December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

17 Dec '03

Take note: If you want me to read you, cc me since I unsubscriVed :) from Cypherpunks... While frothing at the mouth (and god knows what other sphincters...), on a 22 May 96 at 12:37, somebody that behaves like a Rotweiller wrote: > oh, so in other words, a lot of "innocent" people will be murdered > under AP. ah, another great "feature", not a "bug", right?? Yes, but please note that the point for the validating of his statement is that even if this will happens, overall, *less innocents* will suffer from the seemingly random violence of AP than from the actual system. He might be wrong, but you seem to bring no new knowledge that would elucidate the question. Should the US have not dropped the A-Bomb on Japan and let happen 10 times mores casualties (from both sides)? The following paragraphs illustrate very well the way our local Rotweiller sees the world, which is very close to the vision of most statists. > ah, like murder. I see. well, I think you are violating my rights > by disagreeing with me. I shall arrange your consequences > accordingly. > but who decides what is wrong? the arbitrary opinion of some single > human idiot out anywhere in the world? don't you see the tyranny of > this? > it is far worse than the tyranny of a government if I were to > be killed by someone who believes that I violated his rights by > breathing air particles or whatever. via AP, you wish to give him > the mechanism to murder me without trace. Why do you fear so much for yourself? I guess, thoses who want to murder for all sort of reasons like hunting white baby seals or smoking in public simply share your psycho-epistemology. They would have no reasons to put a contract on you. Or would they anyways? > deny rights, legitimacy, justice, blah, blah, blah. the terms you > use have no meaning in the system you are advocating. there are no > "rights" in an anarchy, because a government is the entity created > to safeguard/protect them. all actions are legitimate in an > anarchy, because there is no civilized system that rejects any ones > in particular. By definition, you are right. But note that *they* never advocated true anarchy, only *you* claim that they do. Their vision of Life clearly entail some vision of Rights, Rules of Conduct, etc. They did *not* rule out laws, they only said that they do not like laws that are there to oppress peoples. Now, might you say, how are you gonna know? Because your philosophy is somewhat of a cross between Nietche and Sartre, you see no way out. But they (proponents of AP) have a vision of life that value, as the good old american constitution say, life, liberty and "pursuit of happiness". I might even agree with you, dear Rotty, that Jim Bell is a bit naive and shows a kind of outdated philosophy. Jim Bell et al. entertain the delusion that human beings are intrinsically joyous rationnal animals that, most of the time, love life. Therefore, for them, the AP scheme cannot lead to anything but a kind of laissez-faire world where everybody would be able to pursue happiness to the best of their abilities. OTOH, you believe that the natural tendency of AP would bring a world as you describe it vocally here. A world where the essence of Mankind is not to be a rationnal animal, but an animal, period. In that vision, you believe that a bloodthirsty beast within us will always take over. Maybe you learned that truth from your *own* life experience, I have no idea. So, according to your logic, anybody who doesn't like you will put a prize on your head, and probably look up the necrology section of the paper everyday while gigling. And here, I have to conceed that you may be right. After all, what philosophy ran the country since a hundred years? Huhh? So many peoples are so convinced of that that AP might very well turn against it's originator and further corruption. Don't you think so? > if you think that a government is a tyranny, perhaps you are not > aware of the tyranny of the irrationality of individual men. That sentence should earn one of the top spot of the CP top-ten-of-the-year list! ROTFL and L and L and L ! > it will "work" exactly as anonymous murdering now works. Nobody is more deaf than the blind who does not want to smell... > ah yes, exactly what we need. "enhanced anarchy". you and TCM really > should get together and collaborate. I'm sure you'd come up with > some fruitful conclusions. Who knows? 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 I reserve the right to post publicly any private e-mail sent to me. 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.

