December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: your mail Re: on anonymity, identity, reputation, and spoofing
by owen＠autodesk.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: m5(a)vail.tivoli.com (Mike McNally) > D. Owen Rowley writes: > > Personally I think that accountability is going to be required as the > > price for reasonably secure encryption, reasonably open access, and > > reasonably secure privacy of data. IMNSHO, it is unreasonable to > > expect an anarcho-libertarian outcome to these issues. If you can > > prove me wrong I will be thrilled. > By whom is accountability going to be required? How will it (or how > can it) be implemented? What sort of mechanisms can be expected to > reliably and universally evolve in the decentralized anarchic network > we know today that will make "paying the price" a meaningful concept? > I con't prove you wrong because I cannot understand what you predict. The comercial use of internet is growing at a very fast rate, and it is predicted to overtake other uses in scope eventually. wide scale networks provide capabilitys which are very attractive to a variety of business enterprises. I suspect that a first pass will be made to try and use internet and the current suite of protocols and services as they are now. I also suspect that such attempts will flush out a whole raft of problems and deficiencies along with those who exploit such things. Hopefully new protocols and services can be developed which will minimise vulnerability and maximise protection for bussiness assets while allowing us as much freedom as possible. Nobody really knows what those things will be, and it is sorta problematic to make public laundrey lists of vulnerabilitys without some sort of idea how to deal with cleaning up the mess. We are going to have to learn by example. My main point though is that eventually business will find decentralised anarchic networks to be hostile territory, and will move on to less vulnerable, more reliable networks where user authentication, and accountable security are provided. It may be that there will be barriers between the anarchic networks and the business-place networks,that require users to provide proof of identity before they can pass. >>It seems to me that multimedia extensions have an *unfolding of the lotus >>like effect upon the issues involved. > Explain: is it because of the medium itself or because of the nature > of information that'll be available with multimedia delivery systems? yes. :-) seriously.. note that you asked "because of the medium itself". It's multiMedia, thats jargon for multiple mediums interacting with each other, and presenting data interactively on multiple fronts. It means an unfolding from two dimensional thinking ( text) to three dimensional thinking ( virtual reality ). > > I also see very little regarding potential for breaking the mind machine > > link, or biologic interfaces? > Uhhhh, OK. perhaps you are unaware of some of the more starling things that are being done with biofeedback interfaces. but even more simply than that.. lets take something mundane and achievable like hand gestures sensed by the data-glove. you want to get a privileged message to a colleague. If you can both access a data-space in real time and view an interactive simulation of each other in a prileged manner that insures no one else can capture and render either view, all you need to do is communicate via ASL or even a proprietary sign language, via the dataglove interface. this is very doable.. right now. let the Intelligence analysts chew on that! BTW, that scenario was suggested to me by an individual of my aquaintance who lives on the other side of the --uh-- tracks. he was very keen to be able to have such privileged communication, and cost is no factor to him, he pays in cash. (I should point out that I turned down the offer to contract the application) we are about to enter into an era of computing that provides quite a bit of potential to evade surveilance just because of the sheer multitude of possibilities. This is what is really driving those who want to do surveilance mad. Don't be surprsed if the ultimate result is draconian restriction in order to reduce the odds that are currently in our favor. Don't be surprised if you see your decentralised anarchic net go away and never return. LUX ./. owen

2 1

request for Pgp
by NAME GARY 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm new at this, and i don't want to ask any favors (i've seen what can happen to others that do) but i just need someone to tell me where i can find the pgp program so i can start to learn for myselt. all you have to do is give me the ftp site, and i don't care how much i get flamed because it'll be worth it.

