December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: <fwd> Spiegel on CIS Censorship
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:11 PM 1/8/96 -0500, Vin McLellan wrote: >CIS's utter >ignorance of free-speech principles set the stage for the symbolic >Bravarian Censorship of the Net. You'll hear of a dozen other nations >jumping in, with different standards, within the month. Don't overdo the CIS newsgroup "ban". The first sysop to "ban" newsgroups did so many years ago. There are well-developed techniques to read "banned" newsgroups. A FAQ and everything. http://www.ECNet.Net/users/mumbv/pages/banned-groups-faq.shtml Compuserve is just a large proprietary service and sometime ISP (and one of the most expensive ones). They are not a big player on the Net. > I find the tragic association of a "free" Internet and porn to be >painfully common among cyberless adults even in my own community. Odds >are, my state, Massachusetts -- arguably the most liberal of the US states >-- would vote for Censorship Filter tomorrow if it were on a ballot. Luckily it's not and can't be. > It's amazing how incompetent the liberal/libertarian side has been >in this public debate. (So incompetent, in fact, that there has been _no_ >public debate!) Everyone who wants to place control over any filter (any >part of The Filter?) in the hands of the citizen is just another >snuff/torture/kiddy porn addict. Almost all of the articles on the CIS "ban" have mentioned that "therapeutic" groups were also included. Certainly the Net has let CIS know what we think of them. They expressed surprise at our reaction. Their "ban" isn't even a ban as my piece on using CIS to read banned groups shows. (http://www.cs.umass.edu/~lmccarth/cypherpunks/banned.html) It is making it into Wired and the Baltimore Sun (maybe) and was good enough that Michael Miller, author of "Using Compuserve" linked to it from his book page: http://www.mcp.com/people/miller/cistop.htm. DCF

1 0

Re: PRIVACY: Private traces in public places
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Responding to msg by tbyfield(a)panix.com (t byfield) on Wed, 10 Jan 10:42 AM > I ain't holding my breath until someone >develops a search engine for Fresh Kills. (See code relevance at end.) For the curious, Fresh Kills is NYC's main waste archive, the largest built structure in the US (a favorite of Japanese techno-tourists exceeding 256 Great Pyramids of Egypt) and still heaping. Archeologists are indeed excavating selected spots, under grants made after probes revealed that decomposition was not occurring as expected. Newspapers and such were perfectly preserved after years of burial. Due to sophisticated engineering of the mountain to prevent dispersal, air and moisture could not enter to lubricate return to mother earth. However, very profitable methane gas retrieval has been taking place for many years -- which may be a suitable metaphor for mining electronic archives. Now, then, code for this glop? Construction debris can be illegally dumped at Fresh Kills with the proper building-code-compliant green handily hooked to the side of the dumpster for the guard.

1 0

Some questions about ecash[tm]
by David Murray 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Some questions that I send into the ether in the knowledge, or hope, that the great and the good are listening, and will enlighten me... (Since this exercise strikes even me as incredibly presumptious, feel free to ignore this. [It takes less energy than flaming. If you must flame, do it in private email - I'll post a summary to the list :-)]) 1. Has there been any significant/in-depth coverage of the Mark Twain Banks product in the financial/ banking press? Digicash's press file stops just before the launch, and Digicash/Mark Twain Banks press releases are not exactly what I'm looking for. 2. In the Digicash ecash tutorial (also referenced from MT's website) the example is given of Alice sending ecash to Cindy (Candy, Clarissa?). Cindy's bank checks with Alice's bank before crediting Cindy's wallet with the $5.00 sent. In MT's FAQ, they refer, somewhat wistfully, to a future where the ecash systems of different banks may be able to interoperate. How difficult would such interoperation be? Is this something that is inherent/built into the Digicash supplied bank system? Or would it require significant changes to the way things are done? Similarly, since the software supplied by Digicash to MT customers seems somewhat MT specific, how easy would it be for future ecash issuers to piggy back on MT's customer base? How about merchants? 3. The MT ecash[tm] project is repeatedly referred to as an experiment, a system in beta phase. Any word on when the experiment will be over, or what it is trying to prove/discover? The thrust of these questions, of course, is How easy will it be for the next eBank? And the one after that? Is Digicash ready for the move to multiple issuers? Does it have the resources to assist another institution to launch ecash this year? This month? One a month for the year? Whatever. Too many questions that cannot possibly be answered, even if there were answers to give... Dm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMPTVR1lo3j8JHzalAQG/JAP/dBNTMHdo4MP7TaIAZrKwMxt3U4fH/qsb TipYBcS8lgEgUsD9Pu/enIzxeEs52K6ARnq1BE6V/G1jxFVbfnLmfV6t6TWqRxSM 68FH3eX0+ZBGFGzDMmvOGWaibZETfHikv55q7ZuqYrnfZ+wrIPKlF+UGiNY3lJlw rpNkY3oBwqY= =0g2R -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

