December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re:PreRFD: comp.org.cypherpunks
by mccoy＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

qut(a)netcom.com (Skip) writes: > The Subject: line says it all. > > My suggestion number #1: > > No moderation. Suggestion 1 on how to diminish the feeble S/N ratio on cypherpunks: make it a newsgroup Suggestion 2: make it an unmoderated newsgroup I can think of nothing that would cause the remaining clue to flee faster than a CP newsgroup in wide distribution (if it were gatewayed to the list) jim

4 4

Re: PreRFD: comp.org.cypherpunks
by qut＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ON ! ! if it is _robo_moderated, there would not be timing issues. Exactly the same problem of one machine that can recieve and make the posts, one script, one moderator in charge of the whole thing, which experience indicates they eventually abuse their resonsibility by keeping it after they lose interest in managing the group. ! igor ! ! Skip, OBC wrote: ! > ! > ! Jim McCoy wrote: ! > ! > qut(a)netcom.com (Skip) writes: ! > ! > > My suggestion number #1: ! > ! > > No moderation. ! > ! > ! > ! > Suggestion 1 on how to diminish the feeble S/N ratio on cypherpunks: ! > ! > ! > ! > make it a newsgroup ! > ! > Suggestion 2: ! > ! > make it an unmoderated newsgroup ! > ! ! > ! How about making it a robomoderated newsgroup with only one enforced ! > ! rule, forbidding any crossposting? ! > ! > If moderation, then why not moderator(s) who simply send out cancel ! > messages to everthing that is crossposted? Traditional moderated ! > newsgroups are technically inferior because all posts go through netnews ! > chokepoints and then depends on the moderator(s) who's inevitable ! > position has been the irresponsible one of keeping the position long ! > after they lose interest with the high volumes. Even if their was such ! > a person, there is still are chokepoint problem which is stupid to ! > engage in. ! > ! > In any case, creation of comp.org.cypherpunks in no way means gatewaying ! > or shutting down cypherpunks(a)toad.com . ! > ! > ! > -- ! > Love, ! > Skip, OBC ! > ! ! ! ! - Igor. !

1 0

ALERT: Show Congress you want privacy during Crypto Action Week! (8/20/96)
by Voters Telecommunications Watch 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

