December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

CONTROL FREAKS
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Where do I begin? Jim Choate has now retreated into subjectivism rather than Come on, Jim, you've been arguing that totalitarians can ignore economics. Answer my questions. How long did the "Thousand Year Reich" last? What totalitarian states can you name that have had any legs at all? There are none. I take it you don't take the comparison between the Roman circuses where prisoners and other misfits (ie Christians) were fed to the lions and and the Tutonic cirucses of the 30's and 40's (ie prison or relocation camps) where the criminal and other misfits (ie Jewish) were fed to the masochistic 'system' as comparable? The Warsaw Ghetto was not a form of 'circus' then? No, of course not. The Roman circuses were public spectacles. They were a form of entertainment (like professional sports today). Their propose was to distract the populace, not to eliminate enemies of the state. That's what Crucifixion and other types of execution were for. Often, the participants were pros, free men who did it for gold and glory. Hell, Rome wasn't even a totalitarian state. Where do you get these ideas? The Nazis were another matter, but they still didn't make the cut. Show me your successful totalitarian states. 'They' are the persons with money and influence and have also made it in their best interest to sustain the status quo. Just take a look at the Federal Reserve and how they manage the money in this country. Take a look at the special interest political groups who make it their job to get law-makers to look at it 'their' way. I've looked. I repeat, who are "they"? You know, like some names. They can't be too powerful, since social/cultural/legal non-compliance is a growth industry. God, what the hell are you so afraid of? Just exactly whose reality are we talking about ruling here?... people do not analyze their choices the same way you analyze some physical problem like building a bridge.... But that's the point. Economics *is* like building a bridge. You can't spend money you don't have. You can't create wealth by printing money. There are rules, and no amount of subjectivism or Roadrunner logic will exempt totalitarian states from them. But if you disagree, please prove me wrong by naming the states that have "created their own reality." I bet you can't. When I alluded that "they" weren't spending *my* money you wrote: I can assure you that the folks out there will spend their money if it is clear that they will make more of it in the long run. While it is true that public monies are the easiest to spend because of its anonymity it is not the only resource that is there. Consider under-the-table bribes and such. I give up, I don't have a clue what you're taking about. Do you? If so, please elucidate. Apparently, my comment about *structuring your life* so that you could ignore the control freaks went right over your head at the speed of light. FLAME ALERT: All Cypherpunks who disdain flamish exchanges should tune out now. I'm feeling peevish today and this sort of mindless drivel pisses me off. I have decided, therefore, to amuse myself by fucking with Mr. Choate's head for the remainder of this post. I am afraid [we know that, the question is why you are afraid?] that if you ignore a control freak you build the perfect environ [I'm sure you don't mean "environ," a verb. Perhaps "environment" or "environs" would be more suitable. Sloppy thinking; sloppy language.] for their growth. We are not talking about roses [now you've gotten SOMETHING right] here but rather ideas, a decidedly different animal. [Neither roses nor ideas are animals, Mr. Choate. Can you say mixed metaphor?] Ideas can grow long after the original thinker is gone. [Yes, but what has that got to do with our discussion. Focus, Mr. Choate.] To ignore rather than [to?] confront and expose [them?] is the best way possible [possible is redundundundant, Mr. Choate] to get what you don't want. [Interesting use of the negative in your sentence construction, but you never addressed my thesis, to wit: it is possible to structure your life so that you can ignore would-be controllers. There is no substitute for critical thinking, Mr. Choate.] Love and kisses, S a n d y "Who promises to go back on his medication tomorrow." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3 2

Copulating Camels and Digital Cash
by frissell＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This week's Economist has one (or rather two) of the subject items on the cover and an article on the other inside. Also one on "Doing Business on the Net." DCF