COMMUNITY CONNEXION REFUSES TO CENSOR INTERNET SERVICES
by sameer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For Immediate Release - January 11, 1996 Contact: Sameer Parekh 510-601-9777x3 COMMUNITY CONNEXION REFUSES TO CENSOR INTERNET SERVICES Berkeley, CA - In an open letter sent today to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Community ConneXion, the Internet Privacy Provider, explicitly stated its refusal to agree to their request to restrict access to services based on the content of the web pages their customers may implement using Community ConneXion services. On Wednesday, January 10th, the Simon Wiesenthal Center issued a request to Internet providers and universities to refuse to carry messages that "promote racism, anti-Semitism, mayhem and violence." Their target in the request was not Usenet, the discussion forums on the Internet which were recently targeted for censorship by CompuServe, but the World-Wide-Web, the area of the Internet which allows anyone to serve their words and ideas to the nearly thirty million people on the Internet. Efforts are growing to regulate content on the Internet and restrict freedom of expression. Community ConneXion is opposed to all forms of censorship. In the letter to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Sameer Parekh, President of Community ConneXion, described their position in reply to the Center's request that Internet providers pledge to restrict service, "Community ConneXion considers it our civic duty to provide Internet access, services, and privacy to any individual or group, no matter what their political or social agenda." The Simon Wiesenthal Center is asking Internet providers to restrict access to individuals and groups who would use their services to promote hateful ideas. "The answer to hateful speech is more speech," said Parekh, "Rather than attempting to ban hateful speech, which does nothing to prevent the hate and the effects of hate in the long run, human rights groups should devote their time and energies towards positive activities, such as speaking out debunking the hate groups and holocaust revisionists. Only by speaking out against the hate-mongers can any progress be made. Trying to stop them from speaking will only serve to encourage them." The very same services that Community ConneXion refuses to censor may be used by the persecuted groups who are harassed by the anti-Semites and neo-Nazis to aid them to protect themselves from persecution. "Using our services someone who may be afraid of the neo-Nazis, perhaps because they live in a very intolerant town, may set up web pages speaking out against the anti-Semites, but not reveal their real name or address. In this way people can provide information and speak out against the hate without fearing any repercussions. The very same services which can help drive out hate are the very same ones which the Simon Wiesenthal Center is asking Internet providers to restrict." Community ConneXion, founded in June of 1994, is the leading provider of privacy on the Internet. They provide anonymous and pseudonymous Internet access and web pages in addition to powerful web service, virtual hosts, and web design consultation. Information is available from their web pages at http://www.c2.org/. Attachment: Open letter to the Simon Wiesenthal Center ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Community ConneXion 3038A Mabel St. Berkeley, CA 94702 510-601-9777 http://www.c2.org/ January 11, 1996 The Simon Wiesenthal Center 9760 West Pico Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90035 To Whom it May Concern: This letter is in response to your call for Internet providers to refuse to carry messages which "promote racism, anti-Semitism, mayhem and violence." Community ConneXion, The Internet Privacy Provider, explicitly refuses to take such action as requested by your organization. I will, in this letter, explain the rationale behind our decision. While the reasons to not censor Internet traffic are great, we will only describe a few of them in order to explain our decision. First, the best way to fight speech is with more speech. Second, it violates the fundamentals upon this country was founded, in particular the ideal of freedom of expression. Finally, we believe that trying to restrict harmful speech, which, for example, "conspires against democracy," does more damage to the cause of democracy than allowing the hateful individuals and organizations to speak in the first place. In order to fight the hateful speech to which your organization objects, it is more productive to speak out against the hate and the lies of the anti-Semites and neo-Nazis than to try to prevent them from speaking. By preventing them from speaking, you are giving them more allies, and more legitimacy than they would have if you merely spoke out against them and debunked their words. If you actually take proactive action towards debunking their lies, people will understand that they are actually lying. By preventing them from speaking, you are promoting the idea that they actually might have something valuable to say. Hateful action, of course, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent permissible by law. Second, this country was founded on the ideal of freedom of expression. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the first one on the list of the Bill of Rights. Restricting access to freedom of expression to only people with acceptable viewpoints is not true freedom of expression. Finally, and most important, restricting speech in order to ostensibly protect democracy does more to damage democracy than to help it. Censorship leads towards a more restrictive society, one which grows ever more similar to the totalitarian government of the Third Reich, which made the atrocities of the Holocaust possible. In order to prevent such an atrocity from happening again, no government must be allowed to gain the power over its citizens that was allowed the Third Reich. By asking for restrictions on speech you are asking for a return to the controls which gave the Third Reich its power. Therefore, we have taken a stance directly opposed to any and all forms of censorship. Community ConneXion considers it our civic duty to provide Internet access, services, and privacy to any individual or group, no matter what their political or social agenda. Thank you. Sincerely, Sameer Parekh President, Community ConneXion

