December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

A Fire Upon the Deep
by Wei Dai 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <199501052231.OAA11745(a)netcom5.netcom.com>, tcmay(a)netcom.com (Timothy C. May) says: >Finally, his Hugo-winning novel, "A Fire Upon the Deep," has some >casual mentions of crypto, including the odd speculation that those in >the know in the distant future don't really trust public key crypto. This is quite sensible given that in the Zone universe, you may have no idea how much computing power your enemies have, so no cryptography that is only computationally secure can really be trusted. _A Fire Upon the Deep_ also describes how anarchy might work on a galactic scale. For example, Vinge seems to think that arbitration organizations would be very important in such an anarchy and would acquire military characteristics. Issues of trust and reputation are also treated implicitly. There was some recent talk about network agent technology on this list. Vinge mentions almost in passing how an entire planet (or maybe planets) was taken over by an "intelligent net packet". Makes me rather nervous about things like Magic Cap... One more thing that's marginally related to cypherpunks (hey I really like this book so I'll take any chance I can to talk about it ;-) is the idea that the efficiency of distributed computation (and distributed intelligence) depends on high bandwidth and low latency of the communication medium. Since anonymity seems to have rather high costs in terms of bandwidth and latency (compare anonymous e-mail with internet video conferencing or even with normal e-mail), this implies that an organization of anonymous agents will not work as efficiently as a similar orginzation whose members are not concerned about anonymity. Wei Dai PGP encrypted mail welcome.

6 13

PV Advocate on Clipper in `95
by L. McCarthy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Just ran across a pretty nice (IMHO) short piece of media coverage of Clipper in a local weekly, the [Pioneer] Valley Advocate. This is item #85 in the "Tech Check" section of their list of "95 Things to Watch for in 1995". Joint authors of the whole forecast are: Mark Kendall Anderson, Everett Hafner, Stephanie Kraft, Tom Mudd, Steve Penhollow, Chris Rohmann, David Simons, Michael Strohl, and Rob Weir. ------------------ begin included text ---------------------- 85. Clipper Clipping Along Unfortunately, the failure of the mainstream media to cover the government's steamroller tactics in technology policy may well continue. The ``Clipper Chip,'' what NSA, CIA and FBI spooks see as the ideal data protection measure, stands to become national standard if all goes as planned. That is, as more people communicate with digital devices (computers and TVs and eventually telephones and faxes) the need to scramble and unscramble communications will increase -- ideally so that the phone conversation you have with your uncle or the email you send to a co-worker is private and unintelligible to anyone else. However, in the brave new world as it currently is being designed, the feds will also be able to decode every digital signal the Clipper chip scrambles. Consequently, drug kingpins, mafiosi, and anyone else requiring secure communications will have it (real data encryption is cheap and relatively easy to implement), while the remaining information consumers will have Big Brother to contend with. --------------------- end included text ---------------------- FYI, the Advocate accepts letters at 71632.100(a)compuserve.com. -L. Futplex McCarthy; PGP key by finger or server "The objective is for us to get those conversations whether they're by an alligator clip or ones and zeroes. Wherever they are, whatever they are, I need them." -FBI Dir. Freeh - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.1 iQCVAwUBLxEBwmf7YYibNzjpAQFdkgQAkciJkPMXESO9yvl3jKaH7WT6H4wGcgfG W8KyX2myH1zOmN/aZAQVSWX/Rtrs3r+gTwIlCf7DVhFnp1n+lImzrs/T8pKTx/25 gh30s6sm0AGrxcxCV8rgKbXT4KCdPOlXT+kTp5wWaLYBqbZlogvyQIivW3GLZ1U/ 9YnjTb0OXNk= =DaLq - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBLxEC7CoZzwIn1bdtAQEl6AGAtktxeMXLzVqxHi/0qhEgGRtlCg5Oq/aa O/RrNyyqbV8eKzSr/n06bt98bGfRfbgY =ullh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Too Much!
by pstemari＠erinet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:16 AM 1/7/95 -0500, L. Todd Masco wrote: >You might want to try reading it from NNTP, via c2.org or hks.net. You >can then use Kill files. At that point, isn't the mailing list simply becoming a newsgroup? For that matter, is there some reason that escapes me why it ISN'T a newsgroup? I suppose the proportion of net.kooks is higher in a newsgroup than a mailing list, but arguably we're ALL net.kooks here. --Paul J. Ste. Marie pstemari(a)well.sf.ca.us, pstemari(a)erinet.com