2 1

Internet makes resistance futile, Clinton aide warns
by jbugden＠alis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Internet makes resistance futile, Clinton aide warns This byline appeared in The Financial Post of July 24, 1997 at the top of the front page. The subsequent article discussed not crypto, but Canadian attempts to regulate television content. Even so, the second paragraph is succinct, and applicable to both debates. "Ira Magaziner, Clinton's international emissary on the issue of how governments should respond to the explosive growth of business on the Net, said any attempt to regulate its content would not only be a mistake, it would be futile." Perhaps someone should get Mr. Magaziner back to Washington to explain this to the administration. Ciao, James jbugden(a)alis.com Great minds think alike, fools seldom differ.

1 0

Re: Photocopying money
by catalyst＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>It's the same chip that's used in vending machines to scan dollar bills. To my knowledge, vending machines don't do optical recognition. They have a pair of photo-sensors, it's true, but these are used in conjunction with tractors only to measure the bill. Another sensor decodes the magnetic ink to determine validity and denomination. I saw this demonstrated recently on a PBS science program. Scott Collins | "Few people realize what tremendous power there | is in one of these things." -- Willy Wonka ......................|................................................ BUSINESS. voice:408.862.0540 fax:974.6094 collins(a)newton.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. 5 Infinite Loop, MS 305-2B Cupertino, CA 95014 ....................................................................... PERSONAL. voice/fax:408.257.1746 1024:669687 catalyst(a)netcom.com

3 4

Re: Backing
by Matthew J Miszewski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The problem with using a concrete anfd finite source to back ypour currency is that it is just that...finite. This causes many economic problems for the social/economic system founded on it. I was barely a pup when the world first discovered this... er...that is when everyone in the mainstream allowed economists to be heard. Remember the Gold Standard? --Matt ______________________________________________________________________________ "This new technology (the printing press) threatened the Crown, which shuddered at the thought of widespread dissemination of works advocating religious heresy and political upheaval. The Crown's solution to the problem was a system of regulation designed to control this "dangerous" art." -From my Copyright Law Text (refrencing the Statute of Anne - the first Copyright Statute) (c)1993 ______________________/___________________________________mjmiski(a)macc.wisc.edu

2 1

Re: Clipper Chip report on 700 Club today (Wednesday)
by mlshew＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was asked in private mail how the show went. I'll write up a proper summary later, but for now, rest assured that it was a most excellent report. There were a few technical inaccuracies here and there, (~"Clipper is the most secure encryption device they've come up with yet"), but for the most part, if you were out to give a ten minute explanation of the facts of life in regards to encryption to people who would never read _Wired_, and actually spread useful and non-hostile memes, you'd have a hard time outdoing that segment of the 700 club. They interviewed a number of people, including a spokesman from NIST, EFF, and Dorothy Denning herself. The guy summarizing the situation at the end mentioned how the government claims these regulations are just for child molestors, terrorists, and criminals, but that after any regulatory sytem is in place, there's nothing to keep them from redefining who the criminals are, and so monitor anyone they like. I'll write up a better summary in a few days. (Remember: 10pm and 2am on the Family Channel. I'd recommend watching it if you still can.) -Mark Shewmaker

3 2

Re: JUDGMENT PROOFING
by hfinney＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Something in the way of a test post, to see if I can get through to toad.com yet...] From: "Robert J. Woodhead" <trebor(a)foretune.co.jp> > Thus, the difference is that today, it's much harder to be > discreet -- the encryption is a red flag. "What's he hiding?" > And as any intelligence analyst can tell you, even traffic analysis > can tell you a _lot_. This is exactly what anonymous remailers are for - to defeat traffic analysis. The goal is a situation where you, and everyone else, receives and sends out a bunch of encrypted traffic every day. There will be no way a snooper can find out exactly what you are reading, what you are writing, or whom you are communicating with. That's what I call private. Hal Finney hfinney(a)shell.portal.com