2 1

Net Control is Thought Control
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On CSPAN Friday morning a gentlemen who is, I take it, a lobbyist for TPC or the Competitive Long Distance Coalition (TPCs) said that the Internet could be regulated just like magazines, tv, or anything else. I have long doubted statements like this particularly since they come from people without apparent experience on the Net. I have long suggested that net control=thought control and will prove as difficult in the modern world as the more conventional thought control itself. But why is net control just a form of thought control? It is difficult for others to control our thoughts because they are insubstantial, hidden, and under our control. Small groups (family, village, etc) have a better chance of influencing what we think but even they are not totally successful. Governments who wanted to engage in thought control have usually set up government schools for this purpose with mixed results. Liberal societies (broadly defined) have loosened many of the traditional controls on our thoughts exercised by our families and neighbors. They have tried to replace these controls with bureaucratic thought control systems with limited success. Only the totalitarian states have done much of a job in this area but not enough (obviously) to save themselves from destruction. There has been a general decline in the effectiveness of thought control since the Industrial Revolution made (atomistic) individualism possible and books cheap. The Nets are the next step in this process. Since they allow our thoughts to easily, rapidly, and cheaply leap from our minds to a world-wide communications medium, our minds are in some sense extended worldwide. It becomes cheap and easy for anyone to publish their thoughts. The dramatic changes occasioned by the mechanical production of cheap pulp paper and steam-driven printing presses in the 19th century will be as nothing compared to effects of the speed and reach of Net "publishing." In addition to expanding the scope of our thoughts, the Nets also give us new powers of secret communication. Modern encryption and anonymity technology lets us both keep our thoughts secret and communicate them to anyone else who is interested. Quite an expansion of the capabilities of "the thought in the brain." Also, the Nets allow us to find others of our ilk (however small and deviate that may be) who offer support to us in our thoughts. This further reduces the power of traditional thought controls exercised by our immediate communities. Since my immediate community has included Cypherpunks since February 1993, I am less likely to be influenced "locally" on topics of Cypherpunk interest. The normal primate tendency to look to the "troop" for guidance in what to think and do is sabotaged by our ability to find our own reinforcing communities where ever we like. So even less thought control is possible. As we users know and non-users will find out, the Nets are not "just another medium" like books, magazines, and TV (just as those were not "just another medium" in their day). Control of the Nets will prove as difficult as the control of thoughts themselves. DCF

3 2

Re: When they came for the Jews...
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:33 AM 1/10/96 -0800, sameer wrote: > Is there some way I can get a copy of this letter? Is it >directed at specific ISPs or ISPs in general? An open response, >publicized, to this sounds like something I could do. Publicity is >fun. It's not on http://www.wiesenthal.com/ yet. Maybe I'll query. They are sending it to "hundreds" of ISPs. Hitting the big services first (even though they aren't really ISPs.) DCF