1 0

Re: MixMaster fair use
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"loki(a)infonex.com" 22-MAY-1996 03:43:54.45 >It is patent on RSA, which expires in 2000 as I remember. It can be >licensed, but it is not cheap. I don't know how they would handle a free >program which people pay to use. Do they allow non-profit usage? If so, you could send out a new version that supported ecash payments, with an agreement not to use it for profit. I'd call building up a reserve against legal fees a justifiable action for a non-profit organization (if the interest went back into the same account or toward operating the remailer), but IANAL. Could someone who is comment, preferably after looking over the RSA license? -Allen

1 0

Number one story on CNN this hour.
by Alan B. Clegg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There are 40 million 'attack capable' systems connected to the Internet and over 120 countries have developed or are developing 'attack software'. [BTW, there will be a BUNCH more attacking systems when 'a new protocol is deployed because they are running out of addresses'] Sheesh. -abc \ Alan B. Clegg Just because I can \ Network Technologist does not mean I will. \ gateway.com, inc. \ <http://www.gateway.com/>

4 3

Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:02 AM 5/22/96 -0500, snow wrote: >On Wed, 22 May 1996, jim bell wrote: >> more, you'd better not be a crook! > > Or turn in too powerful a crook. Since ratting on people can always be anonymous (and especially so after the advent of good encryption and remailers, assuming they survive!) I don't think it'll be a problem to turn in somebody "too powerful." In fact, the AP system will probably spur the simultaneous development of a system to anonymously reward people who identify and locate bad people of all kinds, even if all they do is this. But unlike the current form of rewards, the snitch won't have to reveal himself to anybody. > Law enforcement won't just go away. That's true, but with a caveat: Post-AP, there will be no such thing as "laws" per se. What there will be is an amorphous world of various interests, of people who feel stepped on if you abuse them, etc. Cumulatively, those interests will constitute "laws," but not like a list of hard-and-fast rules. >There will always be those of us who feel that most crimes _don't_ >deserve the Death Penalty, and that some sort of penal system will >continue to be necessary. In your system this would not be possible >because most people would be afraid to turn people in for fear of >reprisal. Unfortunately, I still haven't written up a description of a replacement for the current "criminal justice system" that I anticipated, and another person on a different list independently though of and described in much greater detail: A set of independant, privatized court systems which an agrieved victim can go to (perhaps anonymously) to charge the "defendant." The defendant, however, doesn't have to show up because it's a voluntary system. The punishment will probably be usually a monetary penalty, which if not paid is numerically added to the reward fund against that person. A defendant is motivated to defend himself to prevent such an eventuality. The accuser is, likewise, motivated to use this system because if the defendant is exposed as an unchallenged criminal, potential assassins (and AP organizations) will presumably work cheaper for their deaths if the defendant doesn't pay the fine. > I think that the biggest flaw in your system is the belief that >people will act rationally. Do you think that the Menendez(sp?) brothers >would have hesitated one second in having there parents offed to collect >the inheretance? Did the Menendez family have relatives who might have wanted retribution for the killings? If so, they could have gotten their revenge very cheaply. How about other rich people who didn't want their to be a precedent that two sons could kill their rich parents and get away with it? >> >Note: I don't necessarily think that AP is a good idea. I think >> >that people should do their own dirty work. >> >> In practice, I think this would be comparatively common as well. What >> currently deters such "take the law into your own hands" is the fact that >> police (being, essentially, in the business of protection) don't want you to >> provide for yourself by protecting yourself. They make it hard on people, >> in the same way they did with Bernard Goetz, the guy who shot four muggers >> on the New York city subway system. Once AP gets rid of the police, it will >> be much easier to protect yourself and not risk jail time, etc. > > Umm... I think that the biggest reason that the Police don't want >you taking the law into your own hands is that civilians tend to screw up >badly. They get the wrong target, they don't stop when they should etc. While I can't quote a specific study, I seem to recall a statistic that civilians were actually MORE likely to shoot and/or kill the RIGHT person, as opposed to the wrong person Remember, most police show up substantially after an incident starts, and they don't know who's in the wrong. A person who's in the right KNOWS this already; he's seen the incident from the beginning. Also, you said civilians "don't stop when they should." Who decides when they should stop? Well, more likely than not it's the police, who would prefer to NOT obsolete themselves, and a dead criminal is far less valuable to the police, prosecutors, and jailers than a live one. I'd say that's a conflict of interest, wouldn't you? (a live criminal results in profits to all these groups, plus lawyers, etc.) > The POLICE usually don't have a problem with an individual >protecting themselves (as long as the response fits the crime, killing a >shoplifter is a no no.) It is the court system that frowns on it. It doesn't really matter which group is making it difficult on the civilians, if they are doing it, it makes it harder for the civilians to protect themselves. > Is there the ability to predict a "mild beating" with your system? >or a "severe beating", or simply a killing? Having one level of punishment >is not a very good legal system. AP cannot replace it. It can with the competing, privatized system with punishments based on fines that I described above. >> Superficially, a person might argue that the lack of police would also make >> it easier for the muggers. However, a "professional mugger" would make a >> LOT of enemies, and it wouldn't take long before he's dead. He'd only have >> to be caught once. Any victim of any mugger would be happy to donate to see >> him gone. > > Give me the name of a mugger. Offer to pay money for such information in most inner cities, and you'll get plenty of takers if the reward's high enough. (and can be collected anonymously.) Remember, AP works because certain people with access to information are given the financial motivation to either kill the criminal or simply reveal (possibly anonymously) who he is. The current system uses money rewards only sparsely, and does not publicize them very well. >> Right. Moreover, I believe that governments simply cannot exist as we know >> them under these circumstances. Besides, they won't be necessary. > > See, you have far more faith in humanity than I do. I have plenty of faith that once the centralized, heirarchical political structure is demonished, things will be better. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: The Crisis with Remailers
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"bruce(a)aracnet.com" "Bruce Baugh" 22-MAY-1996 17:00:33.67 >Pointing people at legitimate uses of anonymity, as various folks have >suggested, is undoubtedly a good idea. Would anyone care to suggest a few >newsgroups where the vast majority of anonymous posts have really good >reasons for being so? While it isn't usage of true cypherpunk remailers, the sexual abuse survivors newsgroup(s) would appear to be a place to start. Some of the groups discussing human rights cases are also a possibility, as is alt.religion.scientology. -Allen