=========================================================================== ___ _____ _____ _____ ___ / __| _ \ \ / / _ \_ _/ _ \ JOIN THOUSANDS OF OTHER NET.AMERICANS AS | (__| /\ V /| _/ | || (_) | THEY WORK FOR BETTER PRIVACY AND ENCRYPTION \___|_|_\ |_| |_| |_| \___/ September 3-10, 1996 ___ ___ _____ ___ ___ _ _ __ _____ ___ _ __ / _ \ / __|_ _|_ _/ _ \| \| | \ \ / / __| __| |/ / | _ | (__ | | | | (_) | .` | \ \/\/ /| _|| _|| ' < |_| |_|\___| |_| |___\___/|_|\_| \_/\_/ |___|___|_|\_\ SENATE PRO-CRYPTO PRO-CODE BILL COULD BE VOTED OUT OF COMMITTEE YOUR HELP IS NEEDED TO PREPARE CONGRESS FOR THE DEBATE! http://www.crypto.com/caw/ Reproduce this where appropriate until September 15, 1996 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table of Contents News from the frontlines What you must do Concluding the meeting Tips on how to conduct your visit Angles on encryption Questions about encryption you might be asked Participating Organizations / More Information --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEWS FROM THE FRONTLINES Congress as a whole is beginning to focus on encryption - bills moving through both House and Senate would improve availability of privacy and security for the Net. With three hearings in the Senate and one scheduled in House Judiciary Committee for early September - pro-encryption bills have a chance of passing, or at least helping to lay the groundwork for the next Congress. Recently in a live chat from the Republican Convention in San Diego, Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) said he believed he had enough votes to pass Pro-CODE out of the Senate Sub-Committee and Committee. This is the farthest encryption activists will have come in the crypto fight in years. We need your help to make the case to Congress that encryption is important to privacy and security online, as well as the future potential of the Internet to create jobs and promote US competitiveness. Here's what you can do: -sign the petition at http://www.crypto.com/petition/ -make an appointment with your legislator's local office With the directions below, visit your Congressperson - urge them to support the two bills: Pro-CODE "Promotion of Commerce Online in the Digital Era" (S.1726) & SAFE "Security and Freedom Through Encryption" (HR 3011). Now is the time to tell your member of Congress that government restrictions on encryption are unacceptable to the future of the Internet. In recent months, the FBI and the White House have been using local sheriffs to lobby members of Congress on this issue. If you don't tell your member of Congress our side of the story, they won't hear it from anyone. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHAT YOU MUST DO Here's what you need to do: 1. Make an appointment with your Senators'/Representative's local office. It's probably best to make an appointment with the local office manager. It's great if you can get an appointment with your legislator, but don't worry if your legislator cannot be there. If you don't know who your Representative and two Senators are, simply call the local League of Women Voters office and ask! You might also try using the Zipper at http://www.voxpop.org:80/zipper/ 2. Sign the petition at http://www.crypto.com/petition/ A petition has been setup to help show Congress that encryption policy must be driven by the market's concerns. 3. Setting up the meeting When making the appointment, you should say that the topic is privacy and encryption on the Internet. Ensure they know you are a constituent. If possible, take a friend who owns a small Internet business (web design, ISP, whatever) who also lives in the district. It's crucial that you do not wait to get someone to go before making the appointment. Make the appointment, then go looking for someone to go with you. 4. Carry the following message as a theme through your meeting. Encryption is important to privacy - the Internet is vulnerable and the future of American competitiveness is at stake. Encryption is NOT a terrorist weapon any more than a hammer is a terrorist weapon. While there are difficult national security issues, these should not be the driving force of this debate. The future of the Internet should not be held hostage by a cold-war era world view. 5. Send us mail at vtw(a)vtw.org when you've made your appointment. Check back at http://www.crypto.com/caw/ for progress and tips on Crypto Action Week! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONCLUDING THE MEETING There are a few things you should remember as you finish your meeting. If talking to a member, find out if we can count on his/her support for the PRO-CODE/SAFE bill. If talking to a staffer, make it their mission to find out the answer to this question. As you leave the meeting, run, don't walk, to the nearest card shop and buy a thank you card. Write a thank you and address it immediately. Stick it in the nearest mailbox. Send us mail at vtw(a)vtw.org, letting us know how it went. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIPS ON HOW TO CONDUCT YOUR VISIT Always be polite. Never threaten. Never lose your cool. Many staffers have no idea what encryption is. Moreover, they might have never used the Internet. You should view this as an opportunity: you will get the chance to define the debate and educate them. You may even want to bring a laptop with a modem and take the member/staff on a breif Internet tour. (Be careful about what you show them.) Remember we're all taxpayers, so the phrase "I'm a taxpayer" is meaningless. Be brief. If you're going in a group, plan out the topics each person will hit. Appoint someone to act as a spokesperson for the group, so there can be a central contact. Remember the first law of Real Estate: LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION. It's crucial that everyone at the meeting be a potential vote for the legislator. Remind yourself that your legislator probably hasn't yet made a decision on this issue yet; you're there to educate as much as anything. Go as *individuals* or *business owners* who have a stake in the debate on encryption issue. