December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

D. Barnes
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>You have become major pest, you have done more than anyone else to >disrupt this list and make it next to impossible for real work to get >done on it (including work that would help mitigate problems of the >kind you believe your "enemies" are perpetrating on you.) please, characterize this `work' and your own involvement in it. >we don't see pseudospoofing as a "danger" like you >do. Personally, I consider it a necessity. I like being able to hide >behind an anonymous identity (not that I do, mind you). I don't see >pseudospoofing as "constraining". On the contrary, I see it as >freeing us. oh.

1 0

*hot* pseudospoofing ideas!
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

here's an interesting idea. Suppose that whenever cypherpunks in favor of pseudospoofing emailed me, I put all their posts into a big pot. Since they all advocate the same ideas, I would just file all the different paragraphs in favor of pseudanonymity, against democracy, in favor of anarchy, in favor of tax evasion etc. in different folders. Then, whenever one of the cypherpunks sends me mail, I just pick a paragraph at random from the folders that match his idea. I could do this with public postings too. I have been filling out very many form letters lately anyway on the same old tired, depraved ideas. And I might even have a lot of fun with misattributing people's writing. That would be quite clever! I'm sure the cypherpunks would get a great kick out of that. The blurring of identities is perfect. No one would know who said what! Why, I might even put together software that promotes all this, and turn it loose on the Cypherpunks list (but of course, not tell anyone--that would take all the fun of it, and besides, if they knew they might leave). There's nothing unethical about it, because I *can* do it. It would be like those scenarios right out of that great science fiction, like Enders Game. I could pretend that different cypherpunks existed. No one would care. The effect would be the same. They are all interchangeable anyway. there is only a message.

1 0

Re: *hot* pseudospoofing ideas!
by Jef Poskanzer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>here's an interesting idea. Suppose that whenever cypherpunks in favor >of pseudospoofing emailed me, I put all their posts into a big pot.... Say.... Does anyone have an archive of Detweiler's messages handy? There's this nifty program called "travesty" that I suddenly have an urge to play with. --- Jef

1 0

A Glimmer of Light
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Some miscellaneous psychopunk (I forget who, they are all interchangeable) said >> <sigh> nobody is interested in preventing pseudospoofing here. the >> people who have most maneuvered themselves into a position to aid >> future cyberspace are instead constraining it. that's the point, isn't >> it? gosh, how could I have been so blind... > >I think its because we don't see pseudospoofing as a "danger" like you >do. Personally, I consider it a necessity. I like being able to hide >behind an anonymous identity (not that I do, mind you). I don't see >pseudospoofing as "constraining". On the contrary, I see it as >freeing us. wow! a break in the clouds! a breath of fresh air! who is `we'? please elaborate! This miscellaneous psychopunk is posting from MIT. Do you think his burdensome flesh-cucoon is in Boston? or California? AT LAST! HONESTY! (even if it is criminal or perverted) Psychopunks, I'm most impressed with this new atmosphere of open advocation of pseudoanonymity instead of all the black disinformation snippets about `true anonymity' and all the other nonsense about it not being widespread, no cypherpunks being personally involved, etc. for the dreary 10 months or so I've been here. What trouble and heartache for all of us you have caused me in pretending it isn't! Finally, they Come Out of the Closet. Imagine -- having to hide in your own neighborhood for so long. Really, it's all right. There, there. When will the articles on Pseudospoofing come out in Wired and NYT? Oh, let's see, there's Newsweek and all those other places too. Please, tell me, I'm really in a tizzy. I'll have to call Mr. Kelly and Mr. Markoff and tell them of your new openness. I'm sure they will be quite interested! So, I would like to collect a list of all the Psychopunks who are PSEUDOSPOOFERS and PROUD OF IT. Please, describe your lovely techniques, all the pain and victimization you have gone through from your tormenters (like me), and how you are going to Change the World so that Pseudospoofers can Live without Harassment. `Live and Let Live'. Sort of like Gay Pride. When are you going to stick it in your charter, anyway? How pseudospoofing == privacy == anonymity == pseudoanonymity == pseudonymity == holy liberation == bliss? What a delicious mystery. Life a SF book by Card. What a Card. Also, I'm still waiting for some kind of comment from those *fabulous* leaders of yours. They're so coy with me. They've been flirting with me since I've been on the list. It's really sexy and erotic, actually, the way they strut around. You can look, but you can't touch! They're real masters at the dance. Ooooooh... just FABULOUTHS.