2 1

Alleged abuse of anonymnity/pseudonymnity
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Someone's forgetting that it would be smart - and should be possible - for the men in question also to be anonymous/pseudonymous. As it was, they could have been, and were evidently too dumb. Edited for fair use. -Allen >Kansas veterinarian extorts husbands on 'married but looking' chat line >Copyright 1996 Nando.net >Copyright 1996 The Associated Press >(May 21, 1996 10:41 p.m. EDT) Men flirted shamelessly with "Rita" in >America Online's "Married But Looking" computer chat line. The typed chatter >often got steamy, and she even offered them provocative photos of herself. >But some men found that "she" was a "he" -- with printed copies of their >explicit exchanges and blackmail on his mind. >Veterinarian Ron Hornbaker, 29, of Shawnee Mission, Kan., pleaded guilty to >extortion Tuesday in a case that some say illustrates problems in the >unpoliced Internet. He faces two years in prison and fines up to $250,000. >"It's an old crime, just new tools," said assistant U.S. Attorney John >McKenzie, who prosecuted the case in U.S. District Court in Rockford, Ill. [...] >In August 1995, Hornbaker created an America Online profile of himself as a >married woman named Rita, authorities say. He would log into "Married But >Looking" or similar chat areas and start engaging male victims in typed >conversation. After a while, he would ask them to go to a more confidential >area called a private chat room "to get to know each other better. >"There Rita would engage each man in erotic conversation, asking the victim >to get her "hot" and offering a sexy photograph. >Hornbaker, meanwhile, stored the conversation and printed out transcripts. >Victims awaiting the nude photograph instead got a threatening letter. In it, >Hornbaker -- now posing as Rita's enraged husband -- said he'd found a >transcript of the conversation between the victim and Rita. >Hornbaker set up boxes at private mail services to handle the bribes, >usually between $500 and $2,000. None of the recipients paid him.