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANGLES ON ENCRYPTION Internet business angle: When speaking from the point of view of an Internet Service Provider or Web design firm, you have available several arguments, such as: "The popularity of the Net has created a gold rush which has benefitted my business and the local voters I employ. Concerns about security on the net could dampen that excitement, and diminish the potential for industry" "Many types of services that I would like to offer online cannot be done without strong security. The current level of security is too weak to engender public trust, and will diminish the types of business people will put on the net." Clipper angle: If someone brings up the issue of Clipper and the idea that government should be trusted to hold your private encryption key, you have several options available to you: "It's not clear that the Administration can be trusted to hold any information secret, after incidents like the FBI Filegate scandal." "Handing over one's encryption keys to the gov't is just like giving the local police station a copy of your house key, just in case they need to search your apartment. Of course they would promise never to use it unless authorized." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- QUESTIONS ABOUT ENCRYPTION YOU MIGHT BE ASKED There are a number of questions you will probably be asked by the staff or member that you should be prepared to answer. Here's a few of them and some answers you should feel comfortable with. WHAT IS ENCRYPTION? Encryption is a method of scrambling information with one or more "keys" so that only the sender and receiver can read it, and an eavesdropper cannot. Your bank card PIN, telephone conversations, love letters, health records, and business correspondence are all things that might need to be encrypted. WON'T TERRORISTS AND CRIMINALS USE ENCRYPTION? Perhaps. But criminals and terrorists already have access to strong encryption from overseas, and are unlikely to use encryption technologies which they know are breakable by the US government. Would you send sensitive information using a code that you knew your adversaries could break? Criminals and terrorists will, for better or worse, have access to strong encryption regardless of U.S. efforts to restrict its availability. Meanwhile, current U.S. policy leaves sensative personal and business communications vulnerable and actually creates opportunities for crimes like industrial espionage. WHAT IS 40 BIT ENCRYPTION? Quite often the strength of an encryption system is measured by the size of the key. Forty bits is about the same as a five or six letter word, such as "apple". The US government has stated that American companies that wish to sell products with encryption can only implement encryption whose keys are forty bits long. At one time it was quite difficult to attack and recover messages that were encrypted with 40 bit encryption. Because of advances in computer power and research, it has become much easier to do this. As recently as last year, a graduate student in France broke 40-bit encryption using University resources he had available in his spare time. DON'T EXPORT RESTRICTIONS PREVENT ENCRYPTION PRODUCTS FROM GOING ABROAD? No. The idea that export restrictions actually keep encryption out of the hands of non-U.S. citizens implies that all encryption products come from the U.S. This is simply untrue, and the plethora of products available from non-U.S. sources now shows how absurd it is to continue to keep such regulations intact. DO EXPORT RESTRICTIONS HURT U.S. COMPANIES IN THE GLOBAL MARKETPLACE? Yes. American hardware and software companies compete globally with products from around the world. For many companies, a majority of their business comes from international sales. In the crowded marketplace of this fast- paced business, developing a product with a single feature that outshines a competitor's product can often be deciding factor in a consumer's mind. Yet, American hardware and software businesses are at a disadvantage, as many competing non-U.S. products can offer stronger encryption than they can. This places American products at a distinct competitive disadvantage. DO EXPORT RESTRICTIONS LIMIT AMERICANS' CHOICE OF SECURITY PRODUCTS? Yes. Although it is possible to sell two versions of a product, one with strong encryption for sale domestically and one with weak encryption for sale abroad, most companies find this schizophrenic product development approach to be too burdensome and risky. The result is that companies that produce hardware and software products that require security tend to omit such features entirely, or weaken them so that the same product can be used for export as for domestic use. The end result of this is that Americans end up with products that are becoming increasingly incapable of protecting their privacy, hampered by regulations that can longer accomplish their goal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS / MORE INFORMATION For more information on the encryption issue, check these important organizations' WWW sites: Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT): http://www.cdt.org Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF): http://www.eff.org Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC): http://www.epic.org Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW): http://www.vtw.org Wired Ventures Ltd.: http://www.hotwired.com Also check these great educational sites: Encryption Policy Resource Page (http://www.crypto.com) Internet Privacy Coalition (http://www.privacy.org) ========================================================================