1 0

Cyphernomicon - Critical Acclaim!
by nobody＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Critical Acclaim for the Cyphernomicon ! ---------------------------------------- "My dusty old tomes were showing their age, but the Cyphernomicon has given me a new lease on life. It's going to be fun!" - Old Ned "I think he's trying to confuse us. Don't believe a word he says." Fission Chips "Enlightening." - The King in Yellow "I liked the part about trust." - Ronald Reagan "Now I understand why Lucy always yanked the football away from me." Charlie Brown "I fear for T. C. May's soul." - Jerry Falwell "What a stupid jerk I've been!" - Ollie North "It's nothing but words. No swords, horsemen, or foot soldiers. He doesn't scare me!" - Attilla the Hun "Stay tuned for the blueprint of the next century. But first, Page Two ..." - Paul Harvey "This is a terrible document! I detest it ... and I'm printing a copy for all my friends." - Rush Limbaugh "I am recommending that we ban public use of assault keys, and that only appropriate Federal agencies be allowed to use them." - Janet Reno "I resent his appropriation of the term 'BlackNet'!" - Jesse Jackson "It's nothing really. I've communicated with pseudonyms for years." Miss Manners "That's how we _should_ have done our real estate deals!" Hillary Rodham Clinton "Here are the top ten reasons why you should read the Cyphernomicon ..." David Letterman "What a lucrative market Mr. May has shown! Nobody will ever know how much this means to me." - Bill Gates "He made it all perfectly clear, except perhaps the chapter on anonymity and remailers." - Richard Nixon "If I had had this book, they would be naming high schools after me." Richard Nixon "What, me worry?" - Alfred E. Neuman "Pull my thumb ... if you can find it! Heh heh heh." - Beavis & Butthead

1 0

Thank you Bob Anderson
by nobody＠jpunix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

SUBJECT: RC4 Source Code I've tested this. It is compatible with the RC4 object module that comes in the various RSA toolkits. /* rc4.h */ typedef struct rc4_key { unsigned char state[256]; unsigned char x; unsigned char y; } rc4_key; void prepare_key(unsigned char *key_data_ptr,int key_data_len, rc4_key *key); void rc4(unsigned char *buffer_ptr,int buffer_len,rc4_key * key); /*rc4.c */ #include "rc4.h" static void swap_byte(unsigned char *a, unsigned char *b); void prepare_key(unsigned char *key_data_ptr, int key_data_len, rc4_key *key) { unsigned char swapByte; unsigned char index1; unsigned char index2; unsigned char* state; short counter; state = &key->state[0]; for(counter = 0; counter < 256; counter++) state[counter] = counter; key->x = 0; key->y = 0; index1 = 0; index2 = 0; for(counter = 0; counter < 256; counter++) { index2 = (key_data_ptr[index1] + state[counter] + index2) % 256; swap_byte(&state[counter], &state[index2]); index1 = (index1 + 1) % key_data_len; } } void rc4(unsigned char *buffer_ptr, int buffer_len, rc4_key *key) { unsigned char x; unsigned char y; unsigned char* state; unsigned char xorIndex; short counter; x = key->x; y = key->y; state = &key->state[0]; for(counter = 0; counter < buffer_len; counter ++) { x = (x + 1) % 256; y = (state[x] + y) % 256; swap_byte(&state[x], &state[y]); xorIndex = state[x] + (state[y]) % 256; buffer_ptr[counter] ^= state[xorIndex]; } key->x = x; key->y = y; } static void swap_byte(unsigned char *a, unsigned char *b) { unsigned char swapByte; swapByte = *a; *a = *b; *b = swapByte; }