1 0

(Another) alternative to remailer shutdowns
by Leonard Janke 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Instead of having the last remailer in the chain store the plaintext of an encrypted anonymous message, it might be more convenient to have the sender split the message into two messages and send these. The first message would contain random characters, and the second would contain the xor of these random characters with the anonymous message. By themselves, each piece would, of course, be harmless random text, so remailer operators greatest crime would be spamming. If the two pieces were sent through chains with different last remailers, no one operator could be held accountable, and, of course, it would be ridiculous to suggest that one operator could be held responsible for that fact that another sent some random text which happened to be the xor of the random text another had sent with a harassing message. (For instance, the other operator could be trying to frame the first, with the help of the receiver.) It seems to me that the only way to deal with a remailing scheme of this kind would be outlaw anonymous remalining in general. Leonard

1 0

Re: (Fwd) Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I will quote an anonymous AP proponent with the initials EAS >>the above sentence I find absolutely abhorrent: it justifies killing, >>not merely because of the effect (the sort of "ends-justifies-the-means" >>argument used by most here), but that in addition it is >>supposedly "ethical". ethical?!?!? for g*d's sakes, promote your >>depraved scheme under any other heading, but do not claim it is >>"ethical" unless you want to further demonstrate how far from >>morality you have twisted your brain. > > In other words, if I'm shooting at you, it's unethical for you to >shoot back? get a clue. I didn't argue against someone shooting at you. I argued against the claim that you should be allowed to shoot anyone in the government because you think the government is corrupt. While I'm not sure whether I approve of Assasination Politics or >not (I'm not sure whether it'd lead to more or less violations of rights than >other possible means of changing the current setup), as I wrote, there is no such thing as a "right" in a society in which people decide who they would like to kill based on their own whims. there are no rights in a socieity in which killing is considered an everyday part of life, period. note I do agree this applies to some forms of government. I do achnowledge the >rightness of self-defense against governmental evildoing. ah, now there's where the silly non-sequitur of AP proponents comes in. "the government is corrupt, therefore we should be able to shoot any government employees we choose". the government is not sticking a gun down your throat this minute, are they? well, why are you seriously contemplating the converse? oh, you say that FIGURATIVELY the government is doing this to you? and you want to respond LITERALLY? I wonder who is the tyrant in this situation? "the government might shoot me if I don't pay my taxes". uhm, can you point out who this actually happened to you? what? you have an example? out of the 250 million people in this country, you actually found one? and you are concerned this will happen to you? well if you keep making a lot of noise, maybe you can achieve what appears to be your wildest fantasy!! AP proponents piss on the english language in their quest for "justice". the ways that AP proponents are twisting language, AP trash is almost worse than much classic government propaganda that has started past wars. "we have rights. we want justice. our rights are being violated. we are acting in self defense." TRASH, TRASH, TRASH To use your >example of Hitler, somehow I think an assasination of him would have been >ethical. I used him as an example of the kind of thinking that "murdering your enemies solves all your problems". yes, that was his point of view, and you inform me that you share it? well, congratualations!! hitler doesn't have too many friends and can use all the sympathy he can get. murdering Hitler would not have solved all the problems of WWII. the problem was militarism that was embodied by many cultures outside of his own, e.g. Japan and Russia. AP proponents believe that: 1. the world is full of people that are part of the problem or part of the solution 2. I can tell precisely the difference 3. I'd like to kill those that are part of the problem. 4. if AP existed, and it appeared there was a way to kill other people without trace, I would go through with it. 5. I have a lot of teachers I hated in my childhood too. I think I will go for them next. possibly not before seeing if they beg for mercy.