1 0

Re: telco's vs x-phones
by John Brothers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think you both have good points here. I will redo the math. At 09:19 AM 8/21/96 -0700, Brian D Williams <talon57(a)well.com> wrote: >In a reply to Vipul Ved Prakash, Jim Bell wrote: >Siecore plain vanilla 36 fiber singlemode list $ 1.82 a foot, $5.46 >a yard. Jim said $10/meter, so about 50% of his estimate. > >>Each fiber pair should be able to handle approximately 1 million >>conversations at current data rates, or a total of 18 million >>conversations for that 18-pair cable, or 9.5 trillion >>conversation-minutes. > >At current data rates (OC-48 Sonet) 32,256 voice channels per >fiber, 580,608 total for the fiber. Ok.. I think we're talking apples and oranges. Jim uses the term conversation, which I assume is a 3 minute duration of time. Your OC-48 handles almost precisely 1 million conversations per day. (32k DS0 x 24 * 60 * 20) So I can see where he could come up with 18 million conversations. I have no idea what a conversation-minute is. Perhaps another measure would be the total number of conversations per year. 18 million/day * 365 = 6.5 billion conversations per year. So I believe he is off by a factor of 1000+ at this point, but then the fiber is half the cost he thought it was, so its really only 500+. >>Multiply this cost by 10 for right of way, trenching, repeaters, >>and other auxiliary hardware, or $100 per meter. This is probably >>just a ballpark estimate, but... > >Off by a factor of at least 10 not counting switching equipment. So, assume that he's a long haul carrier, and doesn't have to buy any switching equipment. Still, based on $500/meter, that means that this network cost about 2.5 billion to build. So if the system was running at full capacity, 24/7/365, the LD will have to charge $0.50/conversation, or $0.15/minute to make 2.5 billion per year. Even reaching 10% of that capacity is unlikely at $5/conversation. Which, clearly, isn't happening. I assume that either I have made a mistake in my calculations, or the costs of laying fiber has been grossly overestimated... Or, that since no-one is going around and buying up 5000km right of ways, Sprint, MCI, AT&T and co. can lay fiber much more cheaply. If we assume $50/meter, it will cost 250 million, and they will have to charge $0.015/minute to break even at 100% capacity, or $0.15/minute at 10% capacity - and we know Sprint charges less than that, but if they can get more than 10% of the capacity --- although it is doubtful. My best assumption at this point is that we don't have to make back the entire cost of the fiber per year to make a profit. if we only have to earn 20% of its value to make a 10% profit, it would bring the price down to $0.075/minute, and if we were to get OC-768 systems invented, we could reduce that to $0.005/minute, which is approaching the values that Jim derived. So, I hate to say it, but it looks like long distance is more expensive than Jim (or I) thought. But, in a few years (say, 5) it will approach ridiculously cheap. We can expect at that point that either a) All (or most) long distance will be over the Internet b) Internet phone will vanish as regular long distance becomes a flat fee like local service. --- John Brothers Do you have a right not to be offended?

1 0

Re: Spamming
by James C. Sewell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:09 PM 8/20/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote: >On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote: > >> I don't know if there has been much discussion on the ethics of spamming >> here? Is spamming free speech? > >Yes. No. I think we can all (most) agree that spam-email is like junk-snailmail. In that case there are a few things to consider: 1. Junkmail requires the SENDER to pay for it, not the recipient. 2. Junkmail is under the full authority of the Postmaster. If they do anything illegal they have an authority to which they must answer and may face criminal charges for. 3. You can't legally stuff mailboxes by driving around the neighborhood. It is against the law for me to walk up to your mailbox and put something in it. Should the same be true of emailboxes? 4. Junkmail is usually at a lower priority than "real" mail and due to costs is usually easily identifiable. Email isn't. And one relating to only email: I don't want to have to spend 10 minutes letting Eudora sort through my mailbox because my filter rules are so numerous and complex due to me trying to block spam. We must remember that the First Amendment does not allow us to say any thing at any time via any medium we choose. There are limits to it, usually in the name of public safety and harassment. There should be similar limits in the Internet. I'm not saying we shouldn't let you tell others how get rich quick but that you should not be allowed to mail to *(a)*.* just to tell the world how great we are. Jim Jim Sewell - jims(a)tansoft.com Tantalus Incorporated - Key West, FL