1 0

Re: The Contortions of Cypherpunks
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>N.Szabo <szabo(a)netcom.com> in RISKS > >>I'd like to assure the readers of RISKS that I am in fact a unique person, >>distinct from the other names L. Detweiler listed. Of the people on his list >>I know from personal contact, all are distinct people in Real Life(tm). > >Give specific evidence to support your claim or retract it. Who do you >know from personal contact? What do you mean that you are `distinct >from other names'? I have had lunch with both Tim May and Nick Szabo, and can verify that they simultaneously sat in different seats, wore different clothes, ate different lunches, and had different quantities of facial hair. I have, further, had lunch with Perry Metzger on another occasion and will testify that he is, to the best of my ability to ascertain, neither of the aforementioned people. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

the Pseudospoofer Game
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey guys, you are so clever with the cyberspatial software tricks. Here's something I think you should come up with. THE PSEUDOSPOOFING GAME I haven't got all the details of this worked out yet, but bear with me. The scenario is that this would be a game you play on a machine that is a lot like a mail server, except that it is dedicated to the game and everyone knows it (I know you guys won't like that idea, but bear with me.) The object of the game is to uncover each other's true identities. When you start the game, there are a certain number of other real people out there. They all get a fixed number of `pseudoanonyms' (of course, names that look real but aren't). There would be both public and private postings. You have to try to determine who everyone is by analyzing their style and subjects (and of course, evade detection with ingenious cypherpunk techniques). You could use any of your tentacles in any way, public or private, just like on this list (which is a great inspiration for the game, BTW). Every once in awhile, you might make accusations on true reputations, after you have built up enough certainty. The points of the game would depend on how correct you are. You might `bet' different points on various identities. You might be able to bargain with others to collude with you by trading points or something. Maybe there is some kind of mechanisms whereby tentacles are weakened after a lot of accusations or something. Obviously, the possibilities are really endless. All the agent provacateur, double agent, etc. gimmicks you inflicted on me (your white lab rat) could be used there. Maybe `credit' could be synonymous with `reputation' -- when you flame someone successfully others can transfer points between the two, rate your reputations explicitly. You could always rate other people at any time. There might be `public ratings' that are the averages of all the private ratings that everyone knows about. These ratings might tend to fluctuate based on behavior. For example, when somebody lies their rating would go down if other's suspected it. If someone was a hypocrite, it would come back to haunt them in the `bottom line'. The more confused and insane you drive someone with disinformation and lies (dishonesty is the name of the game, after all!) the better. Who knows, you might be able to *really* upset someone over nothing but meaningless ASCII text! Nothing but messages. That would be their own fault for taking it seriously. These `pseudospoofed virgins' should be raped for great sport and satisfaction. You could get together afterwards and drink a few beers and brag about your scores and conquests, and how they wailed or cried at the end. I suppose you could even figure out how to have imaginary postmasters that can censor various real identities if their reputations drop too low, or some other capricious criteria. Maybe you could even design in mail bombs. I'm sure you guys could bang this whole thing together pretty fast, with all your skill, ambition, and practice. But you might have difficulty attracting players if you want to keep it secret and all to yourselves. Another thing, is that everyone would learn about pseudospoofing. That is what you want, right? Since it's their stupidity if they fall for this kind of puerile fantasy, it's an ideal situation if *everyone* knows about it. The Cypherpunk Way.

1 0

LD Admits he is S.Boxx (oops!)
by Mike Ingle 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