1 0

Societies & Your Health
by blancw＠pylon.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Responding to msg by Doug Cutrell: "Blanc seems to be concerned principally with the soundness and health of the business entity." Well, if you mean that I was defending the prerogative of a corporate entity against an angry mob of voters descending upon it to coerce services from it, health (& safety!) is the concern. But actually I was taking your argument of equal fairness and noting that voters who responded that way to a denial of service would be expecting automatic beneficence, without considering the means to the end: if there is no existing service, there is no one to coerce into providing it. The voting public which bands together to use coercion takes services & benefits for granted, without any respect for the source. " I am not sure whether Blanc would hold that businesses should be free to engage in racist hiring policies if that is their decision...." Since I wouldn't claim to own either the corporations or the society within which they operate, I wouldn't presume to direct their hiring policies either. "The argument seems to be that in a free society, natural cooperative processes will provide a form of "autoregulation" to discourage the widespread development of oppression of specific classes of individuals." Societies, I hear tell, develop with the intent of deriving positive benefits from an association with people who want to interact with each other. In a "free" society, oppressed classes of individuals would be at liberty to leave to form their own, repressive arrangements and establish their own discriminative hiring policies. "....... imagine the development of a multitude of secret "crypto-posse" organizations. .......Organizations such as the KKK could accrue the financial support of large numbers of members to create strong social and economic pressures to oppress segments of the population. . . . . . " One thing I can say about this, is that there already exist a large number of this type of organization, and they are not very secret about it. In Bosnia, in Iran, in South America, in South Africa, et al. They suppress & decimate whole populations in full view. Perhaps if there were a larger number of secret organizations, they would target each other and kill each other off. The world could become one big, happy family of paranoids instead of just a horde of " nattering nabobs of negativism" ( is that an endangered species?). Blanc

1 0

help!
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm having problems posting to the cypherpunks list. I was hoping you might be able to help me. could you post this? thanks-- Subject: beta test volunteers wanted I am in the process of starting beta tests on some server-based email filtering software. I need some volunteers to help debug the system. I'll have to ask you to commit to an informal, temporary nondisclosure agreement. If you are interested, please send me mail. Thanks-- vznuri(a)netcom.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Social punishment 2/3: communication societies
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Social punishment 2/3: communication societies If one examines the use of social punishment, one sees that that it is strongest in the smallest of units (a family - 'if you do that again, we won't talk to you') and while best seen as a way of keeping order in small villages or tribes, is gradually replaced by more formal legal systems, with some form of judiciary, police and prison as populations gather in towns and cities. Social punishment also works best with non-lethal 'crimes' rather than murder and rape, presumably more common in cities than in villages (or cyberspace). It has been argued that cities need formal legal systems due to the complex situations created by a large, concentrated population. More people means more people who don't know (and therefore trust) each other, and leads to more crime. Taboo and other social punishment can't work because the people are not as strongly bound together as in a smaller community. This may be partially true. I would say, however, that the primary reason that social punishment works in a village is that it is a _communication society_. People depend on each other (rather than on faceless municipal corporations or public utilities) for most activities. Most of all, they depend on each other to _talk_ - for social interaction. Social interaction is a far more important component of life in a village than in a big city. It is because of this greater need for communication, rather than the size of the population, that ostracization is so effective. Cyberspace is also a communication society. While McLuhan's Global Village has become extremely cliched, in this aspect cyberspace does resemble a village. People on the Net may not be dependent on each other for food and clothing, but they are for almost anything else concerned with a cyber life. There is thankfully no Internet Municipal Corporation that takes care of all roads (net connections), supplies (of information and public keys), and order (through centralized credentials or certification). Most would be repelled at the thought of such a thing. Cyberspace is full of vibrant communities that do little else but talk. Social interaction is at a higher level than at any time in history. The 'crimes' committed in cyberspace are non-lethal and primarily violations of protocol. Like the other communication society, the tribe or village, cyberspace is well suited to a system of social punishment. It's not as if taboos and ostracization don't already exist in cyberspace, to keep people within the few unwritten rules that exist at present. Flames, newbies, kill files etc. As a variety of activities take place in cyberspace, from digital cash transfers to elections to escrow, the number of rules will grow, but there is no reason why the system of punishment cannot be equally effective. No, I'm not saying that you can solve electronic fraud by putting a name in your kill file. More recent technologies - cancelbots, reputation systems (in concept if not in fact) - can make social punishment in cyberspace highly practical. And in cyberspace, if noone reads your posts, you're dead. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh "Clean the air! clean the sky! wash the wind! rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in take stone from stone and wash them..." Voice/Fax/Data +91 11 6853410 Voicemail +91 11 3760335 H 34C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA

1 0

digital reputation capital
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm currently writing up a design for a digital reputation capital system. The intent is not to provide a framework for licensing or formal endorsement system, but instead, allow people to automatically discover the opinions of others about various entities. I'd like to know how much people would want anonymity in a system like this. My preferred solution would be to allow anonymity through the established services of remailers. This has the advantage of having people who use a nym constantly (and well) get more respect when doing it then those who use a nym occasionally. The reason this solution is preferred is that it allows a fully distributed system to exist, with no centralization needed at all. Is losing that distributed characteristic of the system worth gaining a system that supports anonymity? (It might be possible to design a work intensive system to handle distributed anonymity, based on Merritt's protocol for voting without any central facility (Applied Crypt section 6.5), but the amount of work involved is quite high, thus the system wouldn't work in a production environment.) Adam

2 1

ITARs around the world
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

M.Gream(a)uts.EDU.AU (Matthew Gream): > [quoting alt.pgp.security] > I'm afraid I have to post a clarification to a clarification. I've just > been in contact with the relevant people at the Defence Signals > Directorate. It seems that regardless of advice obtained from other > departments and documentation that points to the contrary, there are > restrictive controls on software. Is the document mentioned the equivalent (with similar legal standing) of the US ITAR? When the Scandinavian countries join the EU next year, what will the implications for crypto be? France bans it, is there any EU policy proposal? Maybe crypto software should all be written by cheap programmers in Bangalore. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh "Clean the air! clean the sky! wash the wind! rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in take stone from stone and wash them..." Voice/Fax/Data +91 11 6853410 Voicemail +91 11 3760335 H 34C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA

1 0

Social punishment 3/3: reputation systems
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Social punishment 3/3: reputation systems Social punishment works because individuals know that someone has broken rules, and _voluntarily_ cooperate with enforcing the accused's punishment. (Of course part of the reason is the risk of similar punishment for non-cooperation, but a major part, particularly in cybercrimes, is that if an individual could harm someone else, he or she could harm you too.) Social punishment works through reputation. XXX, after breaking rules, is seen to be a 'bad character'. Soon everyone knows XXX as a 'bad character' and behaves accordingly, usually by avoiding contact. Once XXX gets a bad REPUTATION (and this is how _I_ define the term, not as some centrally imposed certificate), in traditional societies it is very difficult for XXX to regain a good one. People _individually_ decide whether a 'bad character' is indeed 'bad' and depending on the stature of the individual and the bad character, may or may not cooperate with any punishment. A priest in traditional society or someone else with impeccable reputation is permitted to interact with even the worst of characters. One problem with such a wildfire reputation system is it can be _too_ effective. Once ostracized, the decentralized system makes it very difficult for someone to rejoin society, to have his/her 'reformation' recognized. The channels in traditional societies include lots of 'good work' and recommendation by 'good citizens' such as the priest etc. The other is a new identity. The most powerful illustration of a reputation system I can think of is Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, where ex-convict Jean Valjean finds himself ostracized by society despite having been released. A priest's kindness is not enough, and he later gains a very good reputation building an industry. The notable thing is that he rejoins society only when he gets a _new identity_ - and later gets back into prison when his old identity is discovered. This is a strong case for universal pseudonymity - BAN TRUE NAMES - which, together with strong voluntary reputation and social punishment systems can form the basis for cyberspatial order. I can't really say as yet how a cyberspace reputation system should be implemented. Old-timers will recognize the distinction between my proposed voluntary reputation and certification - the difference between PGP and central public key directories. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh "Clean the air! clean the sky! wash the wind! rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in take stone from stone and wash them..." Voice/Fax/Data +91 11 6853410 Voicemail +91 11 3760335 H 34C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA

1 0