December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by Eric Cordian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Hendrickson writes: > Moderation has been a failure. I'm pretty good at filtering and I > can sadly report that there is very little signal out there. The quality of the Cypherpunks list is determined solely by the amount of signal. The amount of noise is irrelevant. Barring someone continuously mail-bombing the list 24 hours a day from a T3, it is easy to pick and choose the posts one wishes to read, and wipe the rest with a single keystroke afterwards. I read the list selectively depending upon the amount of free time I have. I always try to read serious crypto articles, and all posts by Tim, Hal, Eric, Duncan, and a few other notables. If I have additional time, I will read other threads of interest, a little Vulis, and selected Toto, who happens to be a very funny person at times. Now that we have moderation, I can't do this while subscribed to the main list, and have to live in eternal fear that I am writing for an audience of 20 every time I respond to something on the unedited list. Foo on that. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

1 0

Govt & cyberspace
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

DF raises the question of whether the IRS will be able to modernize in the lack of "intellectual capital" (i.e. brains). This is actually a very interesting topic which I've not seen a lot of analysis on elsewhere, but which I expect to see a lot more in the future. the basic issue is this: private industry is moving into cyberspace at a lightening pace. yet the government is painfully incapable of doing the same for reasons of bureacracy. numerous articles have been documenting the inability of the government to successfully pull of massive software and hardware upgrade projects. I suspect it will only be a matter of time before this is called a major "crisis" by politicians and milked for all of its conceivable tax value. eeks. I've seen a lot of articles about govt agencies in a computational crisis due to this problem. maybe someone can come up with a cute tag item. "technology envy" maybe? I read about how the FAA was trying to install a new flight control system that's insanely over budget and lightyears from a conceivable completion. another *major* computation problem is the year 2000 crisis. private companies can barely get it together to do the upgrading and investigation required to fix the 2000-flip problem. the government is even farther behind. if there is going to be a year 2000 "crisis" due to the millenium bug, I suspect much of it will be focused in government agencies. "tech envy"-- what impact is this going to have on our government? it's becoming a huge issue. it may be a really great opportunity for a populist movement to truly reform the government in the process of upgrading their computers. I suspect that the "groupware" technology that is just getting started will have major influence in these areas. as private companies find increasingly sophisticated ways of managing themselves, the obvious question will arise, "why can't we have an efficient govt when our private industries are"? the answer is, we can!! I've written about "electronic democracy" repeatedly. many people object to the idea. but when it is phrased in terms of groupware, it becomes more palatable. imagine a small company humming along with its groupware application that allows it to make company-wide decisions using a democratic process. moreover, the software is robust and scales well. why can't the same principles be scaled up, up, up? I predict that they will be in a rather extraordinary revolution. a new "velvet revolution"? comments anyone?

1 0

Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:28 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >At 11:38 AM 2/3/1997, Lucky Green wrote: >> I am well aware of the name recognition and reputation capital associated >> with CP, still I believe it best to *kill the list*. > >If you don't like the list, why not unsubscribe? That won't solve the problem. The list has become counterproductive. It is impossible for other lists to provide a real forum for the discussion of the topics that this list used to be about while CP still exists. At the same time, CP has long stopped providing such a forum. CP is draining energy from its subscribers and the cause. Kill it! Kill it now! -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi

1 0

Another ActiveX hole (fwd)
by Ray Arachelian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-------+..........................................................+------- + ^ + : Ray Arachelian : #include <std_disclaimer.h> :../|\.. \|/ : ray(a)earthweb.com :.....................................:./\|/\. <--+-->: ................ : My oppinions are my own and do not :.\/|\/. /|\ :voice: 212-725-6550 : neccesairly represent those of my :..\|/.. + v + :....................: employer. :....... .... http://www.sundernet.com ...personal.email sunder(a)sundernet.com ..... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 13:26:44 -0500 From: Andy Breen <abreen(a)earthweb.com> To: yak(a)earthweb.com Subject: Another ActiveX hole hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... ------------------ DMK: An application of covert channels. From RISKS Digest Vol 18, Issue 80. Date: 1 Feb 1997 05:12:02 GMT From: weberwu(a)tfh-berlin.de (Debora Weber-Wulff) Subject: Electronic Funds Transfer without stealing PIN/TAN The Berlin newspaper "Tagespiegel" reports on 29 Jan 97 about a television show broadcast the previous evening on which hackers from the Chaos Computer Club demonstrated how to electronically transfer funds without needing a PIN (Personal Identification Number) or TAN (Transaction Number). Apparently it suffices for the victim to visit a site which downloads an ActiveX application, which automatically starts and checks to see if Quicken, a popular financial software package that also offers electronic funds transfer, is on the machine. If so, Quicken is given a transfer order which is saved by Quicken in its pile of pending transfer orders. The next time the victim sends off the pending transfer orders to the bank (and enters in a valid PIN and TAN for that!) all the orders (= 1 transaction) are executed - money is transferred without the victim noticing! The newspaper quotes various officials at Microsoft et al expressing disbelief/outrage/"we're working on it". We discussed this briefly in class looking for a way to avoid the problem. Demanding a TAN for each transfer is not a solution, for one, the banks only send you 50 at a time, and many small companies pay their bills in bunches. Having to enter a TAN for each transaction would be quite time-consuming. Our only solution would be to forbid browsers from executing any ActiveX component without express authorization, but that rather circumvents part of what ActiveX is intended for. A small consolation: the transfer is trackable, that is, it can be determined at the bank to which account the money went. Some banks even include this information on the statement, but who checks every entry on their statements... Debora Weber-Wulff, Technische Fachhochschule Berlin, Luxemburger Str. 10, 13353 Berlin GERMANY weberwu(a)tfh-berlin.de <http://www.tfh-berlin.de/~weberwu/

1 0

RE: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Timothy C. May With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose substantive essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day. (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name Nurdane Oksas, and the occasional bit of crypto news. Ho hum. I'm glad I'm not reading the list in e-mail, and thus can easily avoid replying to these inanities... .......................................... Your thoughtful contributions to the list are missed, Tim. As soon as I realized that you had left the list I suspected it had something to do with its moderation. However, I must protest the inclusion of Toto's posts as one of the "inane". His posts were intentionally formulated to cause to stand out what was, indeed, inane - as he said, to "hold up a mirror". And he continually decried the list experiment, pointing out the philosophical contradiction of a moderated "anarchist" forum. If the antidote to bad speech is more speech, then he certainly provided some, although not on the level or style as yourself. And you may say that some of these posts are not worth replying to, but didn't I see you respond to one of Dale's, regarding a photo of Jessica-the-pilot which he keeps above his desk? .. Blanc