1 0

Re: (Fwd) Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"vznuri(a)netcom.com" "Vladimir Z. Nuri" 22-MAY-1996 15:50:29.93 To: IN%"EALLENSMITH(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu" "E. ALLEN SMITH" CC: IN%"vznuri(a)netcom.com", IN%"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" Subj: RE: (Fwd) Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace Received: from netcom11.netcom.com by mbcl.rutgers.edu (PMDF #12194) id <01I50FPCUY748WW02X(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu>; Wed, 22 May 1996 15:50 EDT Received: from localhost (vznuri@localhost) by netcom11.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id MAA29965; Wed, 22 May 1996 12:52:08 -0700 Date: Wed, 22 May 96 12:52:07 -0700 From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri(a)netcom.com> Subject: RE: (Fwd) Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 22 May 96 00:57:00 EDT." <01I4ZKIOEV7G8Y5IL9(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu> To: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu> Cc: vznuri(a)netcom.com, cypherpunks(a)toad.com Message-id: <199605221952.MAA29965(a)netcom11.netcom.com> X-Envelope-to: EALLENSMITH >I will quote an anonymous AP proponent with the initials EAS >>>the above sentence I find absolutely abhorrent: it justifies killing, >>>not merely because of the effect (the sort of "ends-justifies-the-means" >>>argument used by most here), but that in addition it is >>>supposedly "ethical". ethical?!?!? for g*d's sakes, promote your >>>depraved scheme under any other heading, but do not claim it is >>>"ethical" unless you want to further demonstrate how far from >>>morality you have twisted your brain. >> >> In other words, if I'm shooting at you, it's unethical for you to >>shoot back? The above is evidence that your accusing anyone of reposting private email is the pot calling the kettle black, LD (unless, as Dr. Vulis said, you're too dumb to be him). That was specifically sent in private email, for the simple reason that I saw no reason to clutter up the list with another response like the 10 others that had been sent. >get a clue. I didn't argue against someone shooting at you. I argued >against the claim that you should be allowed to shoot anyone in >the government because you think the government is corrupt. Nobody, so far as I know, is arguing that one ought to shoot anyone in the government... I'd be in danger if that were the case, given that my current employer is a state university. If someone is in government and is doing something very wrong (although one may disagree on what is wrong, of course), then they're a proper target. >>I do achnowledge the rightness of self-defense against governmental evildoing. >ah, now there's where the silly non-sequitur of AP proponents comes >in. "the government is corrupt, therefore we should be able to shoot >any government employees we choose". the government is not sticking >a gun down your throat this minute, are they? well, why are you >seriously contemplating the converse? oh, you say that FIGURATIVELY >the government is doing this to you? and you want to respond >LITERALLY? I wonder who is the tyrant in this situation? If the only workable method of self-defense is to kill the person, then that's a justifiable means of self-defense. Hopefully, other means of removal of those in government who do what is wrong is possible; I do my best to work for this. But if it isn't, I'll support AP as an alternative. >>To use your >>example of Hitler, somehow I think an assasination of him would have been >>ethical. >I used him as an example of the kind of thinking that "murdering your >enemies solves all your problems". yes, that was his point of view, and >you inform me that you share it? well, congratualations!! hitler >doesn't have too many friends and can use all the sympathy he can get. All your problems? No. But leaving it out as a possible partial solution is irrational. >murdering Hitler would not have >solved all the problems of WWII. the problem was militarism that >was embodied by many cultures outside of his own, e.g. Japan and >Russia. Executing Hitler would have saved a lot of lives, even if it didn't stop the war entirely. Germany without him would, more than likely, not have held together nearly as long as it did. >AP proponents believe that: >1. the world is full of people that are part of the problem or part >of the solution >2. I can tell precisely the difference No, I don't think that I can tell precisely the difference. But it appears possible that I'd make less mistakes than the current government does, even considering only the cases in which they do kill people (e.g., shootouts with drug dealers et al). >3. I'd like to kill those that are part of the problem. If that's the only way that works, yes. >4. if AP existed, and it appeared there was a way to kill other people >without trace, I would go through with it. Again, if that's the only way that works, yes. >5. I have a lot of teachers I hated in my childhood too. I think I >will go for them next. possibly not before seeing if they beg for mercy. I invite you to look at the psychological defense mechanism known as projection, preferably along with a trained psychiatrist or clinical psychologist in inpatient therapy. -Allen

