December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Constitution and a Right to Privacy
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> >Greg Broiles wrote: >> At 11:56 PM 2/19/97 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >> >It's good if you don't read the L.A. Times. One of their lead editor- >> >ializers (whores), a professor at USC law school named Erwin Chemerinsky, >> >writes in relation to this subject "The federal government is an inde- >> >pendent sovereign that cannot have its powers diminished by a state >> >government's actions." (exact quote, 2/7/97). Either that's a load of >> >BS doubletalk, or it's one of the more fascistic commentaries from the >> >Times, which is usually bad enough. >> Hey, don't forget to shoot the messenger. Chemerinsky's statement is a >> concise summary of at least the last 70 years of double jeopardy >> jurisprudence. The only thing that's unusual about the use of the "dual >> sovereign" doctrine against the cops who beat King was that it's usually >> used against ordinary citizens, not cops. Do you suppose it's possible >I understood clearly the (supposed) intent of the feds in retrying >the Whites in the South who were beating up on Blacks and getting >off with White juries - I just believe they would have served the >people better by declaring mistrials or something instead of using >the "dual sovereignty" BS, since a study of the Constitution and >its preparatory papers shows the fathers clearly would have balked >at this. I had understood the basic reasons for the double jeopardy limit to be two: A. to prevent government from tormenting innocent individuals with repeated trials; and B. to prevent convictions of innocents by simple repeated trials until a jury made a mistake. The latter can be analogized in statistics to the consideration that a test with a p value of .05 will turn out false positive results 1 time in 20 by the nature of it; thus, if you look at two different studies/trials with an independent (an oversimplifying assumption for trials, admittedly) 5% chance of an incorrect conviction, the chance is 1-((19/20)(19/20)) or 9.75% for _either_ of them turning out a false positive instead of a 5% chance. In a system partially based on the principle that it's better to let the guilty go free than to punish the innocent, this result is not acceptable. While the founding fathers probably didn't realize the mathematics behind the second, I suspect that they had some intuition of its nature. I can see an argument, however, for using it in the case of state employees, particularly police - the state judicial/prosecutorial system can hardly be said not to be biased in favor of them. A better solution, however, would be to simply do the trial in a federal court to begin with. (Having trials of federal employees in the courts of the state of their alleged victims would be a correspondingly good idea, although multiple possible states for this could be a problem.) I'd appreciate comments from persons with more legal knowledge than I have; I am simply going by logic here. -Allen

1 0

Re: Why Digital Video Disks are late to market
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> ... there apparently has been some speculation among the U.S. PC community > that Matsushita may be stonewalling on the software-licensing issue so that > it can establish its hardware-based decryption solution in the marketplace. The day it gets published in software is the day someone runs a disassembler on it. That's all there is to it.

2 1

security breached by NaughtyRobot
by eiwasaki＠gol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

HELP! Can anyone tell me what this message is that I received in my mail today? Is it real? Should I do as it suggests? I have used the Internet once to purchase some books? Was my credit card number stolen in the process? How did this happen and how will it affect me? What should I do? PLEASE ADVISE ASAP! Thank you for your help Ellen Iwasaki Kumamoto, Japan > From: eiwasaki(a)gol.com > Date: Wed, 19 Feb 97 02:27 CST > Apparently-From: eiwasaki(a)gol.com > Apparently-To: eiwasaki(a)gol.com > Reply-to: eiwasaki(a)gol.com > Registered-mail-reply-requested-by: eiwasaki(a)gol.com > Sensitivity: PERSONAL-CONFIDENTIAL > Precedence: EMERGENCY > Priority: URGENT > Comment: Authenticated sender is <eiwasaki(a)gol.com> > Organization: NaughtyRobot > Subject: security breached by NaughtyRobot > > This message was sent to you by NaughtyRobot, an Internet spider that > crawls into your server through a tiny hole in the World Wide Web. > > NaughtyRobot exploits a security bug in HTTP and has visited your host > system to collect personal, private, and sensitive information. > > It has captured your Email and physical addresses, as well as your phone > and credit card numbers. To protect yourself against the misuse of this > information, do the following: > > 1. alert your server SysOp, > 2. contact your local police, > 3. disconnect your telephone, and > 4. report your credit cards as lost. > > Act at once. Remember: only YOU can prevent DATA fires. > > This has been a public service announcement from the makers of > NaughtyRobot -- CarJacking its way onto the Information SuperHighway. >

