December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Metcalf and Other Net.Fogies
by John Brothers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:17 AM 9/7/96 -0400, perry(a)piermont.com wrote: > > <snip discussion of internet collapse> > >I'm "involved with the problems" too, you know. Don't teach granpaw to >suck eggs. OF COURSE there are problems. None of them, however, are >signs of "collapse". This whole thing makes me ill - maybe I'm just an idiot. What could possibly cause a collapse? More usage?? No - that would just mean that everyone's access would be slower. Do routers fail because they can't talk to other routers? no - they route around it. I consider myself reasonably educated when it comes to the layout of the internet, and I have never heard _anyone_ ever say what constitutes a collapse, and, if it means 'catastrophic permanent failure of the Internet', what could possibly cause that. These people are acting like one day, something is going to blow up, and the entire internet will follow, and stay down for a long long time. If all the DNS servers died, the internet would stop working for non-local access until they recovered. If there was a bug in Cisco routers that was set to go off on Thursday, September 12th, that would render them inoperable until power cycled, that would cause a major failure. If every building in MCI and Sprint's data network blew up, that would cause a major failure. If the usage increased so that the Internet was 'saturated', that doesn't qualify as a collapse. It qualifies as 'rush hour'. If the internet was in 'rush hour' 24 hours a day, it would be unfun to use, but unlike the highway system, we can add more lanes pretty much at will. (within reason). Will someone please explain to me what I'm missing? Thanks John --- John Brothers Do you have a right not to be offended?

1 0

Re: [RANT] Death of Usenet: Film at 11
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In Cypherpunks, on 08/19/96 at 01:34 PM, mpd(a)netcom.com (Mike Duvos) said: =If Singapore bans alt.sex.hooters, you could simply post to =alt.culture.singapore.i.got.your.hooters.right.here. [snip] =It would also send the correct message that "newsgroups" are simply =one of many labels on an article, and are not cyberspacial tearooms =where bad people congregate and there is guilt by association. I don't fault your argument on "sending the correct message," but since when has an oppressive government ever been concerned with "the correct message?" LEA's could care less about the message; their only interest is another opportunity to behave like the jack-booted thugs they generally are. but public opinion, certainly the government interests in control, have already determined in the court of small minds that "we" are inherently evil (and beyond redemption without coercion). A repressive government can not afford publications from unredeemed (and unrepentant) cyber-anarchists with a world wide audience. Is the daily comics the last refuge of freedom; witness today's "Thatch:" "cubicle cliches are one of the few things we all share; they're one of the few things that unite us as americans!" "that and utter, corrosive contempt for our elected officials." sarcasm has always been a potent weapon, and one of the hardest to silence. ..in bits and pieces it can slowly undermine the target. why is it tolerated? I'm sure our malicious uncle wanted to shut Doonsbury down during Vietnam, but joe-six-pack rarely understood the underlying message. =The alternative to doing something reasonable like this is probably =to see mass migration from "banned newsgroups" to off-topic groups, =like Lolita pictures in rec.pets.cats, when the inevitable crackdown =comes. has not the crackdown arrived? and are not the various skirmishes between governments on one side and the ISPs & users on the other sufficient evidence of governmental intentions? =As long as people can post =anonymously, they will simply switch to another existing newsgroup =when the one they are posting to becomes blocked. Once the =inevitable reciprocal pissing contest between posters and censors =gets going, Usenet as we know it will likely be destroyed. let's put it this way, the first reaction will be to "eliminate" the anonymous remailers, then ban the "alt" groups which can be created at will. if there is migration from alt.sex.binaries to rec.cats, the government will eliminate the entire usenet and we will be forced back to the NWO controlled media conglomerates, or mail lists. of course, then the fascists will block or close down the list servers on some flimsy pretext such as violating the US postal monopoly and regulations.... Many companies block the alt groups; 15 years ago, even I blocked the alt groups during business hours (and usenet was only 1.5 MBytes per day then!), restoring them at 1800. --why? because the office staff spent *at least* all morning reading usenet, occasionally even refusing to talk to customers before their daily dose! My point is simple: I reacted by limiting the **time** of access, ** not access itself. ** On the other side, Reed, Buchannan &c. have decided *they* should judge what is fit (G rated) for our consumption; and, of course, Big Brother has determined they should be the judge of political correctness and all that shit which is numbing the minds of joe-six-pack until America is a controllable homogeneous bowl of putrid gruel. government, in and of itself, may be able to selectively prosecute cyberspace "violaters," but the real danger is big business. Print newspapers receive $64 billion in ad revenue, 80% of which is local. Virtually every major US newspaper (most owned by the group of 5) has a net presence --some very informative. And, even Mexico has more than a dozen of their papers on line. However, in the US the news is still the same collection of what the NWO wants us to hear/see. So far, the foreign press is not so inhibited and is often openly critical of US bumbling in foreign affairs, Bubba's alleged (alledged?) cocaine habit and criminal behaviour, --likewise critical of all fools. Where does this lead? Well, we've probably peaked on freedom; the rest is downhill as our "non-elected" government degenerates to deploying more and more thought control to maintain the oligarchic fascist form of what Jefferson thought they were creating as a representative republic. I for one enjoy tweaking their nose, but it only stiffens their resolve to squash me/us/whatever. How do you show resolve without being in their face? most regulation is created to "eliminate" abuse of a "public" privilege; unfortunately, we all suffer "collateral damage" to use their term. does voluntary compliance work? unfortunately, no. where does that leave us? confrontation, I guess. preserve our advantage as long as we can. we all know from münchen that Clement Atlee made a fool of himself appeasing Hitler for a false peace. might as well carry on with what we do best: rape, pillage, and burn... a scorched earth policy....