1 0

ANNONYMOUS BANK ACCOUNTS
by Sandy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT Reply to: ssandfort(a)attmail.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Punksters, Robert J. Woodhead suggested: . . . Rather than aspire to join the alleged clique of rich and powerful tax evaders, might it not be better to aspire to develop techniques that both maintain privacy but guarantee that they have to pay their share of the load. . . . Oh Robert, the clique is hardly alleged. Their there whether you like the idea or not. Strong crypto can do far more than merely maintain privacy while we try--in vain--to fairly share the load. It can help us *reduce and ultimately eliminate* the load for rich and poor alike. If you want to submit to taxes to buy piece, go right ahead. I'll put my faith in crypto anarchy. Mr. Woodhead went on in another post: . . . the difference is that today, it's much harder to be discreet -- the encryption is a red flag. "What's he hiding?" And as any intelligence analyst can tell you, even traffic analysis can tell you a _lot_. . . . Nope, where message volume is high, encryption is lost in the noise. When encryption is wide-spread, it's not a read flag. If steganography is used, there is no flag at all. Remailers make traffic analysis extremely difficult or impossible. Finally, the traditional methods are still just as effective as always. I'll say it again: We have already won. S a n d y >>>>>> Please send e-mail to: ssandfort(a)attmail.com <<<<<< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