2 1

"cypherpunks is dead..."
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"...long live cypherpunks?" "So long, and thanks for all the fish?" But, seriously, folks... Lucky Green echoed many of my own thoughts when he talked about all the things being on this list has meant to him. Like Lucky, there is a rediculously huge list of things that this list has taught me over the almost three (wow..) years or so that I've been here. Thanks to all of you here, I have had nothing short of a Copernican transformation in my perception of the universe, and it completely changed what I wanted to do with the rest of my life. From the very first time I started reading this list and applying what I learned here to what I already knew, right then, for the first time in a *very* long time, I knew *exactly* how some very important pieces of the world actually worked, and more important, why they were going to change. I now *know* where the world is going to go. Maybe not when, of course, but certainly where and how. :-) (Old stock picker's joke: "I can tell you what. I can tell you when. I can't tell you both. If I did, I wouldn't tell *you*.") Anyway, I've learned all these things from many cypherpunks, some still here, and a lot who've left. I expect that, as we move into the next phase of this "group", we'll continue to teach ourselves much more about the world and strong cryptography's effect on it. But, nothing will compare to the feeling we'll get when we remember the time we've spent here at Toad Hall. We have John Gilmore to thank for the "lodgings", of course, and, certainly, for his encouragement and support. And, obviously, his tolerance, which finally sagged and broke under the weight of both his expectations and those of our own. We also have to thank Tim May for his um, ideological, presence on this list from since before it existed, :-), and, or course, for his current "leadership", both moral and political. (Of course, I can say all the next few wierd and gushy things about him without fear of refutation on his part, 'cause, in his wisdom, I'm still in his killfile ;-)) It was Tim who was our compass. It was Tim who came down from the mountain and stopped us from worshiping the fatted calf of censorship, and who is now leading us into the promised land of unfettered discourse, both on usenet and on the new cypherpunk server network. Since Tim paper-trained most of us here (myself included, though some may debate how well he succeeded :-)), that is, how to behave on this list, and, most important, how to imagine what a world of strong crytography on ubiquitous networks would look like, I now find his "leading" us out onto the net, and away from Sinai, most symmetrical indeed. :-). And so, in this last 24 hours or so on toad.com, I want to thank *both* Tim and John. But, also, I personally want to thank the "money-punks". People like Eric Hughes, and Perry Metzger, and Ian Goldberg, and Hal Finney, and Lucky Green, and Duncan Frissell, and Black Unicorn, and many, many other people, who have helped me work through, on this list, or in private e-mail, or, occasionally, in person, all of the stuff they know, and the stuff I have figured out myself. All about e$, about digital bearer certificate markets, about microintermediation. All the things which completely occupy almost all my waking thoughts these days. Because of this list's effect on my life, I have been motivated to start the Digital Commerce Society of Boston, to evangelize financial cryptography to any audience who would listen to me, to create a web site dedicated to e$, to create a group of e$ lists with some 300 total subscribers, to work with Vinnie Moscaritolo to create both the Mac-Crypto lists and conferences, to work with Vince Cate and Ray Hirschfeld to create the world's first peer-reviewed conference on financial cryptography, and with Vince and Ian Goldberg to create the world's first intensive financial cryptography bootcamp (which is going on as I write this). To create, with Vinnie, and Rachel Wilmer, and Anthony Templer, and Bob Antia, and Rodney Thayer, the next generation of the e$ website and mailing lists. Next week, I go to FC97 in Anguilla because of the things I've learned on this list. In the middle of March, I go to Cupertino to help Vinnie with Mac-Crypto 2.0, because of the things I've learned on this list. I've been invited to speak all over the world (and New Hampshire, too :-)) to talk about this stuff. I get quoted in the newspapers. I write magazine op-ed pieces. It has even earned me a buck or two. :-). In short, I owe everything I do of any consequence these days to my participation on this list, and, for that, I'm profoundly grateful to all of you for the privelege of being here: to listen, to learn, and, occasionally, to pay back all the stuff I've learned with a thing or two that I've worked out myself. Like that creosote bush I talked about before, cypherpunks is not going to die just because the address "cypherpunks(a)toad.com" ceases to exist. There are already 3rd-order cypherpunks lists out there. 3rd generation copies of the same "memetic" material. cypherpunks will *never* die, short of a cybernetic Chixalub event of some kind, and, frankly, even then. The internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it. So. In a very real sense, today on cypherpunks is like any other day in the life of a creosote bush. It's a big desert, folks. We're the only ones who know how to live out here. The whole damn desert, as far as the eye can see, is ours to move into. All we have to do is keep filling in the empty spots... Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/