1 0

Filling Power Vacuums
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:57 AM -0800 2/3/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >After reading through Tim's post, I don't think much would be >served by doing another point by point response. From Tim's >tone, it appears he is still seething about how this all came >about, so I'll just leave our two expressions of opinions where >they were. I have no wish to exacerbate any hard feelings Tim >may be having. Indeed, I have been seething for the past several weeks (off and on, as I am fortunately able to usually put it out of my mind and do other things with my mental energies....). I think I have figured out why I'm seething. It's about "power grabs." You see, in any anarchic situation, where reliance on self-control and self-filtering is emphasized, there is always a _temptation_ for some to "fill the power vacuum" and grab power. I learned in my years at Intel how easy it was to start bossing people around, and as I hired engineers and scientists, I built up quite a little empire. But I didn't like what it was doing to me, as it distanced me from the technology and also brought out "control freak" tendencies....I started worrying about how my people were using their time ("my" time), and I increasingly applied my own notions of what they should talk about and what were suitable topics for laboratory chatter. In other words, I became a censor. (Not a government censor, but a censor in the broader definition I've already cited.) So I gave it up. Even before eventually retiring from Intel, I elected to leave the management track and rejoin the "technical ladder," becoming one of Intel's so-called Principal Engineers. No longer could I control others, except through the example I set and the information I provided. And I was happy I had moved away from "the dark side of the force." (I accept the role hierarchies play in corporations. They can't be built with just people like me. They need leaders, controllers, power freaks, etc. But a virtual community like the Cypherpunks group is not such a heirarchical organization, and it needs few rules, leaders, etc. "We don't need no steenking leaders.") As this relates to Cypherpunks, I have steadfastly refused to consider any "management role," so to speak, in how the list is run, the formal policies, etc. I'm not saying there has been a call for management (though Detweiler used to rail against us for not having a management heirarchy, for not having rules and democratic procedures for "making decisions"), just that the power vacuum in anarchies such as ours is often an open invitation for someone to step in and "provide structure and guidance." I resisted any thoughts of doing this, and argued against this sort of thing whenever the topic came up in conversation. I chose to lead only by the posts I wrote and the ideas I worked on. There have been frequent calls over the years for the Cypherpunks to have a more permanent presence, perhaps even an office in Washington, D.C., such as the EFF had, the CPSR still has, and so on. And to have an Official Spokesman, a contact person for the media droids to contact. The calls for this have declined in the last couple of years, as people figured out that the Cypherpunks are not about having spokespunks for us, and that the media will just have to deal with the "anarchy" of having to herd cats to get information out of us. Now, of course, the message is being sent that Sandy Sandfort is in some sense the de facto leader, being that he determines what traffic goes out to the main list and what traffic gets bounced into the flames list. In fact, I'll make a prediction: The media will see that he is the chief censor and arbiter of worthiness and will increasingly contact him for the Official Point of View on various items they are interested in. It distresses me greatly that Sandy Sandfort has elected to move into this "power vacuum" to nominate himself as our Leader and Chief Censor. Foo on that. (I used to hear this at Intel, where the argument for a hierarchical structure was much stronger, to wit: "Tim, if you won't agree to manage others, you'll have to accept that people less technically competent than yourself are going to elect to become managers and they'll probably become _your_ manager in the not too distant future.") So, I sort of thank Sandy for helping me to realize certain things that I may not have explicitly realized before. Namely, I realize that I don't want the karmic burdens of power myself, preferring to lead only by the example I set and the ideas I generate. This is why "market anarchies" (books, music, ideas, all things where "no ruler" exists) appeal to me so much. And since I don't wish to assume the mantle of leadership, and don't see much need for leadership or global censorship (as opposed to locally contracted for filtering, a la Eric Blossom's list, or Siskel and Ebert giving recommendations, or ratings of restaurants, etc.), I am resentful and suspicious of people who _do_ step into the "power vacuum" to lead and control. Now I grant you that Sandy's form of leadership and control is relatively mild, but the very notion that Sandy can reject a long essay because of a couple of phrasings he dislikes (this was his "judgment call" point about why he (reluctantly?) allowed my post to go out) is a step in the wrong direction. And given our strong ideological bias toward market anarchies, this move toward censorship stands out like a sore thumb. At least the issue would be clearer if Sandy passed all posts through but deleted sections that offended him and marked deleted sections as "**CENSORED**." Yes, I'm seething. Sandy is right about that. I saw a group I helped create and spent thousands of hours on, writing articles and developing ideas choose--by fiat from the owner of the machine the list was being sent out from--to embrace the dark side, the control freak side. In the name of "comity," Sandy's term for the bonhomie he thinks he can cultivate, we lose our ideological purity. "Hey, even the Cypherpunks have embraced censorship." Instead of letting the power vacuum remain unfilled, and suggesting to people that they solve the problems it creates as best they can, Sandy jumped in to fill the vacuum. This is what I'm seething about. And even dropping the power grab at the end of the "experiment" will not stop this seething. Fuck it. --Tim May " Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" 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: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2

GAK/KR spin
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Several months back there were discussions on the list regarding renaming the government's key escrow/recovery proposals (KRAP comes to mind). I think we need something that's catchy and simple (perhaps already familiar) to understand for the semi-litterate citizen units. I propose we encourage use of the terms "crippleware" or "crypto crippleware" when refering to the products limited to their weak crypto and/or key escrow/recovery. --Steve

1 0

Re: Filling Power Vacuums
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

vovochka wrote: > timmy writes: > > <It's about "power grabs." > < > <You see, in any anarchic situation, where reliance on self-control and > <self-filtering is emphasized, there is always a _temptation_ for some to > <"fill the power vacuum" and grab power. > > ah, so what's the solution? Maybe there is a way to set up a structure that allows for no power to appear. In fact, I know one. > don't worry timmy, you'll feel better later after you've forgotten > that there was some deep lesson in all this. - Igor.