1 0

Re: "The Bill of Rights can be dangerous...." (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: "The Bill of Rights can be dangerous...." > From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) > Date: Sat, 07 Sep 96 09:35:38 EDT > > I remember beig surprised to discover that the library computer at City > University of New York (state school where I got all my degrees) had an > (easily accessible) record of every book I've ever checked out in some > 15 years, And by the way you need to present A LOT of ids to take books > out of New York's public libraries, or to use the public-access > computers in them. And by the way you're asked to sign your name and > affiliation (fortunately, no ID is required) if you want to just enter > NYPL's Slavic division and use their reading room. Apparently this was > instituted during the cold war under the assumption that anyone > interested in Slavic Division's materials needs to be watched. In the very early 80's while I was attending UT Austin the FBI approached the libraries and requested access to the loan records. The libraries refused and went so far as to post a warning at each of the book checkout points on the event. Personaly, I was very proud of them for the refusal and the extra step of the warning. > A very good friend of mine does EE for a living, and in particular he > sells some EE equipment by mail order. He told me that every time he > sells something like the gizmo to write magnetic strips on credit cards, > he gets a phone call from los federales saying: you sold X who paid with > Y and shipped it to address Z - do you have any additional details? He > says every time they know as much about the sale as he does. :-) I have been dealing with security electronics for over 10 years and have never been approached by anyone regarding my activities. I make no secret of the fact that I do that sort of work as well as being able to build custom equipment if needed. I would suspect that there is a flag on your friend for something or someone from the past, not on his business in particular. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Choice of Words
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> --Tim May, who hopes he is never identified as the "John Doe" indicted, > tried, convicted, and sentenced in 1979 in Washington County, Oregon, for > the crime of unlawful foddering in a public place. > foddering? why, are you an indiscreet luncher? > Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! > We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed > ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- > Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, > tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero > W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, > Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. > "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." -- one of the few things we all share: the utter, corrosive contempt for our elected officials.

1 0

Anonymous phone calls (was: What is the EFF doing exactly?)
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There is another spin possible on the reasons for replacement of pay phones with credit card phones. In Canada all new credit card phones are also able to take phone cards (which are anonymous). Using a prepaid phone card permits full anonymity. But what it also permits is metered local calls. This infrastructure would be more familiar to someone from Europe where metered local calls are the norm. Paris make the change to phones that *only* take prepaid phone cards (thus fully anonymous) obstensibly because people were breaking into phones for the money. Prepaid phone cards avoid this. James Why should my long distance calling subsidize your local internet access? ;-) ---------- From: "<pstira(a)escape.com>" <pstira(a)escape.com> Sent: Friday, September 06, 1996 9:54 AM To: unicorn(a)schloss.li Cc: vznuri(a)netcom.com; cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: What is the EFF doing exactly? Not just DC and Chicago, I'm afraid. If anyone around NYC noticed, there are less and less payphones, and all new ones installed, just about, are those yellow credit card phones. Not all of them, but it's now one for one, at least.

2 1

Have at it. Username provided
by Kermit69 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey. Try this, whitman.gmu.edu a username = myost

