December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

"Nations see Internet.." continued
by Mike Ang 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry about that -- here's the whole thing again "Nations see Internet as threat to security" made the front page of the Saturday _Globe and Mail_. There are some really nice lines in the article, which basically states that electronic freedoms through the Internet are a direct challenge to the power of nation states. They mention all of the more recent examples in China, Germany, France, and the States. The author obviously wasn't afraid of making large claims. Most of them were acceptable, but some seemed completely unsubstantiated (see below). Here are some of the more interesting paragraphs: But as China, Germany, the United States and now France have discovered recently, data sent electronically over the Internet can be every bit as threatening to a country's laws or its culture as armies of yesteryear. But its elusive nature makes it difficult to track down and impossible to eradicate. And there is growing concern that the very existence of the Internet is a threat to the nation-state. [..] "We think of states as unitary bodies, but what they really are is a bundle of sovereignties -- economic sovereignty, military sovereignty, cultural and social sovereignty." That bundle is now coming undone, or as Mr. Saffo put it, "Digital technology is the solvent leaching the glue out of the state as we know it." .. It's not just cultural or social sovereignty that governments worry about. The power to tax is also being eroded by the increase in economic transactions that take place over the Internet, some encrypted so that prying eyes at the tax department could not read them even if a tax inspector was fortunate enough to stumble upon them. Drug dealers and terrorists are resorting increasingly to this means of moving funds. .. However, advocates of unregulated cyberspace says [sic] this just means that the only people using encryption programs at the moment are those doing it illegally. It's a similar argument to the one often made in Canada against gun control -- the bad guys already have weapons. .. Yay, more FUD. The article does a good job of raising some of the important issues. But I _highly_ doubt that "drug dealers and terrorists" are using digital cash to transfer funds. They also characterize strong encryption as something evil. The author implies that main reason for encrypting financial transactions is to evade the tax department - if I'm sending my credit card # across the net, _of course_ I'm going to encrypt it, and when using digital cash, encryption is generally part of authentication. Comparing crypto to guns works in the sense that the "bad guys" will always be able to have access to them. However, I for one support gun control but do not support mandatory limits on crypto. Where I live, there are no theats that justify allowing everyone to carry guns - the threat to privacy and freedom of speech justifies allowing everyone to use strong crypto. You can use a gun to deprive another person of their life - what harm can you do another with PGP? Perhaps you can harm them by being able to spread hate propaganda, but I don't think that that is a strong enough argument. - Mike. If you've got to flame me, do it by email.

2 1

Need a "warning" graphic of some kind for CDA
by Robert A. Hayden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Now that we all have web pages that are naughty and might be seen by little children, I'd like to hve some kind of a graphic that can universally be seen as a "Warning: The following material is unsuitable for children and close-minded twits". (or words to that effect). Anybody with much more graphic design ability than I wanna take a crack at something that can be spread all over the net? It shoudl poke as much fun as possible at the inaness of the CDA, while still being a legitimate effort to warn people that the material is offensive (just in case people start getting yanked off the street on CDA violations). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: PGP Signed with PineSign 2.2 iQCVAwUBMRTStjokqlyVGmCFAQGA3QQA0HOMcmxT+y8NbNtI/ak9Jc1kcmjK5v2l pO17j14IGiz3I+EwXkYMHkCPMup2CyxBZ3YTNkQ4wc8bbtUrYGy/fBSs/yA8Gfy+ TxmGb5uzdLqdhhkJHwgG1CpOkYocX9EN/LUDQ1lB7jDpW5PjNTG1EMkGq1/L3nG5 O3vI3hLrltw= =D/1b -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden(a)krypton.mankato.msus.edu \ /__ Finger for Geek Code Info <=> Finger for PGP Public Key \/ / -=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=- \/ http://krypton.mankato.msus.edu/~hayden/Welcome.html -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GED/J d-- s:++>: a-- C++(++++)$ ULUO++ P+>+++ L++ !E---- W+(---) N+++ o+ K+++ w+(---) O- M+$>++ V-- PS++(+++)>$ PE++(+)>$ Y++ PGP++ t- 5+++ X++ R+++>$ tv+ b+ DI+++ D+++ G+++++>$ e++$>++++ h r-- y+** ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