1 0

Information Warfare
by Peter Hendrickson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The cypherpunks list has been under "attack" for some time. How have we managed it? Very poorly in my view. Some people have dismissed the idea that rogue governmental elements are behind some of our problems. Yet, there is no reason to rule out this hypothesis. The government has not always behaved well with regards to its perceived enemies in the last few decades. The FBI seems to infiltrate everything - even churches!. This is well documented. The CIA has worked hard on disrupting various political movements of which it did not approve using provocateurs and other conspiratorial dirty tricks. (I believe the FBI has, too, but I do not recall any documentation offhand.) We know that "Information Warfare" is the big thing in the defense establishment right now. It's all over their web pages. We see articles from the Kennedy School which seem to compare free speech with disease. Etc. Etc. We also believe that the things the Cypherpunks are interested in are on the radar screen. Maybe the Cypherpunks are, too. Is it unreasonable to ask whether some people are getting funding to experiment with disrupting "groups" like the Cypherpunks? I can easily picture people inventing all sorts of important sounding words like "psy-op" for what is little more than rudeness. Whatever the cause of the disruptions, the solutions are the same. Most of the proposals I've been hearing have to do with controlling the behavior of other cypherpunks and creating more structure. This is a mistake. It's clear that even the definitions of "spam" and "flame" are hard to nail down. The next idea will be to moderate on the basis of content. How will we decide what is content? Clearly that's much too important a question to leave to just one person. What we need is a committee to decide! What's next? Robert's Rules of Order? All of this detracts from the work we have before us. If you've ever been involved with a non-profit organization, you will know that enormous energy is spent on internal political scheming. That's a boring waste of time. Let's go down a better path. Let's think about the best way for each cypherpunk to manage disruptions. Please consider these suggestions: 1. Filter noise. I filter based on origin. If a kill file doesn't work, use a positive filter to read messages only from people who are worthwhile. It has been suggested that this doesn't work because some people post garbage, but also occasionally post something good. There's gold in the ocean, too. Why don't we retrieve it? If you don't want to manage a filter yourself, find somebody to do it for you. A number of people offer filtering services. Remember that in an open forum, noise increases with signal. The more worthwhile and interesting threads are on the list, the more worthless postings we are going to see, particlarly when people are consciously disruptive. 2. Post signal. Filters are useless when there is no signal. Signal comes from cypherpunks. You are a cypherpunk. 3. Birds of a feather flock together. When you respond to somebody, you mingle your on-line identity with theirs. Fly with the eagles. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

