December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

comeon**
by Gary Jeffers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lefty says I don't have the wit to speak for him. It would take no wit - just a person with the tastes of a bottom feeder. Lefty, aren't you the little shit who brutally flamed Nobody for using a pseudonym? Lefty? is that your first or last name? Do you have a last name? Are you sure? Say, hero, what is your true name? Lefty, do I have you all wrong, or are you one of those guys who hang back from a fight till you see your opponent is outnumbered? PUSH EM BACK! PUSH EM BACK! WWWAAAYYY BBBAAACCCK! BBBEEEAAATTTT STATE!

2 1

Re: "Key Escrow" --- the very idea
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike_Spreitzer writes: > (1) I'm not an anarchist. Does that make me out of place here? I'm willing to Yes, you are out of place. We took a vote a while back and the anarchists won by 173 votes. The detailed rules of discourse we adopted can be found at the csua.berkeley.edu site. > (2) I think crimes can be committed in cyberspace. Substantially, if not > entirely, in cyberspace. Maybe not so many now. But I think it's I know of no one who disagrees. Of course crimes can be committed in cyberspace, whatever one's definition may be of crime. From forwarding copyrighted material to posting GIFs of children being raped to contracting for hits on one's enemies. (Personally, I treat very few things as being criminal, and thus see few things in cyberspace that could possibly be criminal.) > intellectually dishonest of us who understand the growing importance of > cyberspace to claim there won't be any social contracts there that could be > violated. I accept the terms of the 4th ammendment: search and siezure allowed > when due process followed. "Key escrow" is an attempt to implement the > cyberspatial analog of search. Nope. "Key escrow" is far broader. It is telling people they must "escrow" their house keys with the cops, just in case the cops have a need to enter. It is the requirement that all photographs be "escrowed" with the cops, just in case some dirty pictures need to be looked at. It is the requirement that diaries and journals be written in "approved languages," in case authorities need or want to read them. (By the way, your tacit assumption, that key escrow will become mandatory, is probably accurate, but is in fact not the Administration's proposal. They claim it will forever remain voluntary, though they are then silent on just how this will help with the criminals they seek to catch this way.) The remaining points I'll leave for others to critique. Mandatory key escrow is like telling people they have to use special curtains that can be made transparent if the cops think they need to aim their cameras in our houses. Not exactly what I have in mind for my future. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: "Key Escrow" --- the very idea
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:49 PM 7/21/94 -0700, Mike_Spreitzer.PARC(a)xerox.com wrote: >(1) I'm not an anarchist. [snip] I'm a congenital republican. [snip] >(2) I think crimes can be committed in cyberspace... [snip] So do I. [snip] >(4) If you accept points (1) and (2) above, you're left wanting a way to >implement searches in cyberspace when due process is followed. [Plea for better key escrow removed] I've never gotten into the Clipper discussion before now. I've assumed (somewhat lazily, I might add) that market forces would kill it, if nothing else. I am much more in other consequences of strong-crypto and global public-access computer networks; e$ and all that... I'm not so sure that wiretapping was ever a good idea, but the "private life" of the technology which enabled it ensured its use. Like machine guns, nuclear weapons and semi-automatic firearms, weapons (wiretapping is as surely a weapon as any of the above) will be used. Fortunately, counter-weapons arise. Gentlemen didn't read each other's mail because they couldn't do it practically. Telephony and signals intellegence changed that. People found that they could, and they did it. Now the technological pendulum has swung back to the days where letters were sealed in wax with unique seals. I would like to propose, probably not the first time on this list, an acceptable, time-honored method of determining the contents of a secure conversation. Snitches. That's they used before wiretaps, and it seemed to work well enough then. A contempt of court citation for refusing a warranted search seems strong enough to handle the rest of a government's prosecutory urges. Cheers, Bob ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone Shipwright Development Corporation who eats too little and sees Heaven and 44 Farquhar Street someone who drinks too much and sees Boston, MA 02331 USA snakes." -- Bertrand Russell (617) 323-7923

3 3

(Fwd) RE: Computer snoopers
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarding mail by: DBURK(a)gmuvax.gmu.edu ("DAN L. BURK") on Thu, 21 Jul 7:50 PM ------------------- Yeah, "snooping" indeed! According to Federal Computer Week, July 11, 1994: The hacker attacks have reached such a scale over the past few months "that on any give day DOD literally does not have control of five or six of its computer systems; the hackers do," one former government official said. Bob Brewin & Elizabeth Sikorivsky, "Hackers storm DOD nets," Federal Computer Week, July 11, 1994 at 1, col. 3. Want to play a game? Dan dburk(a)gmuvax.gmu.edu

1 0

Re: "Key Escrow" --- the very idea
by Rick Busdiecker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 16:49:01 PDT From: Mike_Spreitzer.PARC(a)xerox.com I accept the terms of the 4th ammendment [sic]: search and siezure allowed when due process followed. The 4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. One problem with what you've said is that the fourth amendment is not phrased in the sense in which you refer to it. Specifically, it proscribes unreasonable searches and seizures. It does not require the people to actively facilitate the government in `reasonable' searches and seizures. Essentially, you've turned the 4th amendment on its head in your effort to rationalize key escrow. In any case, it's a purely academic question given the dissociation of the `Bill of Rights' from reality. Rick

