December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Who Detweiler is *really* posting as
by nobody＠ds1.wu-wien.ac.at 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cyphertentacles: Maybe I missed something here, but I thought what the original writer was implying was that Perry Metzger may indeed be a real human being, but that he was actually working as a *double agent* for Detweiler. That is one of the connotations of the word "tentacle" that Detweiler loves to toss around. I think there is a plausible case for this. Remember, just because you see mail coming from perry(a)imsi.com doesn't mean that the "Perry Metzger" you met in person actually wrote it. It is possible that Detweiler and Metzger are both posting from that account. In fact, looking at the text styles, it seems reasonable. Sometimes Perry writes some very interesting posts related to cryptography, stock trading and other subjects. But in other cases he just rants in a few terse lines, particularly when Detweiler is the subject. Maybe the "orders" to Perry from Detweiler are to "improve your reputation on the list as much as possible". In the meantime, Detweiler is occasionally using the same account to instigate dissension. Haven't you ever noticed an eerie, strange, sort of Jekyll-and-Hyde personality to what comes out of that account at times? Almost to the point of wondering if the same knowledgable person would spew such fervent vitriol? But anyway, I think all of this is plausible enough that Perry should broadcast a denial to everyone on the list again, just to assuage anyone's unconscious fears of secret conspiracies all around them in cyberspace. Heh. These conspiracy theories are kind of fun to imagine. Maybe on the other hand EVERYONE on this list is a tentacle of Detweiler, and YOU are the only one who doesn't realize it. Hee, hee. By the way, I found some records of another person posting from Denver at Netcom that seems to match Detweiler's patterns. It's pretty obvious when you look at the records. I'll let you figure it out for the fun of it. <g> When Detweiler is dead, you won't be seeing me at his funeral. Although you might catch me dancing on his grave.

2 1

Re: Clipper Chip Retreat
by sidney＠taurus.apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Carl Ellison writes: >I don't care about Skipjack. If they want to publish, I'd read the paper, >but I'm plenty content with triple-DES for routine stuff and DTDTD But if the government is going to push key escrow and they are going to use an unclassified system, then they have to 1) Use a relatively weak cryptographic system in order to keep people from using the unclassified system for fully secure communication with their own non-escrowed keys, and 2) Outlaw using any other (more secure) encryption. This fits right in with Gore's not backing down on export controls. Combine that with his talk of using unclassified, exportable encryption, and he has to be talking about replacing Skipjack with a weak or key-size restricted system (which would not be subject to export controls). And as Mike McNally pointed out, that just increases the likelihood that the government would attempt to make use of other encryption illegal, because with the algorithms known and in software there would be no other way of controlling (or attempting to control) what people do. -- sidney <sidney(a)apple.com>

1 0

Re: Who Detweiler is *really* posting as
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Cyphertentacles: > >{bait, elided} > >Hee, hee. Cut it out, Larry. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

"Key Escrow" --- the very idea
by Mike_Spreitzer.PARC＠xerox.com 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. (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. (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. (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. I hope anarchists won't be the only people opposing changing the balance of power greatly in the government's favor (by poorly designed key escrow). What are the rest of us left to answer with? Perhaps a much better key escrow design. One that integrates the search with the due process in a cryptographically strong way; one that can't be subverted by a few people in a few organizations. For example, who says an escrowed key must have only two parts? Why not a whole lot of parts, distributed to a whole lot of people/organizations? If there are only 1000 legal wiretaps in a year, and they're already fairly expensive, we can add a fair amount to the cost before it gets significant. And again, remember where we're weighing money against freedom. It may be that we just have to spend more to stay a reasonably free society. Also, it's worth debating just how strong the protections have to be. Will we need them to be stronger than those against physical searches? How few people does it take to subvert the current protections against illegal searches? Do we feel that needs to be changed? How much are we willing to spend on it?

1 0

Re: No more Cantwell amendment? was Re: Clipper Chip retreat
by merriman＠metronet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Now most of us have come to think of email as something in between paper >and phone calls, but there is no legal precedent (To my knowledge). So I >suppose the government could make that argument and defend it. But its >really hard for me to imagine the government cracking down on somebody for >posting source code via the internet. I'll test that when I'm ready for >alpha though. Anybody know a constitutional lawyer interested in taking >on a precedent setting case pro bono? :-/ Might check with EFF/ACLU/CPSR - *one* of them should be interested :-| Dave Merriman Wherever you go in Life - there you are!

1 0

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