LD really blew it this time. One has to be very careful when one maintains multiple identities - it is easy to mix them up and reveal one's deception. As we will see: In the following message, LD quotes S.Boxx: =========================================================================== From: IN%"ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu" "L. Detweiler" 15-NOV-1993 To: IN%"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" CC: IN%"ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu" Subj: some pseudopool FUN S.Boxx: > <sigh> nobody is interested in preventing pseudospoofing here. the > people who have most maneuvered themselves into a position to aid > future cyberspace are instead constraining it. that's the point, isn't > it? gosh, how could I have been so blind... =========================================================================== However, that quote was not from S.Boxx. It was from (who else?) LD himself, in this message: =========================================================================== From: IN%"ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu" "L. Detweiler" 14-NOV-1993 To: IN%"warlord(a)MIT.EDU" "Derek Atkins" CC: IN%"ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu" "L. Detweiler", IN%"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" Subj: RE: Key Servers >> I wonder if anyone would want to start a PGP key server dedicated only >> to *real* identities. Obviously, there is no such demand with the >> current ones. > >This defeats the purpose for which the PGP Keyservers were created. >The Keyservers were created to give a *SINGLE* place where you could >go to request a PGP key for some name (and it doesn't matter whether >that name is real or not). <sigh> nobody is interested in preventing pseudospoofing here. the people who have most maneuvered themselves into a position to aid future cyberspace are instead constraining it. that's the point, isn't it? gosh, how could I have been so blind... =========================================================================== Now, LD wrote that quote himself. How could he forget that? How could he mistakenly attribute it to S.Boxx, unless he is S.Boxx? In this message, LD makes a very valid point: =========================================================================== From: IN%"ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu" "L. Detweiler" 14-NOV-1993 To: IN%"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" CC: IN%"ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu" Subj: Soothing Sayings Mr. Barnes, you tried to convince me of the Joy of Pseudospoofing, for which I suggested you were trying to convert me to the Dark Side (actually, I am indebtedly grateful for that beautiful inspiration for my essay). You told me that E.Hughes' lectures on the subject of pseudospoofing were what drew you to it in the first place! But this is buried very deep in my comprehensive archives, from many weeks ago. (I encourage all other cypherpunks to keep very good archives, because some day we will be able to separate all the pseudospoofed identities from real ones, and it will be quite shocking, I assure you. Some prominent cypherpunks are extremely terrified and staunchly opposed to archives, for obvious reasons.) =========================================================================== Yes, LD, good archives certainly do help in catching pseudospoofers. Like you. You have been using S.Boxx to post some of your rants and create a false consensus - exactly what you have argued against so loudly. How hypocritical can you get? Why don't we post this on comp.risks and discredit him and his rants once and for all? Enough of this crap! --- MikeIngle(a)delphi.com

1 0

The unmentionable word
by bart＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm kind of glad not to have just used filter to remove all of his posts sight unseen. Better to see, and note their frequency. Sadly when I instantly hit delete for them and their replies, there is very little left on the list. It's hard to maintain a coherent conversation in the presence of his raving. Won't he ever run down? Sigh Bart

1 0

Great quote from public NIST comments on Clipper
by gnu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

EFF has made available the full file of public comments that were submitted to NIST through the "cryptnow(a)eff.org" service. I found this great quote in there: However, if this standard is adopted, we at least have the opportunity to reduce our dependence on imported oil substantially. All we need do is hook up generators to the bones of the authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I estimate their rotational speed at 2000 RPM now and rising rapidly. Sincerely yours, Richard B. Mott Ringoes, New Jersey The comments are in ftp.eff.org:/pub/crypto/EES_FIPS_Comments.txt . -- John Gilmore gnu(a)toad.com -- gnu(a)cygnus.com -- gnu(a)eff.org ``This committee has not tried to determine whether the National Security Agency tendency to advance exaggerated claims of authority ... stems from conscious policy or the actions of individual NSA employees.'' The Government's Classification of Private Ideas, House Report 96-1540, p. 67