2 1

Re: "Key Escrow" --- the very idea
by solman＠MIT.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> (1) I'm not an anarchist. Does that make me out of place here? I'm > willing to live with some amount of government, as long as us owners > stand a chance of controlling or overthrowing it. My biggest problem > with Capstone is that it changes the balance of power too much. Simple solution for people like you: Secret split your key into eight pieces, such that six or seven are required to reconstruct it. Create a mechanism whereby people can anonymously distribute their keys. Have the govenment escrow keep just the names of the people with the other pieces. Periodically require everybody to prove that they still have the same piece by sending hashes. When the government wants your key it presents a warrant to the people holding your pieces. But I find this sort of system to be silly. its only purpose is to eavesdrop in on my conversations. Why would I want somebody doing that? I like my privacy so I'd rather not participate. > (2) I think crimes can be committed in cyberspace. Substantially, if not > entirely, in cyberspace. Maybe not so many now. But I think it's > intellectually dishonest of us who understand the growing importance of > cyberspace to claim there won't be any social contracts there that could be > violated. I accept the terms of the 4th ammendment: search and siezure > allowed when due process followed. "Key escrow" is an attempt to implement > the cyberspatial analog of search. This is total bullshit. In the physical world, the ideal set up would clearly be one in which each individual negotiated with each other individual what the contract between them would be. "I don't want to die and you don't want to die, so lets both agree not to kill each other and put some money towards a system of police that guarantees this. I want property rights so I can enjoy the fruits of my labor..." This scenario is, of course, absurd. It takes time to negotiate things like this. Negotiations also require the possibility of no agreement, allowing the parties to re-examine the strength of their respective positions before going back to the table. The cost of conducting these negotiations in the physical world is enourmous. The cost of conducting these negotiations in the real world is negligible. People who like their freedom can negotiate on their own. The stupid and the insecure can purchase agents from other people that do the same thing. LAWS CAN EASILY BE MADE OPTIONAL IN CYBERSPACE WHILE STILL MAINTAINING THEIR EFFECTIVENESS. Enforcement of a law is a natural part of the agreement to participate in it. There is absolutely no reason why one set of laws with one set of enforcers needs to be adopted simply because the transactional cost is negligible and the results of non-agreement can be determined nearly instantaneously. I will be introducing the paleolithic analog of an information society in the next few weeks. You had better believe that by the time the information superhighway takes off, complex systems that enforce complex rules will be available to those who want them. > (3) The Feds must know they can't prevent modestly well funded, educated, and > motivated folks from using unbreakable cryptography amongst themselves. The > argument for doing key escrow anyway is that by installing a breakable > infrastructure, they'll make enough investigations cheaper and more effective > to be worth it. Note that's a comparison of their money and success rate > against our privacy; no wonder they got it so wrong. It absurd to think that the Feds can control anything in cyberspace without some sort of physical world police state. Its just not feasible, entropy is dominant. JWS

2 2

Re: Come On
by rjc＠gnu.ai.mit.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy: >Yikes, Ray, let's not give anybody ideas! In reality, though, I think the >perceptive women on this list know my heart is in the right place. Isn't >it clear to everyone what I'm making fun of? ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Channeling alt.syntax.tactical and alt.flame (Ohm!), Lefty writes: > Heh. > > It's not clear to Ray. Implying of course that it's clear to him. As I so eloquently stated: > > Well, I can certainly say that I am impressed that you've progressed >to telepathy, but humor a poor student for once. > > {long, irrelevant diatribe, elided} I'm glad you liked it. Atleast you kept the best line. Continuing my masterfully written piece: > I hope I "got it" Answering back from the astral plane: > Er, no. Not at all. In fact, I think you demonstrated what I was saying > quite clearly. Meaning that the answer I supplied to Sandy's question was the wrong one. If he knows it's wrong, then he must know the correct answer, well what is it? Otherwise, I'm waiting for a retraction. <contemplate the correct answer to the following question for 3 nights: "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"> Alert, an alt.syntax.tactical gambit move is about to be attempted: > But not to leave you hopelessly adrift, what's the fundamental difference > between the actions of the subject of your oh-so-sad story, and Sandy's > actions? Take your time. Uh oh, do I detect a change of subject? You see, my last post was directed to supply an answer to Sandy's question "Isn't it clear to everyone what I'm making fun of?" (my answer, the campiness of the show) with an added commentary on assuming a receptive audiencce. All of a sudden, we have a diversion here into how Sandy's H.E.A.T. posts on a mailing list compare to my brother-in-law's showing of vacation pictures during a break at work which is irrelevent to the original line of questioning (if you could call "Heh. It isn't clear to Ray." questioning or discussion) A well timed change of subject, and a barely subtle attempt to bait me of course. I'm not going to fall into the trap, so I won't bother responding. I'm still waiting for your answer to Sandy's question, oh great oracle. > Off by a millimeter at the arrow's point; off by a mile at the target. You shouldn't think out loud. But your reflections on your own behavior are quite on the mark. > -- > Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) > C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:. O:.H:.M: Really Lefty, isn't it about time you stopped baiting people? Scan the last twenty messages you posted to cypherpunks. At best, they were nothing but a bunch "witty" 3-liners designed to start a flame with somebody you thought you could obviously outwit. Almost zero discussion or information content. The only post of yours which contained atleast five full sentences was a forward of some Sue D. Nym message. I'm honored that you respect my intellect enough to dedicate more than your usual quota of 3 short sentences (I know it must be quite taxing on your creativity), but maybe it's time for you to take a vacation. -internet highway patrol, assault speech division.