4 3

Re: Depends / Re: Senate spams
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn wrote: [snip--left nut] > it would be nice > to try to draw more of a connection between the ideas and ideals and > the reality of the list, otherwise, we'll all wind up looking like > hypocrites. If I post missives misinterpreting your own words and intentions, then you may no doubt be seen as a hypocrite to the gullible, or to those who choose to limit their world view by reading my posts and killfiling yours. In either case, I don't think this is a reason for you to lose a lot of sleep. > I personally don't see anything wrong with limiting > postings to subscribers, as long as subscriptions are open to all. > I also don't see anything wrong with warning a poster about commercial > messages, or other technical problems such as attaching really huge > files to go to the list, since all uncensored forums do this and > everyone I know of agrees with it. To have this option seemed to me to be an area of common agreement among CypherPunks list subscribers at the time of the 'Laker's fans named Bubba' mailboming of the list via forged subscriptions to a sports forum. The attempts to label, as hypocrites, those who thereafter complained about the fascist measures taken by self-appointed list saviors, are nothing more than anal-retentive smoke blowing. I have an efficient ISP provider and can, for a reasonable price, not worry about excessive download time, etc. The real-world reality is that there are those for whom paying to download the results of mailbomb attacks constitutes a denial of service to them. There are undoubtedly also others whose financial and personal time constraints may make a filtered version of the list attractive to them, and thus lead to them retaining their interest in crypto issues, instead of losing interest. I have not seen any of the anti-censorship elements in the CypherPunks suggest that there should not be alternatives available for those whose personal needs and/or interests are better served by various methods of filtering. To attempt to force UCE/Spam on those ill-equipped to deal with it serves no purpose other than to lessen the number of people who will have information in regard to the issues surrounding strong crypto. > The "problem" here (if there is one) is determining SPAM and the like > on a case-by-case basis. Suggestions have been floated here, but as > far as I know, none have been implemented. Igor has implemented spam-attack measures, and has been straightforward in both revealing these measures and asking for opinions in regard to his actions and proposals. I do not anticipate Igor resorting to furtive methodologies in self- servingly manipulating posts but, at the same time, I monitor what is going on in the background of the various lists. I regard 'trust' as something that should be undertaken with one's eyes open, just the same. > The real test, of course, > is when deletions do occur, whether there are any complaints, and > how those complaints are handled. Thankfully, the CypherPunks list will likely never lack for paranoid subscribers to raise warning flags whenever nefarious activities take place in regard to the list (or when the computer 'burps', either). It is up to the individual subscriber to separate the realities from the delusions. (I myself count on the space aliens to provide me with advice and support from the messages I receive from them when the Scotch I drink shorts out the spaces between the mercury fillings in my teeth. You may have a different method.) -- Toto ----------------------------- "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html