3 2

WinSock Remailer Update
by Joey Grasty 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Y'all: I've done some additional testing of the WinSock Remailer with Windows 95. In short, the remailer does not decrypt messages properly in Windows 95. Therefore, it should not be used with that operating system. If you sent messages this evening, then some or all of these may have been lost during testing with Win95. I suspect that the same problems would be present with Windows NT, and indeed, one user reports a similar problem. Don't expect a fix for 95 or NT soon, as I'm a relative neophyte with these operating systems. In fact, I just installed Win95* yesterday. So, please be patient. I will have another alpha release of the remailer next week. Please stay tuned. As always, my homepage is: http://www.c2.net/~winsock/ * What possessed M$ into turning Windows 95 into a Macintosh like interface, I'll never know... (Yes, I have been hiding under a rock for the past two years, why do you ask?) Regards, -- Joey Grasty jgrasty(a)gate.net [home -- encryption, privacy, RKBA and other hopeless causes] jgrasty(a)pts.mot.com [work -- designing pagers] "Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin." -- John Von Neumann PGP = A7 CC 31 E4 7E A3 36 13 93 F4 C9 06 89 51 F5 A7

1 0

Re: [Noise] RE: Canada Imprisons People For Human Rights Acti... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: qut(a)netcom.com (Skip) > Subject: Re: [Noise] RE: Canada Imprisons People For Human Rights Acti... > Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 18:31:38 -0700 (PDT) > > ! > I do not believe that freedom of speech in the U.S.A. extends to actively > ! > agitating for secession or the overthrow of the federal government. > ! > ! The right to discuss revolt or secession or the overthrow of the federal > ! government, it seems to me, is given below: > ! > ! "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created > ! equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable > ! Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of > ! Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted > ! among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the > ! Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of > ! these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, > ! and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such > ! Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall > ! seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ... " > ! > ! Now this is the Declaration of Independence, and not the Constitution, but > ! it seems to me that the right to discuss "agitating for secession or the > ! overthrow of the federal government" is protected. > > Correct, if government is not protecting our rights as a people, we are > responsible for forcing the government to do so, even if that means > changing of the guard, ie, successful radicalism. > Might I add: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. ARTICLE IX. The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ARTICLE X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

1 0

Re: Spamming (Good or Bad?)
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:28 PM 8/21/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >(By the way, some of you younger folks may not remember all the creative >ways people used to have to deal with unwanted junk mail. For "return >postage provided" replies, they would often attach the return forms to >large packages of stuff (sometimes even organic, stinky stuff) and let the >junk mailer eat the postage charges at his end. Or they'd fill out the "get >free stuff" forms with the addresses of local officials.) Return reply envelopes can be alot of fun. In "A Handful of Zen" by Camden Benares (a book on Discordian Zen) he suggests collecting them. When you have something sufficiently weird for a mass mailing, you just fill a bunch of them and drop them in the local public posting bin. An interesting way to releave the daily stress... --- | "Remember: You can't have BSDM without BSD. - alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com "| |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0

Any CPs in D.C.?
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I will be in D.C. through Saturday. I'd like to meet some Cypherpunks that feel like getting to know what Lucky looks like :-) If you are in D.C., give me a call at my hotel. (202) 682-0111 x440 --Lucky

6 7

Re: Canada Imprisons People For Human Rights Activity
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Or About 21 Aug 96, 22:15, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Alaska rightfully belongs to Russia, as do California and Hawaii. > No way. We bought that stuff. Then we spent the USSR into the dark ages, winning the Cold War. Right? Huh? What? Ross (Boy do I Hate Those Pesky Spammers) Wright =========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

2 1