1 0

Re: Court challenge to AOL junk-mail blocks
by Will Rodger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 12:27 PM 9/7/96 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote: >If AOL wants to stop spammers, let them. They have every right to do so as >long as their agreement with their customers permits it. It's a matter of >contract law between AOL and its customers and should not involve the >spammers and a lawsuit brought by the spammers. > >It seems as though the judge was snookered by the spammers' claim of U.S. >Mail-like service, free speech, blah. The right to free speech does >extend to corporations; in that way, it includes the right *not* to speak. > Declan raises a good point. But I'm guessing it's a bit more complex than that. CyberPromo and AOL lawyers tell me the court slapped down AOL simply to "keep the status quo." Both sides used those very words, in fact. What's more, CyberPromo talks a good game on the First Amendment, but used computer fraud and unfair competition statutes - not the Bill of Rights - in its original filing against AOL. So what's going on? It seems Weiner is _very_ aware that this case deals with things never before argued in court. No one has really sorted out just how much e-mail - if any - an ISP is obligated to carry against its wishes. What Weiner decides this fall may not set the kind of precendent that the case of the Pentagon Papers did, but will be important for a while at least. Will -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMjIIw0cByjT5n+LZAQFNWgf/Xb+yG9JDVZ6MN1Hz/K4IUCXL8hSgjeG3 +Ih+aXiod/vVAHXCJmktvBJFWWAJjpFjW/0WQljvsMULxXYpdXAYFDh4kiZZg4A3 7xkjCsT+Kpi8lDCRmFPciQfvoLyiEJxr8hI2l2qucE0THV0spysTKpgYueggLZI6 no5mC47ZGusfL9jWb7qrnbqjO1h+0mVZYgr0GRY8MVvyMsJGgylEDaiCh0KSaI1V TqEfTF+kcbzqtht0yG/M+QmCRertH4s1y9IWllWvJLMbAfwgFCxgGtamWoyXiHye keXAGLK0r2u8vTfwK5rJ91ZR774CGkZHulNi3wx53pZaFyYPJtYizA== =KS50 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 4

"The Bill of Rights can be dangerous...."
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:30 PM 9/5/96, Omegaman wrote: >What strikes me as odd is that the arguments against anonymous >communication are nearly identical to those against strong crypto. >ie. the same four horsemen flare up in these discussions. Yet we >have parties who are ostensibly pro-crypto but anti-anonymity. > >To put it in a nutshell, in a free society I can have a private >conversation, but I must essentially announce that I am having one >and who I am having that conversation with? As with Adam Back's mini-rant yesterday, this is exactly correct. In a free society, speech need not be approved, registered, escrowed, labelled, or identified with the Registered True Name of the speaker. One can paraphrase Esther Dyson's concerns about anonymity in several fairly equivalent forms. Here's the original: "Anonymity can be dangerous -- as can traceability, especially in/by repressive regimes. Therefore I would favor allowing anonymity -- with some form of traceability only under terms considerably stronger than what are generally required for a wiretap." Here's a slightly paraphrased version for freedom to read anonymously, with some "reasons" included in brackets: "Books and magazines can be dangerous [bomb recipes, racial hatred, instilling bad values, etc.]-- as can restrictions on reading, especially in/by repressive regimes. Therefore I would favor allowing unfettered reading -- with some form of traceability only under terms considerably stronger than what are generally required for a wiretap." (i.e., "book escrow," where one's reading materials are escrowed with Trusted Authorities, and only accessed by law enforcement under Proper Conditions. Failure to escrow reading materials would be a Class B felony. Cf. the FBI's Library Awareness Program of circa 1987-8.) A version for freedom of movement: "People moving around can be dangerous [avoiding parental responsibilities, avoiding taxes, spying, plotting to bomb buildings]-- as can traceability, especially in/by repressive regimes. Therefore I would favor allowing freedom of movement -- with some form of traceability only under terms considerably stronger than what are generally required for a wiretap." (a la the "position escrow system" I predicted a couple of years ago would someday be seriously considered) A version for freedom of association: "Freedom of association can be dangerous [plotting of crimes, gathering of mobs, spread of dangerous ideas, disease]-- as can restrictions on such gatherings, especially in/by repressive regimes. Therefore I would favor allowing freedom of association -- with some form of traceability only under terms considerably stronger than what are generally required for a wiretap." ("Club escrow"? All mailing lists, clubs, associations, and such would have to escrow an up-to-date list of members, associates, and contacts. Then, with proper authorization by proper authorities, law enforcement could inspect these lists to see who had been meeting with whom. Hotels would have to monitor use of rooms by more than two persons (the two person case is already covered by the "Sex can be dangerous..." variant of the Dyson Principle).) A version for anonymous purchases and sales: "Anonymity in sales and purchases can be dangerous [bomb materials, stolen goods, unhealthful foods, etc.] -- as can traceability, especially in/by repressive regimes. Therefore I would favor allowing anonymous purchases and sales of goods -- with some form of traceability only under terms considerably stronger than what are generally required for a wiretap." (There go the flea markets and garage sales (for buyers), which are largely anonymous. There goes walking into a store and paying cash for a piece of pipe (could be made into a bomb). There goes cash, period. See next item.) A version for cash: "Cash can be dangerous [illegal purchases, drugs, prostitution, tax evasion, illegal workers, extortion, etc.] -- as can traceable money, especially in/by repressive regimes. Therefore I would favor allowing cash -- with some form of traceability only under terms considerably stronger than what are generally required for a wiretap." (One has to presume that Dyson would probably not support Chaumian untraceable e-cash, though I doubt she would go for the other examples.) And so on. One can take Dyson's basic argument for why anonymity may be dangerous at times and why it may need to be restricted, limited, or banned, and use these arguments for a variety of other basic freedoms. Essentially, freedom can be dangerous. The world can be dangerous. In fact, it is. (No, Dyson has not called for such restrictons on freedom of movement, freedom of association, freedom to read anonymously. But her argument that she would support anonymity if some form of traceability is built in essentially applies, by the same logic (that it can be dangerous) to a wide variety of other cases.) To summarize: "The Bill of Rights can be dangerous...." --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2