1 0

WWW> Cryptography/PGP/Privacy Web page (fwd)
by bart＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I had never heard of this group, so though I'd forward the notice. The page looked pretty good too at first glimpse. Forwarded message: > From: franl(a)centerline.com (Fran Litterio) > Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.announce > Subject: Cryptography/PGP/Privacy Web page (via Centerline Software) > Date: 16 Jul 1994 18:36:38 GMT > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > I've put together a World Wide Web page containing some interesting > information for PGP users (and anyone else who's interested in crypto > and privacy). Some highlights: > > o A link to the PGP FAQ (in hypertext form) maintained at > Quadralay Corp.. > > o Links to forms for looking up public keys from the public > keyserver network (and for submitting your own key). > > o PGP 2.6 and 2.3a documentation and quick reference pages. > > The URL is: > > http://draco.centerline.com:8080/~franl/crypto.html > > Let me know if you like it or have suggestions for how to improve it. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 2.6 > > iQCVAgUBLfeFJneXQmAScOodAQF3WgP8D8PyrasDkpBbUmK5yiL2+vmLhsAmyzdx > LlM1cYrYmjbr9Fp7hfyvTiB5tT7mK9+wEC1PXQZNw+mV7asbd2GA9ZrbHV6wLYU7 > Hi14KMN4aPawneWRaZGGRmXNRh/kY+UaRTpCw8xNsw2dzMfD/xL5yLp9eNulHOXk > a1tWLIM+210= > =eSHm > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- > Fran Litterio franl(a)centerline.com (617-498-3255) > CenterLine Software http://draco.centerline.com:8080/~franl/ > Cambridge, MA, USA 02138-1110 PGP public key id: 1270EA1D > > > > >

1 0

remail
by Anonymous User 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

BSA Business software Alliance NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, July 20, 1994 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Diane Smiroldo, 202.872.5500 BSA PRESIDENT ROBERT HOLLEYMAN REACTION STATEMENT TO VICE PRESIDENT GORE'S LETTER TO REP. CANTWELL ON ENCRYPTION "On behalf of the leading American PC software companies, BSA commends Rep. Maria Cantwell for her success in convincing the administration to change its policy on encryption. Following extensive negotiations with Rep. Cantwell, today Vice President Gore announced that the administration will work with industry to develop a new key escrow encryption system. This new encryption system has the potential for wide-spread use because it will be practical, affordable, and trustworthy. "The administration has recognized that Clipper Chip will not be used for computers. It has been recognized that the information security system for personal computers must be privately developed and controlled. The administration has agreed that the new encryption system must be voluntary, software implementable, based on a non-classified encryption formula, exportable, and employ private sector agents to hold the keys. "The administration also agreed to support periodic studies assessing the availability and impact of foreign encryption programs on American companies. Recognizing the economic importance of the software industry, the administration pledged the active participation of the National Economic Council and the Department of Commerce in the studies. The Vice President agreed that the studies will lay the groundwork to reassess existing export controls. "Today's agreement is a significant victory both for U.S. software companies and the future of the global information superhighway. U.S. software companies must be permitted to compete on a level playing field with foreign vendors who already provide security on software programs. High tech industries are indebted to Rep. Cantwell for her leadership in convincing the administration to adopt a new approach and potentially end the disruptive war on encryption policy." # BSA promotes the continued growth of the software industry through its international public policy, education, and enforcement programs in the U.S. and more than 55 other countries throughout North America, Asia, Europe, and South America. BSA represents the leading U.S. publishers of PC software including Aldus, Apple Computer, Autodesk, Intergraph, Lotus Development, Microsoft, Novell, and WordPerfect. ------------ To respond to the sender of this message, send mail to remailer(a)soda.berkeley.edu, starting your message with the following 7 lines: :: Response-Key: ideaclipper ====Encrypted-Sender-Begin==== MI@```%-S^P;+]AB?X9TW6\8WR:&P&2'K1RX_1#HL&P@GW&U6W_:A2N?I86=* K404T##68_(;5YO()D7.H.%@%L*"][5<DF\.P,/H9EE?>#D6V_FT>:$,!0``` ====Encrypted-Sender-End====

1 0

True Lies
by Russell Nelson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Quite clearly, the bad guys in True Lies used a Capstone unit to do their encryption. Too bad they didn't make a point of it -- after all, catching terrorists is putatively what escrowed encryption is aimed at. -russ

1 0