1 0

Re: Soapbox mode on!(but short)
by pstemari＠erinet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:22 AM 1/7/95, Carol Anne Braddock wrote: >Dear Paul J. Ste. Marie, > >I was quietly going through my mail after an eight hour layoff. >The first thing you do is lie. > >I have called you a liar. Point Blank! > >And for the honor of this very list, so that there is some >credibility, I shall retrieve from a tin reader the actual >posting, COMPLETE WITH HEADER. Interesting. You did retrieve the message I posted, but not the article from alt.current-events.net-abuse. If you want to call me a liar, that's fine, but post something with some relevance. I'm not in the habit of scanning the news hierarchy for spam, and I'm perfectly willing to believe you stopped after ten groups, but that isn't what I recalled seeing in a.c-e.n-a. I could be remebering things wrong, but if that is the case, kindly post something that actually shows the discussion in a.c-e.n-a was otherwise. >And what makes creeps like you going is the ability to continue, >to spread those lies. And now you're sounding like Martha Siegel. My words were: >> The discussion on alt.current-events.net-abuse seemed to indicate that the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> claim of "Just 10" above is a slight understandment. The newsgroups seem to >> have been hit alphabetically, and I believe the total count was in the >> hundreds. Am I rememebering a.c-e.n-a inaccurately, or have you simply decided not to rebut anything in the forum in which it was presented? All I suggested is that your account bore checking out before people leaped to your defense. An unwillingness to have your story verified speaks for itself. --Paul J. Ste. Marie pstemari(a)well.sf.ca.us, pstemari(a)erinet.com

1 0

Re: carrol(
by m00012＠KANGA.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I would put her in my killfile, but I don't know if vms has a kill file capibility. I use my unix accounts for important email, and do not want to have to sift through the volume I get from the cypherpunks. Otherwise, given that the percentage of interesting posts is going down as a result of carrolann (and perhaps me too now), I think having an elite group capable of banning certain people is perfectly ethical. mike

1 0

cipher magazine
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Someone just gave me this URL. It's probably in the cyphernomicon already, but I had fun rooting around in here and thought I'd pass it around to those who haven't seen it yet. http://www.itd.nrl.navy.mil:80/ITD/5540/ieee/cipher/ Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- 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

1 0

how to subscribe
by Jonathan Nelson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

can someone please mail me where to post to get subscribed Jonathan Nelson a015880t(a)bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us