pseudospoofed out
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cypherpunks, I use the internet for a lot of serious activities, and it deeply troubles me to think that I have been vicitimized by pseudospoofers in areas outside of merely the cypherpunks list such as in the numerous FAQs I edit (a very time consuming endeavor) or in my other favorite mailing lists. I feel like my blood has been drained by parasites that suck my prose and passions. Since there is absolutely no support for any `True Names' here whatsoever, I volunteer to drop the subject. And of course I am just another blip on this list, so my ideas for its improvement mean nothing, and I will not *ever* make a proposition again here regarding the subject. however, A PERSONAL REQUEST I humbly request that ANYONE SENDING ME PERSONAL MAIL have the decency to do so under their `True Name' or `obviously anonymously' under the same identity. Do not deceive me for perverted sport. Do not try to build up trust merely so that you can betray it. Do not manipulate me simply because you have the capability or because I am a basically trusting person. This sentiment is equivalent to something like `if a woman doesn't carry a gun then it's OK to rape her' and it is one of the most alarming aspects of what I have seen promoted here and in the general `hacker' community. `nothing is wrong if you can get away with it.' I believe that there is no such thing as a `consequentless action'. Please, do not drag *me* into the gutter because you like to wallow there. If anyone has deceived me in manipulating me with multiple pseudonyms in my personal email, please inform me *now*. I believe this is the absolute least that *anyone* could ask on the internet. Another point to make is that Usenet & current mailing lists are far from the future models. I fundamentally believe that `true name' systems are entirely socially desirable and can be erected without invading privacy. Anyone who claims that `true names' and `privacy' are fundamentally incompatible is simply mistaken. Does `absolute privacy' mean that no one *ever* knows who *anyone* is? It seems to me the ability to differentiate identities or reject their input based on `true names' is a basic right of the listener. You do not have a right to bludgeon me with identical opinions from an unrepresentative arsenal of imaginary identities. I suspect some of the people advocating `absolute privacy' are themselves currently using powerful tools to detect pseudospoofing others do not possess. Is that the cypherpunk Utopian ideal? A place where you can manipulate people without them knowing it? let others drown in mud while you trample atop their backs? Also, please do not deceive the press. T.C. May has recently satirically suggested that some of the Wired pictures are of hired actors. I don't find this funny. If the `cypherpunks' are really something other than that which they claim, it will eventually and inevitably come back to haunt the `movement,' whatever it is (algorithms or ideology? I no longer care). History and society is far more shrewd than that. If pseudospoofing is really the #1 cypherpunk agenda, please make that clear. `We want to fool everyone with brainwashing techniques so they are at the mercy of our whim.' One of my attractions to cyberspace was the promise of making online friends, and I have made many over many months. But the idea that some psychopaths are sending me email just to leech my strong emotions and play with my passions, like a cat does a captured mouse, perhaps even with the support of a large and complex software `arsenal' designed specifically to promote camouflage and manipulation, perhaps on a very widespread scale involving multiple lists, I find reprehensible and inherently evil. Please, choose another lab rat victim. My whole `cyberspatial reality' has been cast into doubt. Who's real? Who's fake? I used to really look forward to reading and responding to my mail, but now I approach it with dread, horror, and nausea. I don't even know if who I am talking to on the phone is who they say they are anymore, or if I really have any true cyberspatial friendships, because of all the pseudospoofing in my mailbox. There are some among you who say `welcome to the real world'. Are you people saying that man's natural state is confusion, desperation, and paranoia? I am not opposed to `pseudonymity' and multiple reputations of couse. But the strong sentiments on this list that I should be kept *guessing* I find abhorrent. What is most disturbing is the possibility of a single entity attempting to stick someone's psyche in a vice by systematic and concerted assaults from multiple supposedly `unique' identities in private email. This is like dealing with a tentacled octopus-monster. What could be more depraved? This is nothing but vicious interrogation and brainwashing. I'm simply in favor of truth in advertising, and I think this list has been misrepresented as a `forum' when it's nothing but a hotbed of pseudospoofing, possibly even aided by automatic software tools. Someone tell me, how long have I been arguing with AI programs anyway? Trully, I never would have subscribed if I had realized the `practice' of pseudospoofing was epidemic. I mean, I suspected there were isolated cases, but now it appears a large part of traffic is manufactured flames and froth. Does anyone have any idea how much time has been wasted wading or even arguing with opinions that were nothing but mirages? I'm deeply disillusioned. But of course, who cares? Certainly not the leadership or the followers. I'm not sure that some of the `identities' I've been dealing with over the past few months really have any basic morality. I suspect there are some demagogues that tout `privacy' while really subtly and insideously promoting dishonesty, sociopathism, treachery, and barbarianism. An example: I am on another mailing list where I posted a long article as a `gift' to the subscribers. I got some favorable comments, except from the moderator who said that `people are shocked at what you did.' I asked him. What people? What did they say? He backed down. But imagine that someone slandered me with a worthless pseudonym? and, in fact, even if they mailed *me* would I be able to tell that they didn't care about the reputation of that pseudonym? It seems to me that there is a basic idea of reputation and postings. To a degree, if you haven't earned a reputation in some subject, you should be disqualified from pontificating on it, irrelevant of your arsenal of pseudonyms. Filters based on reputations may help make this a reality. (I would personally like to ban my mailbox of all opinionated pseudonyms who have not read more than 2 of my posts.) I remember E.H. once announcing to the list that J. Markoff had unsubscribed. Who's really in favor of privacy? Is everybody here really interested in `privacy' as an `offensive weapon'? `Privacy' as a way of evading taxes? `privacy' as a way of manipulating or betraying the gullible and trusting for perverted pleasure? `privacy' as destroying social order and promoting anarchy? Really, nevermind. please, don't send me any more blistering flames. These are rhetorical questions. In fact, this is a rhetorical essay.

2 2

Re: pseudospoofed out
by jrk＠sys.uea.ac.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

L. Detweiler writes: >I'm simply in favor of truth in advertising, and I think this list has >been misrepresented as a `forum' when it's nothing but a hotbed of >pseudospoofing, possibly even aided by automatic software tools. ... >I'm not sure that some of the `identities' I've been dealing with over >the past few months really have any basic morality. I suspect there are >some demagogues that tout `privacy' while really subtly and insideously >promoting dishonesty, sociopathism, treachery, and barbarianism. I note that "S.Boxx" is saying much the same. Who is pseudospoofing whom? >I would personally >like to ban my mailbox of all opinionated pseudonyms who have not read >more than 2 of my posts. Well, go ahead. Mail readers that support kill files exist already. -- ____ Richard Kennaway __\_ / School of Information Systems Internet: jrk(a)sys.uea.ac.uk \ X/ University of East Anglia uucp: ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk \/ Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.

1 0