December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Message returned to sender
by daemon＠fidonet.fidonet.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(Invalid host or address: cypherecho(a)f21.n216.z1.fidonet.org) The address you are trying to send to does not exist on this side of the gateway. If you have any problems, email the postmaster of this gateway for assistance. Please note that the biggest reason for bounced messages is due to a simple typo. Please, double check your spelling! A copy of the original message is listed below: -----8< cut here 8< ------------------------------------ >From owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Wed Feb 2 12:30:16 1994 Received: from relay2.UU.NET by zeus.ieee.org (4.1/Z-3.46-01.31.94) id AA12961; Wed, 2 Feb 94 12:30:16 EST Received: from toad.com by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwbnp25485; Wed, 2 Feb 94 12:25:12 -0500 Received: by toad.com id AA24880; Wed, 2 Feb 94 09:11:06 PST Received: by toad.com id AA24877; Wed, 2 Feb 94 09:11:05 PST Return-Path: <ravage(a)wixer.bga.com> Received: from ghostwheel.bga.com ([198.3.118.4]) by toad.com id AA24873; Wed, 2 Feb 94 09:10:58 PST Received: from wixer.UUCP by ghostwheel.bga.com with UUCP id AA05678 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cypherpunks(a)toad.com) Wed, 2 Feb 1994 11:09:24 -0600 Received: by wixer (5.65/1.35) id AA09079; Wed, 2 Feb 94 11:08:26 -0600 Message-Id: <9402021708.AA09079@wixer> Subject: Archiving on Inet To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 11:08:26 CST From: Jim choate <ravage(a)wixer.bga.com> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] I would like to ask all subscribers who are not addressing the issues of this question to please move their responces to private mail. I have no interest in exploring your personalities or views of others personalities. If a global network is to survive there must be a commen understanding of what is public domain and what is private or commercial. At the present time this is completely new ground. The fact is that the copyright laws of the US are of little interest to a net user in Moscow, Russia or Pretoria, S. Africa. If as a cpunk you don't feel that a anonymous regulatory agency can protect your privacy why do you feel they can protect your intellectual property? The issue has direct bearing on both intellectual property and the wide spread use of cryptographic techniques. As a active cpunk it seems to me that your first motivation after producing the actual code is to creat a atmosphere where it can be used for the betterment of all. To create a useable global community (what I am striving for) it seems to me that entries on that network must be public domain by default. Otherwise every country who joins, and by reduction every potential user, will have to agree on how to recompense each and every user who desires to be paid for their submissions. This, to me, leads incontrovertibly to the conclusion of a beurocratic nightmare that will not significanly assist anyone other than the regulatory agencies. The only other answer that seems even close to working (and I consider this a stretch of the imagination) is one where everyone is given access for free and the governments regulate the traffic completely and pat for it with tax dollars. As to the issue as it applies to community bbs'es. I run such a system and am in the process of getting it on the net. As part of this project I have 2 other systems that I will be providing feeds for. These systems are all run by individuals who have these boxes sitting in their den. By insisting on a priori copyright of all material it is my opinion that you are creating a situation which will prevent the growth of such systems. Now if we don't have regulatory agencies and the sites are indipendant (and I assume self supporting) how can we expect some Joe or Jill to put up a system to help the people in their neighborhood if they have to keep looking over thier shoulders for the copyright police? The answer is they won't put up such systems and we all loose. By providing strong crypto tools for business and individuals to protect their intellectual and commercial property we are creating an open door atmosphere which motivates people to join the network for their own enjoyment and edification. This to me is more important than keeping the present view (as applied to non-networked environments) of copyright. It is time that we as uses of Internet set a precedence before the legislators set one for us that will in the long run only assist those already in power by strangthening the need for regulatory agencies. I strongly suggest that you all consider this idea from the global and long term view. I think you will find that the view "information wants to be free' is the way to go. To this end I propose that organizations such as EFF and cpunks take the position of a priori public domain status of network submissions. Also that all individuals who wish to retain intellectual or commercial rights either use strong crypto w/ e-mail distribution of keys or a change be implimented in message headers such that sites who don't wish to carry such material can filter it, along with this should be a requirement that any such non- crptographicly secure material must contain a fair use policy at the beginning of each and every document. It is time we quite letting big brother tell us what we can do with our ideas and how to distribute them.

