December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Crypto Exports, Europe, and Conspiracy Theories
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:06 PM 1/26/96 -0600, Alex Strasheim wrote: > >Digicash is probably the first significant crypto product to be exported >to America. It's not very popular yet, but I think that most of us here >agree that it is, in potential at least, as significant as >Mosaic/Netscape. It's important to note that this extremely important >product couldn't have been produced here, patents aside. Transaction >systems need to be international, and our rules make America an unsuitable >place from which to launch tranaction software. > >Will the NSA be able to stand up against growing economic pressures? I >don't know. But it does seem pretty clear that those pressures are >building all the time, and that the problem of supressing crypto in 1996 >is a much tougher one than it was in 1986. > >In general, it's myopic and ill advised to focus on one factor -- >economics, politcs, the national security establishment -- when trying to >predict what will happen. I've probably been guilty of placing too much >emphasis on money, and not enough on the NSA. > >We do seem to be winning, though. Agreed. However, we will all REALLY win when anonymous-payer/anonymous-payee digital cash appears and is in common usage. (or Digicash can be "munged" to make payee-anonymity possible, if not the norm.

1 0

re:Gentlemen do not read each other's mail
by Marc J. Wohler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail." Ben Franklin Original quote by Ben Franklin when the British government published (stolen?) private letters of John Adams to his wife critical of Franklyn and other members of the Continental Congress. The Britsh hoped to drive a wedge into the congress and especially between Adams % Franklin. Franklin was a gentleman. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMQgVzmeikzgqLB7pAQGKOQQAr5nJo0L12l1Xd0EXpsExgZcztOkIKCQa j7Fhll8wx7dczUa5jJy+o4nfV8duk1MylzA386uO+kfNsCH+s5XlFobaeyc3Epk0 pERqFTzhcVf33egCRDlVqKjwa7uuwJXM2no++vwgGjy9hxSaWAIOAPcZf1Yi5mYj ZzVSTj8CQQ0= =gf0F -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ***Preserve, Protect and Defend the private use of Strong Crypto*** * * * PGP for the masses * * * Finger mjwohler(a)netcom.com for Marc Wohler's public key fingerprint= F1 70 23 13 91 B5 10 63 0F CF 33 AD BE E6 7B B6

2 1

Re: The French do some things right...
by tim＠dierks.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:01 PM 1/26/96, Timothy C. May wrote: >The French seem to have partially done this. Francois Mitterand had a >mistress? Who cares? They take it for granted that people are people, with >human foibles and weaknesses. Of course, aside from censoring photos and a book that happened to talk about the fact that he had cancer. I think it's just a different set of sensitivites. - Tim Tim Dierks - Software Haruspex - tim(a)dierks.org If you can't lick 'em, stick 'em on with a big piece of tape. - Negativland