1 0

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<* The mechanics of the announcement troubled me greatly. To be blunt, I was <seething with anger. I was mightily annoyed to read that John had made a <decision to appoint Sandy as his Moderator, with no discussion on the list. <I don't know if Eric Hughes and Hugh Daniel were asked their opinions, but <I certainly know I was not. I feel that as one of the two or three <founders, depending on how one is counting, and as a frequent contributor <to the list since its inception, and so on, I (and others) should at least <have been told of this plan. Better yet, have the plans discussed on the <list, as some good ideas may have been generated. hi timmy, a word to the wise: it amuses me that whenever I referred to a cypherpunk "community" my eyebrows were flamed off, by people who claimed there was no such thing. a community has certain properties, many of which I believe the cypherpunks "crowd" has always lacked. one aspect of the "crowd" that is lacking is LEADERSHIP. I have pointed this out again and again. the cpunks believe that leadership is no longer relevant in a digital society, somehow. the list is in the shape it is in because of POOR LEADERSHIP.. neither you nor EH care about what LEADERSHIP entails, or wish to exert the sacrifices that it requires. hence, you have, and have always had, a LEADERSHIP VACUUM. and now you are "mightily annoyed", "pissed off" etc. that as a "founder" you were not consulted? you weren't consulted because you weren't a leader in the true sense of the word. are you in or out? imho leadership does not merely entail writing posts and having a completely laissaiz fair attitude about every single issue under the sun, particularly those of dear importance to the list, such as how to deal with crappy signal to noise ratios, intentional provocateurs, people who seem to have ulterior agendas, etc. I think it is highly amusing for you to get a lesson about how your views about "anarchy" really work out. what does this anarchy thing mean, anyway? is someone else taking over the list your idea of what is represented by anarchy? imho anarchy is a power vacuum in which the events which have transpired, and that you perceive as unpalatable to say the least, are inevitable. <I'll have more to say about my problems with how things were handled. <Frankly, it smacked of the same kind of fait accompli decision John made <with the unsubscribing of Vulis. While John had (and has) every legal right <to do with his property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First, <Vulis found other ways to post (duh). Second, the list was consumed with <flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others. Third, <journalists (who love sizzle over substance any day of the week) lept into <the fray with articles which gave Vulis the publicity he craved. Fourth, it <sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the Cypherpunks have found <it necessary to abandon their anarchic ways." "enemies of liberty"? hee, hee. anarchy was not a practical way of running the list, and never has been, and now that the REALITY of the situation is PROVING this to you in an inescapable existence proof, you find it impossible to confront the obvious message. timmy, a little tip: anarchy, as you seem to conceive it, doesn't scale well, and both usenet and the cypherpunks list are eminent evidence of this. <(I'm well aware of the issues with pests like Vulis, who seek to destroy <virtual communities like ours. But the solution John used did not work, and <generated more crap. As you all should know, it was John himself who coined <the wonderful saying, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes <around it." A delicious irony.) which should encourage people to understand that there is a subtle difference between censorship and moderation.. or does the distinction elude you? is there a difference in your opinion? you have plenty of financial resources to start a mailing list of your own, what makes you think it would be any more orderly than the one that is being run here? in fact, do you understand how "anarchy" and "order" are mutually exclusive, now that your own reality is shouting it to you? <* The proper solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship. ah, so everyone should post 5 messages to the list, instead of 1, and those that are quite should post 3. quite an elegant solution. do you see how the silly rhetoric fails to hold up in reality? when will you get a clue about where your own views are really leading you? <* OK, even given that John had decided to censor "his" list, what about his <choice of Sandy Sandfort as the censor? "moderator"-- does the word mean anything to you? <(I count Sandy as a friend, but I'm just being honest here. Sandy is just <not a "Peter Neumann" (moderator of the "RISKS" list). you were free to propose another moderator. moderation is hard work. it takes a lot of time. who volunteered other than sandy? <* I would have had no problem had John announced that he was creating a new <list, the "Good Stuff" list, with Sandy has his Chooser of Good Stuff. <After all, both Eric Blossom and Ray Arachelian already offer just such <lists, and more would not hurt. < <But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed things <considerably. anyone is free to subscribe to any list they choose, including the unfiltered one. how is the reality different than that which you write? are you suggesting that people are too lazy to make a coherent choose on their own? who are you to argue with what everyone themself chooses? <* The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful <ammunition to give to our opponents, and Vulis is certainly gleeful that <his fondest wishes have been realized. And it won't work. People are <consuming even more bandwidth arguing the merits of John's decision, the <traffic is presumably being slowed down by the need for Sandy to wade <through the traffic and stamp "Approved" or "Rejected" on what he glances <at, and people are "testing the limits" of what they can say and what they <can't say. what's a better solution, in your opinion, besides ignoring it all and pretending there is no problem? <In any case, my several years with the list have taken a huge amount of my <time. Given the way this whole thing was handled, and the way the list is <degenerating even further, it looks like it's good that I'm moving on to <other things. ah, quite convenient excuse to bail out when no elegant solution seems possible. blame all the problems on faux-reasons rather than an opportunity for soul-searching. <- the decision to censor the list was made without any discussion on the <list, without any discussion with at least some of the longterm core <contributors, and was presented as a "fait accompli." by their own construction, all insisted that everyone be treated identically on the list, and that no such distinction be made about "longterm core contributors" but thanks for showing up and clarifying your position, timmy. what a tragedy not to routinely see your smiling face here. I for one have "taps" playing on my computer whenever I read the list as a suitable memorial to your past greatness. viva la cypherpunks!

1 0