith/ - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMK1btCoZzwIn1bdtAQFmOgF/ZLYc3sT1L5sQS+wqmS5U6wsx9jL86job Ie6DU65FIuSZF6vFDBDNZFxZxs0HuaR6 =5PGz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

reputations: discussions and meta-discussions
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 18 Nov 1995, Bill Stewart wrote: > Here's the new entity's key, signed :-) I haven't added it to the > PGP key servers; I'll leave that up to you... As we know, a public key certificate is a binding between the key and some attribute, as asserted by the signer. In this case you have asserted a binding between my key and the string "a new entity, as yet unnamed". I don't understand why you did this. Would you please explain? The only reason I can think of is that you wanted to provide evidence for the key's creation date by timestamping it. If that was the case, I thank you. But in the future, to avoid confusion, perhaps you can create a new ID "timestamp" for the key and sign that instead. ------------- On a different subject, given the likelihood of an increasing number of new identities showing up on this list, I propose that we create a new mailing list (cypherpunks-reputations) devoted to the discussion of reputations of cypherpunks participants. A significant number of posts on cypherpunks are already discussions of this sort. I believe it would be benificial to create a seperate channel for these meta-discussions so they do not interfere with regular cypherpunk topics. By encouraging discussions about reputations of specific entities, we may also gain some insight on the general properties of reputation systems. In this sense by creating this new list we create an interesting self-referential loop -- cypherpunks-reputations contains meta-discussions about cypherpunks, which in turn contains meta-discussions about cypherpunks-reputations. Examples of posts appropriate for this new mailing list would include: * knowledge, intelligence, style and quirks of cypherpunks participants * exchange of keys and certificates * speculation on connections between entities * kill file entry recommendations I do not have the physical resources to serve such a mailing list, so I hope someone who does will volunteer. - keyid D072FC19 (still unnamed) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMK8CnY2Fr67QcvwZAQGUJgP9G8ER/qH8OKvSbOtPYwaDQMkVyKFWafxH Ukbm0lKgCwS97cEKufxJH49VCRkxrd+t+ia5IRNDxewB1xlcjAKRvp4MK8Ps6MTy FbhmEpfhB4pnfE5l+e8VnZSoD79j0Sv6C80C48NL6NJNV6PhhTS9B5lXxW/qJv9D 3ZTpTf5AjZI= =e4DU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0