1 0

Anonymous trashing of Assassination Politics
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [on cypherpunks(a)toad.com] At 01:54 AM 1/27/96 +0100, Anonymous wrote: >Jim Bell writes: > >>While this would normally be my cue to offer up my "Assassination Politics" >>idea, which (if presumed to be correct) would stabilize "anarchy" and >>prevent "lawlessness and social disorder" (at least as normally seen by the >>average reader) I think that under the circumstances that would be redundant >>here. > >I'm not *sure* that your Assassination Politics trip is the worst piece of tripe I've ever seen on the list, but if it's not, it's right up there. I notice that you responded through an anonymous remailer, and didn't even use a nym. This is strange. If anything, the people who criticize my idea seem to be under the illusion that it is _I_ who should be embarrassed for proposing it, and in fact vociferously promoting it. "Those of you" who object to it should be the ones who are "proudly" taking the "moral high ground" and thus should be happy to identify yourself and defend your position. Even if, arguably, you invented the fiction that you feared for your life trying to argue with people like me, nothing prevents you from developing a stable nym and arguing your position using it, secure in the knowledge that your body is safe from attack. Your arguments would still be subject to sudden death, however. >Those of us who are anarchists What?!? You imply that you are an anarchist, yet you don't approve of a system which might not only produce anarchy, but in fact in record time? Well, EXCUUUUUUUUSE MEEEEEE! Sorry to put you out of a "job." > are often that way because we think the *means* the State uses are evil, not to be excused by any amount of >mumbo-jumbo. I think the state's ENDS are evil, too, not merely their MEANS. > And you gleefully propose to let us *all* in on the immoral game of murdering those who annoy us >sufficiently. Actually, if you followed my arguments carefully, you will notice that my position is most accurately described by pointing out that I _could_not_ keep you from participating in this "immoral game", even if I wanted to. For the record, I suspect some people who are total pacifists view the rest of us, those willing use use violence to defend ourselves, as "immoral." >I'll pass. Others won't. > >You know, if I were constructing an agent provacateur, I'd want a persona who's willing to be loudly clueless with ideas that show minimal or non-existent awareness of basic human hopes and fears, like security from random hit-squads. I'd have him go on and on with his ideas, until eventually they can splashed all over headlines and used to discredit the whole realm of privacy protection. Aha! You're implying (actually, implying is an understatement here) that I am an "agent provocateur." Naturally, it would be useless to deny this (although, for the record, I will deny it), because anybody who was convinced of its truth wouldn't expect me to tell the truth anyway. But hey, let's put it up for a vote. How many people out there believe that I am an "agent provocateur"? C'mon people, don't be shy, you've seen my prose. What do the rest of you think? >But no, I don't think you're an agent. Good! I'd hate to argue with a person who didn't realize I am SERIOUS. > More fool you, you're willing to do the government's disinformation work for it without even thirty pieces >of silver or a 401K. To be perfectly honest, I did a lot of soul-searching in early 1995 about whether I should publicize my ideas. No, it wasn't because I was AFRAID that it might happen. I _WANTED_ it to happen. Every little bit. Every government on the face of the earth, to come crashing down in a heap. Complete, total, absolute anarchy. (But not the "anarchy" that most people are pre-programmed to think of...) No more governments, no more borders, no more taxes, no more holocausts, no more wars, no more politicians. Forever and ever and ever. Rather, I was fearful that by publicizing the idea, I might end up PREVENTING it from occurring. You know, by giving the governments advance warning about what was going to happen, I might actually help them prevent it. That worried me, a lot. But eventually, I made my decision. After a huge amount of thought that some day I might be inclined to relate. However, if I'd REALLY wanted to PREVENT this, I would have alerted the government secretly, so that they could manipulate things behind the scenes, secretly, to prevent this "crypto/digicash/internet anarchy." _That_ I did not do. I publicized it, allowed it to be criticized and therefore "perfected" (not that it's "perfect, by any means!) it, and I'm now promoting it the best way I know how. And with all due modesty, it's getting a pretty good reception, considering how extreme and drastic it initially might appear. Part of my reasoning was that unless I engaged in the absurd conceit of believing that I was, cumulatively, smarter than everyone currently in the government, I had no choice but to conclude that the government was already aware of the potential problem. And if that were the case, they were, at that very moment, working desperately to PREVENT what I wanted, desperately, to ACHIEVE. At that point, I made the choice of forcing the government's hand. >At this point I recommend to you the 12-step program I explained to Vladimir. > >Signed, >A Friend Recommendation: If you really want to be taken seriously, use your real name or at the very least generate a stable nym. Preferably, with messages signed by the nym's public key. Without it, you are a silly, unbelieveable ass. Even with it, you may STILL be a silly, unbelieveable ass, but at least people would pay more attention to you. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMQmqKPqHVDBboB2dAQGW6wP/Vjrmoj16SaBZwvoUa8Sxx3VLJTKEwxLx LOCs2zIl+Ahwr3R6IMw4y6VsESszYUz+271k1+rVVDf3GrxvlqJFyTRL2KeFltp2 fWosOD03X3Yneg8Ocg6oainIiiG+TLUkTqarddT+6VIoImmmWsFk4Yf+eG0OoEJc NgawkFoSokg= =Xs7A -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Denning's misleading statements
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:24 PM 1/26/96 -0500, Thomas Grant Edwards wrote: > >I think the big bait-and-switch is her description of the various >companies falling over themselves to get to _VOLUNTARY_ key escrow to >avoid losing data and protecting themselves against employee problems >versus _MANDATORY_GOVERNMENT_ key escrow to ensure that individuals >cannot hide information from the government. > >Key escrow is good. Key escrow against your will is bad. While I understand your point, I sorta hafta disagree. (or, at least, state my reservations.) If something is technologically IMPOSSIBLE (or, in practice, not available), it won't be mandated by government because it can't be. The moment something exists, it can be forced on people. I'm not saying we should somehow try to prevent people from developing truly voluntary key-escrow systems; rather, I'm saying that their existence should alert us to the danger.