1 0

Re: New remailer up.
by qwerty-remailer＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perry Metzger wrote, "Tapping Netcom's net connections would take more than $20 of effort. Up it to $50,000 and I'll happily take on your offer. However, I am going to need assurances that the money will actually be paid." This is exactly the point I was trying to make. I wanted the word "trivial" to be clarified by those who were being so vocal about dismissing a remailer on Netcom. You'll also need a good lawyer when Netcom finds your tap ;-). But I'm sure some skilled hacker will be able to tell me the site and I'll happily be out $20, in say, a couple days? No use hacking my password, as I keep no logs (for now). The reason it's only $20, is that I am indeed honestly interested in knowing something about my remailer's security, and I don't know enough internet/Unix to risk being a total sucker. -Xenon

2 1

Re: New remailer up.
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Tapping Netcom's net connections would take more than $20 of effort. >Up it to $50,000 and I'll happily take on your offer. However, I am >going to need assurances that the money will actually be paid. Oh, very, _very_ impressive. Hey, Xenon, _I'll_ do it for only $47,500, but I'll need 50% up front. "Oh, I don't mind a parasite; it's a _cut-rate_ one I object to..." -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

unsubscribe
by bgold＠tlcnet.aps.muohio.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

please unsubscribe me from the list Thanks

1 0

Re: SASE Suggestion
by loki＠nately.UCSD.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

:Lance Cottrell writes: : :> I have been meditating on this problem of return :> addresses, and have a proposal. The remailers :> can not be allowed to choose the return path, :> as any corrupted remailer will corrupt the rest :> of the path. : Jim Miller writes: :As I understand it, the remailers don't "chose" the return path, Bob (the :sender of the original message) choses the return path when he creates the :SASE. All the remailers do is interpret the part of the SASE that becomes :readable to them after decrypting the SASE portion sent to them from the :previous hop. If all is working, what becomes readable is the address of :the next hop (closer to Bob) and some misc other stuff (postage, maybe, :and perhaps another encryption key). : :Am I not understanding something correctly? : :Jim_Miller@suite.com : One SASE scheme recently suggested involved sending a request for a SASE to a ramailer, stating the number of jumps required. It then sent it to another remailer, and so on. Each adding a layer, and eventually sending the results to the desired correspondent. I mentioned that if the first remailer was corrupted, that the whole chain was (it would only send to other corrupt remailers). ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell who does not speak for CASS/UCSD loki(a)nately.ucsd.edu PGP 2.3 key available by finger or server. "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ----------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: New remailer up.
by qwerty-remailer＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perry wrote, "However, make no mistake that Netcom can and will cooperate with the police if you use your remailer in a way that the government doesn't like, so it seems that the security afforded isn't that good." So you aren't interested unless you can commit serious felony crimes using a given remailer? I would be happy if criminals stayed away from my remailer. What do you mean by "security"? And if the police find out a personally owned machine was involved, I couldn't imagine them not just swooping in at midnight and taking it away at gunpoint. I hope those privately owned machines don't have logs ;-). In my mind, the whole secret to gaining privacy is not attracting attention in the first place. Using a remailer DOES allow a person to communicate anonymously with someone else, in two directions. If a party has enough power to tap Netcom, then sendmail logs or no sendmail logs, they will find you. and, "Besides, $20 is a paltry sum for the amount of work involved." Think of it as a trophy, which I'm sure most understood. I'm not offering you a job. I appreciate your view though, and since I've posted a request for remailer comments, might you help us all and send me some comments about the various remailers and what types of security each affords? If some wish to use remailers for serious underground activity, which should they use or not use? If they just want to keep bounced mail from telling their system postmaster who they're talking to, then that's a different type of security need. -Xenon