1 0

LD
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -> - From owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Mon Nov 15 01:49:02 1993 To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Cc: ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu Subject: A Glimmer of Light Date: Sun, 14 Nov 93 23:32:06 -0700 From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu> Some miscellaneous psychopunk (I forget who, they are all interchangeable) said <- You know, I've been listening to our Mr. Detweiler here for some time without voicing much other than the occasional "let's get on with more serious business" message to the list. It wasn't until I realized how well Mr. Detweiler fit into a persona archetype I recognized that I even thought I'd dignify his posts to the list with a response. I guess it was this quotation header that clicked it. - -> Some miscellaneous psychopunk (I forget who, they are all interchangeable) said: <- A cynic recognizes the bad in everything and the good in nothing. (Or something to that effect.) Mr. Detweiler seems to have to have a face to associate with all of us to consider us distinct. While he may consider this "normal" I think it's just behind the times. It seems that Mr. Detweiler is offended by the idea that he may not have superficial criteria to judge his associates by in the coming decades. Color of skin, tone of voice, sexual preference, this sort of thing. I think this might make some more sense after we look at some more of Mr. Detweiler's quotes. Just consider the percentage of content in his posts that actually contains some constructive criticism or commentary, this passage is illustrative: - -> wow! a break in the clouds! a breath of fresh air! who is `we'? please elaborate! This miscellaneous psychopunk is posting from MIT. Do you think his burdensome flesh-cucoon (sic) is in Boston? or California? AT LAST! HONESTY! (even if it is criminal or perverted) <- It seems possible that Mr. Detweiler is unable to conduct an open debate without resorting to sarcastic and unprofessional barbs. His arsenal is obviously reduced with the lack of physical characteristics to criticize. Consider: - -> Psychopunks, I'm most impressed with this new atmosphere of open advocation of pseudoanonymity instead of all the black disinformation snippets about `true anonymity' and all the other nonsense about it not being widespread, no cypherpunks being personally involved, etc. for the dreary 10 months or so I've been here. What trouble and heartache for all of us you have caused me in pretending it isn't! Finally, they Come Out of the Closet. Imagine -- having to hide in your own neighborhood for so long. Really, it's all right. There, there. <- Seething with self righteousness and condescending remarks, behind a electronic veil just as much as the rest of us, it seems Detweiler has little of substance beyond emotional appeals that seem to shout "Far right - Lambs of Christ." in their methodology. Given the length, number and intellectual diarrhea styles of his posts, it seems Detweiler has little else to do. It looks to me as if this goes a long way to explain the need to dominate and attract attention. Consider again: - -> When will the articles on Pseudospoofing come out in Wired and NYT? Oh, let's see, there's Newsweek and all those other places too. Please, tell me, I'm really in a tizzy. I'll have to call Mr. Kelly and Mr. Markoff and tell them of your new openness. I'm sure they will be quite interested! <- I'd be surprised to find that Mr. Detweiler has not read any Mike Royko, he tries so hard to emulate him. - -> So, I would like to collect a list of all the Psychopunks who are PSEUDOSPOOFERS and PROUD OF IT. Please, describe your lovely techniques, all the pain and victimization you have gone through from your tormenters (sic) (like me), and how you are going to Change the World so that Pseudospoofers can Live without Harassment. `Live and Let Live'. Sort of like Gay Pride <- Mr. Detweiler really throws his hand here. I suppose we are supposed to be insulted with the analogy to the Gay Pride movement? Perhaps homophobia and privo-phobia are linked somehow? This lofts the scent of the far left centralist socialist or the far right fascist, terrified by discontinuity and even more mortified with the thought that it might be difficult to keep tabs on such individuals. - -> When are you going to stick it in your charter, anyway? How pseudospoofing == privacy == anonymity == pseudoanonymity == pseudonymity == holy liberation == bliss? What a delicious mystery. Life a SF book by Card. What a Card. <- Note the religious reference. - -> Also, I'm still waiting for some kind of comment from those *fabulous* leaders of yours. They're so coy with me. They've been flirting with me since I've been on the list. It's really sexy and erotic, actually, the way they strut around. You can look, but you can't touch! They're real masters at the dance. Ooooooh... just FABULOUTHS. <- I shouldn't need to point out the homosexual references again, but I think it important to note that they are all derogatory in nature. The slur on FABULOUTHS just kills me. - -> Hey guys, you are so clever with the cyberspatial software tricks. Here's something I think you should come up with. THE PSEUDOSPOOFING GAME [About 600 words deleted] These `pseudospoofed virgins' should be raped for great sport and satisfaction. You could get together afterwards and drink a few beers and brag about your scores and conquests, and how they wailed or cried at the end. <- Between homophobia, the introduction of non-consensual sex and Viking locker room talk, the conclusions about Mr. Detweiler's own feelings of inadequacy jump out without much need of assistance. Regardless, Mr. Detweiler's posts are just not present in any constructive commentary it all. He is quite good at stirring up emotions and irritating people beyond their ability to restrain themselves (note my post). But when it comes to any original thought, I've seen little or nothing. He's what I used to call "fluff" in law school. Great at cutting people down with words, but couldn't win an oral argument with a live judge present if it meant his life. Mr. Detweiler seems to think that cute one liners are fatal to reason. Unfortunately, cute cut downs do not a well structured argument make. Middle management material if I ever saw it. Maybe a shift supervisor? "C'mon Williams, your 'ole lady keep you up late last night? Or was it your boyfriend, you queer? Stevens, how nice of you to join us, you're ready for work this morning? Wow! A break in the clouds! A breath of fresh air! Now get to work you bums!" Perfect illustration that a saboteur need not be clever at all, but only disruptive and persistent enough to be annoying and prevent anyone from unharassed constructive discourse. In this regard I'm afraid he's won. There is a agenda here, it seems to me that if Mr. Detweiler is not willing to follow it, and stay ON the path, perhaps he should be asked and then encouraged to leave. I'm sure cries of censorship would abound, but at this point, I feel that these could hardly cause more trouble. - -uni-(Dark) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLOdDSxibHbaiMfO5AQElkgQA4HasxhdjBGFHlLNHpuZz2GtQO25fv/A0 vWiWT4ZGsZ8d1zGT4GxfG8LJv0xcXgIhPFDmw2V8Das1WxhomMsbEcYIxbBU5QCC 2uuT643BBzQpiMLdLMIm1kpkTuAK35dOdnUyBmD5kU5yv8NLPiKa43pGsD9xB891 yv4J9J075rs= =jxF3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0