Re: What the NSA is patenting
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:18 AM 9/7/96 -0800, Adamsc wrote: >On Fri, 06 Sep 1996 11:59:18 -0500, John Deters wrote: > >>I hope some hardware hacker who knows their low-level stuff will be able to >>write a secure disk wiper. > >They have: it's called a bulk tape eraser. <g> > > >I'd just store everything sensitive on a floppy. Those are easy to erase with a >heavy duty magnet (not a wimpy refrigerator magnet). I understand slagging one >in the microwave is also effective <g>. Just remember that an AC-driven bulk eraser will be far more effective than a permanent magnet at erasing data securely. An oscillating magnet field re-magnetizes the floppy 120 times per second, as opposed to the single magnetization done by the permanent magnet. Each pass through the hysteresis curve brings down residual signals somewhat, maybe 10 db. With the AC field, it's hard NOT to have a good erase. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Junk Phone Calls, Metered Usage, and Cellphones
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:08 PM 9/6/96, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: >is done because of the Great Drug Hysteria, but I suspect part of it >is that pay phone companies don't make money receiving calls, >so they don't want to tie up their phones doing that; perhaps if >they charged money to receive calls as well as initiate them, >they'd be willing to receive calls? I am about to start worrying about "junk phone calls" more so than I have been. I just bit the bullet and bought a digital cellular phone, with a nifty rate plan called Digital Flex: I get unlimited free airtime from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. weekdays, and unlimited free airtime all weekend. From south of Salinas to north of Santa Rosa and as far east as the Central Valley. In other words, the entire Bay Area and outlying communities. I can send and receive calls over this entire region, from anywhere in the region (of course), without any charges. The downside is that calls _from_ or _to_ my phone during "business" hours are charged 42 cents a minute, airtime (tying up a channel and all), plus whatever other fees may be applicable at each end. Thus, every "junk call" I get trying to get me to buy aluminum siding, or to vote Democratic, or to switch my long-distance carrier (!), costs me a minimum of 42 cents, depending on how fast I can realize who they are and get rid of them ("Let me forward you to Jim Bell's AP hotline..."). Needless to say, my cellular number is only going out to a handful of folks, and with recommendations that they not call me during business hours unless its urgent. I believe this kind of pricing model is likely to be common. We can debate til the cows come home whether flat rate pricing makes sense, for ISPs, for cellphones, for other things. Relevance to Crypto? The "junk e-mai" issue, calls for regulations (which I'm against), technological solutions (Caller ID lets users decided to accept a call or not....same idea could be used with e-mail, a la Hal Finney's "You have a message of size X from size Y entitled Z" proposal for positve acceptance of remailed messages), and the value of True Names (and True Numbers). I'll be real pissed if my new cellphone number ends up in the hands of mass marketers, given that I don't plan to give it out to merchants, to organizations, etc. (I'm probably inviting malicious use by one of my enemies here on this list...there may be ways I don't yet grok to "look up" cellphone user numbers. I can then get hit with denial-of-service attack just by having this 42 cents a call situation. I hope no one is this malicious.) P.S. The phone is a Motorola Micro Digital Lite, a little bugger with a zillion features. It can vibrate silently instead of ringing (phone sex?), it can store 100 alphanumeric name/number combinations, it even has a data port for use with a modem (probably a special modem, and certainly a chore to set all the battery-powered stuff up properly...I'll report on it if it works). The cost was about $200 for the phone, after the rebates, kickbacks, etc., and after "sales tax on the pre-kickback price" was added back in (California has a tax collection scam where sales tax is assessed against the "real" price of some good or service....imagine the possibilities if this is extended to cover other such areas). The "Digital Flex" plan from Cellular One is $20/mo for the basic plan, and then $15/mo on top of that for the unlimited evenings and weekends use. (This could easily save me the amount I often spend in a month just yakking with friends and girlfriends who live over the hill in the Valley.) These rates have really come down a lot. The unlimited calls is what sold me. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

6 5