2 1

Re: Need a "warning" graphic of some kind for CDA
by Dave Farber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Posted-Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 21:09:19 -0500 X-Sender: farber(a)linc.cis.upenn.edu Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 21:09:19 -0500 From: Dave Farber <farber(a)central.cis.upenn.edu> Subject: IP: Blue Ribbon Campaign invite [ with a endorsement from me djf] To: interesting-people(a)eff.org (interesting-people mailing list) X-Proccessed-By: mail2list From: Dan Brown <brown(a)eff.org> Greetings from the Electronic Frontier! As you likely already know, on Feb. 1 1996 the United States House and Senate voted on and overwhelmingly passed the Telecommunications Act almost immediately after being reported out of committee, before the public was able to read, much less comment upon this bill. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), decries the forfeiture of free speech prescribed by the sweeping censorship provisions of the telecommunications "reform" legislation EFF is launching a campaign using a blue ribbon as a symbol to visually communicate support for free speech in the electronic world. As a provider of content on the Internet we invite you to join in this awareness campaign by displaying a link to our "Blue Ribbon" page where we will update what is happening in the effort to preserve free speech. Pictures, HTML anchors and information on the progress of the campaign are all available from http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html. Don't wait in silence. Please join the fight against Internet Censorship!! ------------------------------------------------------ Dan Brown | System admin for the Electronic Frontier Foundation | brown(a)eff.org +1 415 436 9EFF Voice || +1 415 436 9993 Fax || +1 415 605 1481 Pager (Please leave area code _and_ phone number if you page me!)

2 1

Re: Need a "warning" graphic of some kind for CDA
by David K. Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 11:37 AM 02/4/96 -0600, Robert A. Hayden wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Now that we all have web pages that are naughty and might be seen by >little children, I'd like to hve some kind of a graphic that can >universally be seen as a "Warning: The following material is unsuitable >for children and close-minded twits". (or words to that effect). > >Anybody with much more graphic design ability than I wanna take a crack >at something that can be spread all over the net? It shoudl poke as much >fun as possible at the inaness of the CDA, while still being a legitimate >effort to warn people that the material is offensive (just in case people >start getting yanked off the street on CDA violations). > Hmmmmm. Maybe a doll with an international 'no' sign superimposed? Dave Merriman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMRQyXcVrTvyYOzAZAQHXhQP/dnOLwoE5iTf5sNBwPaBl/1+7tXftWIc2 KyxSqqEhgLOcBssTo56Yt7r5TMFVukbWDirNuJW4xFRqFJovw2fG2XdpxMUJlVHF McjIgXbddYWuyjZ+G04uiKcaoMRYFMFajOipIDkTYSNHBMkfDkxbLNrT3YMNpeCx nDyvzpX+tGM= =iqHi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------- "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error." Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U.S. Judge <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> My web page: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1148

2 1

RE: Don't type your yes/fraud response into your computer
by John Pettitt 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:14 AM 2/4/96 -0500, A. Padgett Peterson, P.E. Information Security wrote: >OTOH, keyboard sniffing software is easy to detect because it must go >resident and it must intercept the keystrokes. The fact that no software >has bothered to do this does not mean that it cannot be done. The >easiest way for such software to act would be to ignore the machine software >and when sensitive material is to be passed, to do so via direct port >(hardware) access - been a while since I looked at it but AFAIR is around >port 60h. (PC type machines) > >This would take care of anything sitting on Int 09 or Int 16 since it would >be bypassed. Often a problem that looks difficult when viewed as a whole >becomes simple once you disassemble it. Nice try - but the virtual machine model used by intel supports interception of I/O operations. Now one could get into timing how long the I/O takes to detect interception by the memory manager but it would be a royal pain since the keyboard I/O controller latency is rather machine specific. I still think the basic 'if the machine is not secure all bets are off' premis stands. -- John Pettitt email: jpettitt(a)well.sf.ca.us (home) jpp(a)software.net (work)