1 0

Re: Pro-CODE Crypto Bill
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Alan Olsen wrote: > At 12:47 PM 3/2/97 -0500, John Young wrote: > >We've put the new Senate Pro-CODE encryption bill at: > > http://jya.com/s377.htm (23K) > There is an interesting addition to the bill that I have not seen discussed > here yet. The pro-code bill has added an "Information Security Board". This > provision worries me. It sound like a nice little rubber hose committee. > ("The House Committee on Unamerican Encryption"?) > Any opinions on this new development? As long as Senator Charlie McCarthy is heading the committee, then I can't foresee any problems. (But, for the record, I do not know Alan Olsen, and have never been associated with him personally, or member of any group with which he is associated.) Excuse me, I hear a pounding on the door... -- Toto ----------------------------- "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html

1 0

Re: Pro-CODE Bill
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Upon looking over the bill in question (helpfully provided in a more accessible location by jya), I do have some concerns over whether it allows for anonymous remailer export - it has a provision stating Nothing in this Act may be construed to affect any law intended to prevent the- (2) illegal or unauthorized distribution or release of classified, confidential, or proprietary information; or (3) enforcement of Federal or State criminal law. Which causes some question in my mind whether it would cover laws against or discouraging anonymous remailers. (While the Supreme Court would probably find outlawing anonymous remailers to be unconstitutional, laws discouraging their export or other lesser forms of harrassment might still pass muster, unfortunately.) -Allen

1 0

DES Challenge / Who'da Thunk It?
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It seems that all of the efforts to meet the DES Challenge are being sabotaged on one level or another. The des-challenge(a)muffin.org group have never been able to fly on more than one wing. The New Media Laboratories effort has been plagued by rogue clients and its participants being subjected to varieties of interference/trojan-horses. Peter Trei's software has been appearing on international servers, with bugs which don't match those in the original source code. Pointers to BryDES software have turned out to be misdirected, in many cases. I suspect that if the 'New Coke' had hired RSA's people, that we would all be drinking their 'imitation Pepsi' product, instead of 'Classic Coke', as God intended us to do. Crayola had the foresight to call upon RSA's expertise, and, as a result, the wool was pulled over the public's eyes and they came to accept the 'new' colors, even though they are part of the 'plot' against the Visual Illuminatti. Perhaps these new revelations will lead to people taking my posts to this list more seriously in the future. -- Toto ----------------------------- "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html

1 0

Re: Pro-CODE Bill
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The following provision also causes me some doubts about exactly what will be allowed for export: (B) Exception.--The Secretary shall prohibit the export or reexport of particular software and computer hardware described in this subsection to an identified individual or organization in a specific foreign country if the Secretary determines that there is substantial evidence that such software and computer hardware will be-- (iv) intentionally used to evade enforcement of United States law or taxation by the United States or by any State or local government. which could be construed to cover anonymous remailers, fully anonymous digital cash, anything set up to verify gambling fairness, and various other things of interest to Cypherpunks (including the use of PGP by, say, a drug "kingpin"). Admittedly, the "identified individual or organization in a specific foreign country" will help in limiting this application. -Allen

1 0

Re: Depends / Re: Senate spams
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

snow wrote: > I think that any reasonable person could assume that missives f > from "mailer-daemon" could safely be excluded from the list. It is doubtful > that anyone out there has such a login, and if they do, well, it is stupid > enough that ignoring it would be doing them a favor (After a while they > _might_ get the idea that no one with a clue SENDS mail "mailer-deamon", > and change their login. I'd like to see a show of hands to see how many list members have received any posts from nancy.net/sally.net/conentric.net that they didn't personally delete without reading. These people don't seem to realize that the CypherPunks aren't interested in finding out how to "Make Big $$$ At Home, Licking Your Own Dick", because we do it anyway, without any expectations other than our own, personal reward. I do find snow's post rather embarassing, however, since I just sent an email asking mailer-daemon to marry me. It's bad enough being rejected, but being auto-rejected really cuts to the bone. -- Toto http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html

1 0