1 0

The Value of Anonymity
by mkj＠october.ducktown.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The value of anonymity, both on the nets and off, seems to be poorly understood, even among its strongest defenders. The positive value of anonymity is not merely about protecting a few special groups such as sexual-abuse victims and whistleblowers. While these are certainly valuable uses, if I believed that anonymity's positive impact were limited to these outside-the-mainstream groups, then I probably wouldn't accept the benefits of anonymity as outweighing its costs. But in fact, I believe that anonymity has crucially important benefits for nearly everyone. There are several good arguments to be made, but in the interest of brevity I'll focus on only one: The explosive development of such personal data industries as targeted marketing and consumer and demographic profiling, have demonstrated that the business community considers personal data to be of great economic value. (There's a parallel observation to be made here about governments, but I won't go into that now.) There are also myriad uses being made of personal data throughout the professions, from labor negotiators to house burglars. It is something of a truism that anyone who knows enough about you can probably find a way to beat you, either legally or illegally, often at great profit to themselves. In an information-age society without extremely strong privacy protections, the chief factor which makes the difference between winners and losers may be how much information each of us has on others, and how much they have on us. Given this degree of economic and social motivation, it is easy to imagine the sort of panopticon which will soon arise on the Internet (and its descendants), unless the strongest possible protections are adopted. (And it is equally easy to imagine who the biggest winners and losers will be.) Relying on government to protect personal privacy is like appointing the fox to guard the henhouse (or, as I seem to recall John Perry Barlow once putting it, "... getting a peeping tom to install your window blinds," or something like that). In addition to the government's own motivations for eroding privacy, all the above economic considerations enter into government through lobbying, desires to maximize tax revenues, fund-raising considerations, and a whole raft of other avenues. Furthermore, the only tools which government could bring to bear would be a complex web of laws and regulations governing the circulation of personal data. Such laws and regulations would have to constantly shift in a never ending cat-and-mouse game with business; and what's more, many of these laws and regulations would necessarily conflict with the free speech rights of private organizations. Bottom line: Anonymity is the only available tool which puts control over my own privacy firmly into my own hands, where it belongs, and does so without infringing on anyone's freedom of speech. Certainly there are drawbacks, and anonymity may invite some abuses; but we have survived anonymity's problems in the past, and 'tis better to suffer in the hell we know than to be dragged into a new and hotter one. The only society without any crime is a society without any freedom. My ($.02) conclusion: For preserving meaningful privacy, and for preventing an ugly and probably irreversible transformation of our world, anonymity is the best, perhaps the only viable tool we have. --- mkj -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBLw+MZF11Wd4tm8clAQHC3QP8DrxVrUAUM+UKKeKzosFmCXGLkuwJYGDS nE+pFEFIDC8cq7/35h99oIrCszmnkIjwso8PhwlwqRzuxFTZPMI3XuK5wt95tJCL 6Iy2oQ7wjCv+xnL2QjdAGNl68WD0ZhmPv9Q62cvWYjzRXnQJJF7dZiES5l14/NM2 Ij4rLh8AdEo= =OGBF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Remailer Abuse
by lcottrell＠popmail.ucsd.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >See above. What's the difference between A-->B-->C-->B and A-->B-->C-->D ? >If someone is logging messages and routing, it's less secure, but then so is >the entire remailer system. Prime remailer operators are those who don't >log. > >Maybe message size would tip off snoopers. This can be overcome with minor >tweaking to existing remailer code by tacking on or or eliminating padding >to messages. But logging still makes the whole system extremely vulnerable. > >=D.C. Williams <dcwill(a)ee.unr.edu> > Message size can best be handled by using a remailer which uses messages which never change size. Mixmaster is now ready for testing. It still does not run on Linux or FreeBSD. I don't know what else it does run on. It works great on Sun machines with gcc. Since it is export restricted, send me mail and I will send you the name of the hidden directory to get the file. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAwUBLw+btVVkk3dax7hlAQFW/QP9GZAIODaKt/VYsDGWUExiY4NUapvnQpZ/ FWtucyqX+4v9JnJv318PaKEs5xqHMcqtdq0fGZn6qNe1k5MbSVBb5wzfclMQm3LY J7b3qv8zymedXpcmM2hm6bCnbpJkRivIjJTCDmg2yMKRH1Uv+Le5eN2haRxw3d76 e51KLqZJbh4= =BKtC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell who does not speak for CASS/UCSD loki(a)nately.ucsd.edu PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. Encrypted mail welcome. Home page http://nately.ucsd.edu/~loki/ Home of "chain" the remailer chaining script. For anon remailer info, mail remailer(a)nately.ucsd.edu Subject: remailer-help "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: The Value of Anonymity