4 3

Re: New remailer up.
by qwerty-remailer＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sure, a vanilla user at netcom probably can't track the remailer logs, unless of course there are BUGS in SENDMAIL (gasp!) or SunOS or whatever. But remailers aren't just to keep random users from knowing who you are so you can post better anonymous letters to alt.sex.anonymous. At least some of us would like real privacy, and consider remailers a useful part of this, and this means that if you're using remailers to communicate with your sources for the newspaper article you're writing on the CIA's cocaine delivery shortfalls or the NSA/Trilateralist designs for the National Health Care ID Card or your mayor's child pornography habits, that nobody can track you or your sources down easily. That means that root(a)netcom.com can't do it using the root password, even if they want to comply with the subpoena, and the Secret Service can't do it after confiscating netcom's machines or wiretapping their phones. Non-encrypting remailers can never really get that good, but they can at least d part of the job, and encrypting remailer networks may get that good if there's enough traffic through the system. So meanwhile, are you giving root(a)netcom.com permission to try to identify the source of your mail and win the $20 for finding out whether you're really Xenon or you're really L.D.'s evil twin Skippy? (No idea if they'll try, or if they're even listening....) - Radon

1 0

Josh Quittner`s Newsday c
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Welcome to new lurkers (if any) from our recent NYT and Newsday publicity. To give you something a little more interesting than "Is Usenet in the Public Domain?" to read, here is my response to Joshua Quittner's column in Newsday. >Tuesday, 01 February 1994 > >CODING UP A BIT OF PRIVACY > >Time is running out for the Cypherpunks. Actually we have all the time in the world. One cannot build a New Information Infrastructure without including the tools that anyone can use to communicate privately. >This is their central question: In a future world where all information >is centralized on a network, where all information is tracked by the bit, >where every purchase you make and every communication can be monitored by >corporate America, how does privacy survive? More of a problem in the past than in the future. When P.J. O'Rourke had lived in a small New Hampshire town for a year or so and went to the store to shop for some clothes the clerk remarked, "That's not the brand of underwear you usually buy." One's life was more of an open book in the village and the tribe than it will be in the electronic village. Particularly since you can build private networks/"places" that exclude anyone you want. >"The whole information highway thing is now part of the public eye," >explain Eric Hughes, a founder of the Cypherpunk movement. "If we don't >change it now, it'll be impossible later." Misquote? It's usually better to do the job early than late but the nature of network communications is such that it's hard to control at any time. >They dread the coming commercial network of televisions and computers, >saying it will displace the Internet and destroy many of the freedoms they >now enjoy. Surely not the anarcho capitalists who probably represent a majority of active cypherpunks. >For the first time, virtually unbreakable codes are now possible, thanks to >computers. I won't say it. Certainly computers make it easier to *use* encryption. >The the U.S. government is concerned, as governments always are, about >the spread of powerful cryptography (terrorists could use it, kidnappers >could use it, drug dealers could use it, Communications intercepts are rarely used to prosecute crimes. >The (Clipper) chip is reviled by Cypherpunks and other civil libertarians >because it provides a back door that law-enforcement agencies could enter, >with the proper warrants, for surveillance. Warrants not required, just a certification that the law enforcement agency has proper authority to do a communications intercept. >"I'm starting a bank, and it's not going to be a U.S. bank," Hughes >says. >The bank will store depositors' money (he's thinking a $200 minimum >deposit) and disburse payments to anyone --- all over the Internet. It >will be based abroad, maybe in Mexico. Where did Mexico come from? >A Cypherpunk network bank is one way to pay for a network of truly >encrypted, private communications, you see. Along with lots of other nice things. Computers have been killing traditional banks for years (ever since they enabled the creation of Money Market Funds in the '70s). Netbank (and its many competitors) will continue the process. *********** Duncan Frissell You don't have to be nice to nation states you meet on the way up if you're not coming back down. --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165

1 0

UNSUBSCRIBE
by Joseph Matheny 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Unsubscribe:mediak@well.sf.ca.us

1 0

Re: New remailer up.
by qwerty-remailer＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"So meanwhile, are you giving root(a)netcom.com permission to try to identify the source of your mail and win the $20 for finding out whether you're really Xenon or you're really L.D.'s evil twin Skippy?" I have no answer to that. I don't know what "permission" means in this context. I never discluded Netcom employees though. I doubt they would wish to appear to have lax security by posting the answer though. Does L.D. have an evil twin? I hope he doesn't get a Unix account. Seriously, your comments were the first I've seen that really explain to me what sort of security problem a Netcom remailer faces. Now then, I ask you as well, might you fill in a few of the blanks in the remailer list I posted. I could send it to you if you missed it. What are the "serious" remailers, do they keep mail logs, and are they reliable? -Xenon

1 0