2 1

Re: Microsoft's CryptoAPI - thoughts?
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For those allergic to Microsoft word, I have htmlized the crypto api You can find it at http://www.jim.com/jamesd/mscryptoapi.html I hope that microsoft will soon have an official html version. A notable misfeature of the API is that it assumes that in general you will have two key pairs. One for signing and one for encrypting. Since in the most common case you are encrypting something related to a signed message by the person you are encrypting to this is a bad idea, and protocols that require two key pairs to avoid protocol failure are hazardous and inconvenient. I think Microsoft should not have chosen to support such protocols. The Crypto engine that Microsoft will soon distribute in every copy of NT and windows will of course be crippled -- 512 bit RSA keys and 40 bit RC4 keys, but of course we should not do anything about this until we have some crypto enable applications floating around. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1

Re: Denning's misleading statements
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:49 PM 1/26/96 -0800, Rich Graves wrote: >Outlaw cryptography, and only cryptographers and outlaws will have >cryptography. However unlike guns which require some level of machine shop to produce, cryptographic systems can be produced at home by a smart high school student with only the computer that is needed to compete in the the modern economy. Bill

1 0

Re: [rant] A thought on filters and the V-Chip
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:56 AM 1/26/96 -0800, Alan Olsen wrote: >[Not Perry(tm) approved -- Skip of this offends you] > >I am waiting for someone to come out with a product that will modify the >v-ship (or the various internet "protection" tools) in such a way that it >scans *FOR* pornography. > >Porn is big business. You would think that people would pay for a way to >sort through all of that non-smuttiness and just "get to the good stuff". I >also imagine that as soon as such a product appears, the censors will scream >bloody murder. Sigh! Wonderful idea, but sadly it probably will never be allowed to work, for exactly the obvious reasons. (I know that sounds like an odd argumnt to get from ME, considering MY idea...) On the other hand, this would be an EXCELLENT "argument" to bring in front of a Congressional committee considering the adoption of any V-chip type proposal. Once they discover that a ratings system could be used for the diametrically opposite reasons of their reason for having it in the first place, they'll try to modify their proposal to prevent this. If we're lucky, this'll have the effect of killing the whole concept of government-sponsored (required?) V-chip-type technology. OTOH, I agree with other posters who think that truly voluntary content selection would be an excellent addition to television: In effect, an automatic, programmable TV-Guide search engine.

2 1

Re: Open NNTP servers and logging
by Michael Peponis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 26 Jan 96 at 21:11, Stephen Albert wrote: > A little while back there were some very helpful posts about getting started > wit open NNTP servers. Since my regular site runs kinda slow in the news > department I've been having fun poking around and seeing about getting more > current. > > Then it dawned on me. People keep logs. Presumably routine logging would > point right back at my ISP, and from there it'd be not too hard to pin down me > specifically. No, I don't think anyone is particularly *likely* to do that, > but why take chances? > > So...anyone know of open NNTP servers that *don't* keep logs? Or some other > way around the problem? Well, as bad as the lack of anonymity may be, NNTP server logs serve a very usefull purpose, ie finding and eliminating trolls and spammers. Unfortunatly, I would have to go logs given the state of UseNet. Why not just read from the open server, and post anonyomously using anonymous remailers and News-to-Mail Gateways? Regards, Michael Peponis PGP Key Avalible form MIT Key Server,or via finger

2 1

Re: Hack Java
by br＠scndprsn.Eng.Sun.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

]Both of you are correct if you look carefully at the assumptions. Rich ]assumes that you have a 'malicious compiler'. Godmar is right that Java ]does not utilize pointers in the byte code. What would make the entire ]scenario work is a malicious interpreter or a 'NotJava Browser'(TM) that ]allowed malicious code to be executed. Couple a bad compiler and a bad ]interpreter and you are in buisness (nasty business that is). Yes. And if you also let an intruder in your house, have them sit at your computer with your newborn child in the room and go on vacation, things can get really, really nasty. Sort of like when you execute untrusted code in an untrusted environment... -- Benjamin Java Products Group

3 2