2 1

Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 22-MAY-1996 19:03:58.98 >On Tue, 21 May 1996, Ben Holiday wrote: >> On Tue, 21 May 1996, Daniel R. Oelke wrote: >>> The second is to simply include the >>> consent-code along with the encrypted peice of mail and a legal notice >>> stating that decryption of the mail constitutes your consent to receive >>> the mail, as well as your agreement to hold the remailer-operator harmless >> >> By reduction - you could just do a rot13 on the message and >> append the "legal notice". If all the information for decoding >> a message is present in that message, is a different encoding >> mechanism really any different from straight ASCII text? >> (i.e. Netscape 9.13 might have auto decoding built it....) >> Then, the user doesn't do anything "extra" - does this invalidate >> the notice? >A person has notice of a fact if he knows the fact, has reason to know it, >should know it, or has been given notification of it. Restatement, >Second, Agency section 9. >The important issue here is what constitutes constructive or implied >notice (the second example above). >Constructive notice exists where a party could have discovered a fact by >proper diligence and where the situation casts a duty on him to inquire >into the matter. >A person who has _actual_ notice of circumstances which would set of the >"alarm bells" of a prudent person has constructive notice of the issue >itself where a notice clause was available and easily referenced. >See F.P. Baugh, Inc. v. Little Lake Lumber Co., 297 F.2d 692, 696. >Also comes the question what notice is adequate? Notice reasonably >calculated, in all circumstances, to apprise all interested parties of >actionm and opportunity to present their objections, says U.S. v San Juan >Lumber Co., 313 F.Supp. 703, 709. >I'm not going to discuss what constitutes a legal agreement here for the >purposes of waiving rights to hold the remailer operater harmless. These >are traditionally unnegotiated agreements that courts are not likely to >want to enforce. (Back of a ski lift ticket, notice that the garage is >not responsible for theft). Umm... the RSA licensing agreement isn't exactly a negotiated contract. What makes the difference between the contract in question and the RSA licensing agreement (to use it as an example)? >If a court feels that the remailer operator is being negligent or some >such, a notice like you are talking about is not likely to be very >effective. Part of this depends on negligent in what sense. If, due to the message being encrypted, the remailer operator couldn't read it to see if it was copyright-violating anyway, would he/she be negligent to send it on? >I find that making the user decrypt the message as acceptance of the mail >is clever, but what exactly does it accomplish? The user can still have >his copyrights violated in the text, what does it matter that he did or >did not accept the mailing? The primary use of the contract is to avoid complaints from the user for "harrassing" email, not to avoid copyright problems. I'm not sure if there is anything that could be done to avoid the copyright problems, aside from the disposable output addresses with multiple remailers using them. (One possible problem with these is that it could be argued that the remailer operators sending to such addresses can read over the mail before encrypting it to the front end and check to see if it's a copyright violation. However, they would appear to be covered by the exemptions that should be in the copyright law, namely for ISPs - if they aren't covered, then the Net is dead anyway.) One method around this would be for the initial user to specify the output address - or, preferably, input address that outputted to multiple different output addresses - to use, and encrypt the message for that addresss. However, this would require common knowledge of the input addresses, which could lead to their being shut down quickly or the owner being held liable. One could have a group of input/output providers with a common public/private key for the initial user to use for the final encryption, although then you'd need to be careful about who you let into this group. -Allen

2 1