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: mkj(a)october.ducktown.org > The value of anonymity, both on the nets and off, seems to be poorly > understood, even among its strongest defenders. The positive value of > anonymity is not merely about protecting a few special groups such as > sexual-abuse victims and whistleblowers. While these are certainly > valuable uses, if I believed that anonymity's positive impact were > limited to these outside-the-mainstream groups, then I probably > wouldn't accept the benefits of anonymity as outweighing its costs. These are good points. However I think your presentation is a little too oriented towards the libertarian perspective of distrusting government, and also comes off sounding harshly competitive: > It is something of a truism that > anyone who knows enough about you can probably find a way to beat you, > either legally or illegally, often at great profit to themselves. > > In an information-age society without extremely strong privacy > protections, the chief factor which makes the difference between > winners and losers may be how much information each of us has on > others, and how much they have on us. I think most people don't think so much in terms of winners and losers, of beating and being beaten. Rather, I think it will be more acceptable to couch the issue in simple privacy terms. People do value their privacy. I don't think you have to overly justify the value of privacy. A few examples of how little privacy people could actually have in a non-anonymous network of the future should suffice to establish motivation IMO. > Given this degree of economic > and social motivation, it is easy to imagine the sort of panopticon > which will soon arise on the Internet (and its descendants), unless > the strongest possible protections are adopted. I like this phrase! It nicely connotes the transparency of the nets. > Relying on government to protect personal privacy is like appointing > the fox to guard the henhouse (or, as I seem to recall John Perry > Barlow once putting it, "... getting a peeping tom to install your > window blinds," or something like that). In addition to the > government's own motivations for eroding privacy, all the above > economic considerations enter into government through lobbying, > desires to maximize tax revenues, fund-raising considerations, and a > whole raft of other avenues. This is where I think you are getting too libertarian for a broad audience. Also, this wording invites the reader to assume that anonymity will lead to tax avoidance and evading laws. Most people feel that they are paying their own taxes, and if others avoid them then it just increases the burden on themselves. So except to certain selected groups I would avoid playing this angle up. I think your next argument will have wider appeal: > Furthermore, the only tools which government could bring to bear would > be a complex web of laws and regulations governing the circulation of > personal data. Such laws and regulations would have to constantly > shift in a never ending cat-and-mouse game with business; and what's > more, many of these laws and regulations would necessarily conflict > with the free speech rights of private organizations. Be aware that this is in fact the "mainstream" solution to the problem. There was some discussion on comp.org.eff.talk of some kind of committee headed by EFF board member Esther Dyson which issued a statement on privacy protection in the nets. They issued the by-now traditional call for laws along the lines of "information collected for one purpose cannot be used for another purposes". Like, VISA can't sell data on your spending patterns, at least not without telling you. Nobody criticized this point; even the relatively net-aware civil liberties types mostly explicitly endorsed this provision. Laws like this are apparently already in place in Europe. So the momentum is in exactly this direction. I think your arguments are good ones; the government would undoubtedly exempt itself from such rules (the IRS is already starting to use dataveillance and matching to look for discrepencies between tax returns and spending patterns), plus such provisions would seem to require a labyrinth of exceptions, special cases, etc. Eventually I could see laws telling exactly what a business can and cannot do with the names of people who phone or net in for information; yes, they can be kept on a list for up to 6 months and sent additional promotional literature, except that the business must require standard form 11832 to allow the customer to get his name off the list, which must be handled within 5 working days for businesses with more than 100 employees, etc., etc. You could have volumes of this kind of stuff. I think Tim wrote some essays a long time back pointing out the absurdity of this approach, especially if you tried to apply it to private individuals. > Bottom line: Anonymity is the only available tool which puts control > over my own privacy firmly into my own hands, where it belongs, and > does so without infringing on anyone's freedom of speech. Certainly > there are drawbacks, and anonymity may invite some abuses; but we have > survived anonymity's problems in the past, and 'tis better to suffer > in the hell we know than to be dragged into a new and hotter one. The > only society without any crime is a society without any freedom. > > My ($.02) conclusion: For preserving meaningful privacy, and for > preventing an ugly and probably irreversible transformation of our > world, anonymity is the best, perhaps the only viable tool we have. That's a good summary. This is definately an uphill battle, though. I see no significant standards body or organization of influence (except for CPs, to the extent that we have any influence) which is moving in this direction. Add to this the costs of anonymity as Wei has been discussing and it really isn't clear how to proceed. Hal -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQBVAwUBLxAj1xnMLJtOy9MBAQGujQIAqooWk8OsbJzbAGpxIP+EYnPJM0kA7Ojm /3i04Odoq/YZEH1Fv81/RbwsDahe+AGtmqU+VQ1KpjUTJuPfNKJ4dQ== =w/FH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0