1 0

NOISE Today in history
by David Lesher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There is 'Punk irony in spades in today's list: On Jan. 10, 1776, Thomas Paine published his influential pamphlet, ``Common Sense.'' In his call for American independence from England, Paine wrote, ``Everything that is right or reasonable pleads for separation.'' >From personol independence to personel monopoly control: In 1870, John D. Rockefeller incorporated Standard Oil. Promises made, promises broken: In 1920, the League of Nations was established as the Treaty of Versailles went into effect. and In 1928, the Soviet Union ordered the exile of Leon Trotsky. If at first you don't succeed... In 1946, 50 years ago, the first General Assembly of the United Nations convened in London. Can the telescreen be far behind?: In 1946, the first man-made contact with the moon was made as radar signals were bounced off the lunar surface. Gee, will ITAR be next to go?: In 1990, Chinese Premier Li Peng lifted Beijing's seven-month-old martial law, and said that by crushing pro-democracy protests, the army had saved China from ``the abyss of misery.'' -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

A Mondex like Protocol (2)
by norm＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An improved Mondex like protocol About a week ago I posted a protocol that meets the requirements of the Mondex cards as I understand them. It was overkill. I wasn't clear in my own mind what properties of Diffie Hellman I was depending on. Here is an improvement that does not use DH and thus uses less compute power. Two Mondex units, upon command of their respective operators, can pass money from one to the other via infrared signals. I think that this requires tamper proof units. I understand that the Mondex protocol is currently undisclosed. I have no information about that protocol but am merely trying to find a protocol that fits the little that I know about Mondex. Are there other guesses? When a receiving unit, the payee, is instructed by its operator to be ready to receive a payment, it increments an internal counter. The payee transmits an infrared message including its unique id, the counter value and a simple checksum. This message is repeated until some timeout or a valid transmission from a payer is received. The payer unit, having been instructed by its operator to pay, awaits such a message. Upon receipt it decrements its local balance and constructs a record consisting of the payee's id, the payee's counter value, the payment amount and a secret shared by all money units. The payer then transmits a message with the payment amount, and the secure hash of the record. This transmission is repeated until an acknowledgment or a timeout. Upon receipt the payee is able to reconstruct the payer's record and compute the secure hash. If the computed hash matches the received hash then the payee can be sure that some legitimate payer unit has decremented its local balance and it is thus valid for the payee to increment its value by that amount. It then transmits one acknowledgment. If the receiver's transmission is garbled but the checksum does not catch it then the transmitted money is lost. The payer thinks it has authorized a balance increment but no unit recognizes the authorization as its own. Garbled transmission from a payer are ignored when the hash check fails. Subsequent transmissions will hopefully succeed. Note that this scheme uses no crypto.

1 0

Re: When they came for the Jews...
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:22 PM 1/10/96 -0500, Futplex wrote: >No big surprise to see these folks come out against free speech in a new >medium. Too bad they're utterly blind to the lessons of the history they've >documented so well. > >Futplex <futplex(a)pseudonym.com> Just part of the ongoing conflict between Anglo-Saxon values and European values. Runnymede vs Canossa. TCP/IP vs X.25. Some think that one should bow to authority others think that authority should bow to them. DCF "Canossa -- In Germany, HENRY IV joined the antireform party and was excommunicated (1076) by Pope Gregory VII. Losing support, Henry humbled himself before Gregory at Canossa."

1 0

RE: Net Control is Thought Control
by Pete Loshin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Duncan Frissell wrote: >On CSPAN Friday morning a gentlemen who is, I take it, a lobbyist for TPC or >the Competitive Long Distance Coalition (TPCs) said that the Internet could >be regulated just like magazines, tv, or anything else. I have long doubted >statements like this particularly since they come from people without >apparent experience on the Net. > >[many other interesting comments deleted] Magazines and TV (and books, newspapers, movies etc.) are _NOT_ regulated, at least not as to content. These media are all pretty much self-regulated. The judgement of whether to print the f-word in a newspaper is made by the editors and/or the publishers--not the government. The same goes for how much flesh gets displayed on a television show, or in a movie, or on the cover of a magazine. It is true that the TV and movie industry have subjected themselves to self-censorship and "guidelines" to avoid having the government step in and do it for them, however. It may be that this individual was speaking in favor of having the Internet community police itself--which may mean he's in favor of an updated Hayes board of censors (the folks who felt that, during the 40's it was obscene to indicate that ANYONE, particularly married people, slept in the same bed together, with the result that bedroom scenes always had the couple sleeping in their own individual single beds). -Pete Loshin pete(a)loshin.com

1 0