1 0

Re: Sometines ya just gotta nuke em-and nuke em again
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Neither the atomic bombing nor the entry of the Soviet Union into the war forced Japan's surrender. She was defeated before either of these events took place." General of the Army Douglas MacArthur "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material success in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. ... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages." Admiral William Leahy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing... I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon." General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower These statements by the Allied military commanders were not deeply buried in graduate school libraries or military archives. They were widely printed and discussed in the media during last year's discussion over the Enola Gay exhibit at the Smithsonian Museum. Now the mere fact that the Allied military commanders all agreed that the nuclear bombings were unnecessary does not automatically mean that the commanders were correct. Theoretically, J.A. Donald and T.C. May might have a greater understanding. But both Donald and May must justify this hypothesis with evidence and logic, not mere assertion. Thus, J.A. Donald was perfectly free to write in Message-Id: <199602040622.WAA07274(a)shell1.best.com> on Feb. 03 22:20 that: "Paralax does not know shit from beans. He presumably imagines that Tim is 'embarrassed' because Tim's knowledge of the historical facts differs from those facts dreamed up by the usual crew of apologists for totalitarian terror." In what way and to what extent did General of the Army MacArthur, the senior Allied commander in the Pacific Theater not "know shit from beans?" In what way and to what extent was MacArthur one of the "usual crew of apologists for totalitarian terror?" In what way and to what extent did Chief of Staff Leahy not know "shit from beans?" In what way and to what extent was Leahy one of the "usual crew of apologist for totalitarian terror?" In what way did General Eisenhower especially not know "shit from beans" about this issue, given his access to all available information when he was President? In what way and to what extent was President Eisenhower one of the "usual crew of apologists for totalitarian terror?" J.A. Donald seems particularly taken with the originality and accuracy of the phrase "shit for beans" to reflect certain states of philosophical and historical knowledge for he repeated it in his next message Message-Id: <199602040611.WAA18584(a)blob.best.net> on Feb. 3, 22:09 where he wrote: "SCHOLARLY RESEARCH!!!! "You do not know shit from beans: Alperovitz is no more a scholar than Zundel is: He is a historical revisionist who lies even more crudely than the holocaust revisionists. "It is clear that in the opinion of the high command, the decision to surrender after they were nuked was a dramatic and radical change of position. Alperovitz says otherwise, thus he is either grotesquely ignorant or, more likely simply dishonest." In what way was General MacArthur an "historical revisionist" and in what way did he "lie even more crudely than the holocaust revisionists?" In what way was he "grotesquely ignorant or, more likely simply dishonest?" In what way of Chief of Staff Leahy? or President Eisenhower? One does not normally find J.A. Donald's phrases in civilized or cultured discourse over political and historical issues. His language is that of the demagogue, not the scientist. But he is entitled to use the language he wishes, just as other people have a similar right to examine his behavior and motivation in terms of identical language. We know, for example, that the pickpocket when caught may point to an innocent person and loudly cry "stop thief" in an effort to mislead the public by denouncing an innocent person for the very behavior for which the pickpocket is guilty. J.A. Donald voluntarily choose to present the dispute in terms of people who "don't know shit for beans," who are "apologists for totalitarian terror," who are "historical revisionists," who are "grotesquely ignorant or, more likely simply dishonest." Given the respective lineup of sources, what information and analysis would J.A. Donald present to us to lead us to conclude that his characterizations accurately reflect General MacArthur, Chief of Staff Leahy, and General Eisenhower rather than, like the pickpocket, J.A. Donald himself? T.C. May, while arguing essentially the same historic view as J.A. Donald (or rather vice versa) approaches the issue in a fundamentally different manner. T.C. May uses logic where J.A. Donald uses demagogic rhetoric. (I do not here refer to T.C. May's characterization of other racial/ethnic/national groups about which others on the list have posted.) When I read the first post by T.C. May on the mass nuclear bombings of civilians I thought his post was: a) off-topic for the cypherpunks list and; b) wrong. At that time I dismissed the idea of a public reply, thinking that he may have had a bad day, misunderstood the issue, or any of a thousand other reasons that have led me and indeed all of us to behave in a similar fashion at one time or another. But he re-posted on the thread in Message-Id: <ad392186040210048141(a)[205.199.118.202]> on Feb 3, 15:54 where he wrote: "(I've also received several long articles from people who seemed outraged that I was belittling the dropping of the bomb. I wasn't belittling it. Far from it. The Japs surrendered after the second bomb, so it was obviously not a trivial matter to them.)" I think his logic is at fault here in several ways. First, I think his logic is invalid because it is a "non sequitur." That is the statement that the Japanese did not take the bombing as trivial is true but not related to the argument. "2 + 2 = 4" is similarly true but unrelated; and I know of no group of people who, whatever their politics, consider mass nuclear bombings of civilians to be a "trivial matter." Second, I think his logic is invalid because it commits the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy that goes, in essence "after this, therefore because of this." "The Japanese surrender came after the bomb, therefore it came because of the bomb" is the invalid argument. One could, to use a "reductio ad absurdum" counter argument, saying with equal (in)validity that John Smith ate a bowl of beans, took a shit, and the next day the Japanese surrendered, therefore the surrender occurred because of the beans and the shit." Indeed the Japanese surrendered, but the evidence by three top (THE three top?) Allied commanders show that the surrender was not produced by either bombs, shit, or beans.

1 0

Re: Sometines ya just gotta nuke em-and nuke em again
by Jordan Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From tallpaul(a)pipeline.com Sun Feb 4 11:47:09 1996 When I read the first post by T.C. May on the mass nuclear bombings of civilians I thought his post was: a) off-topic for the cypherpunks list and; b) wrong. By the way, the certainly *is* a crypto-relevance to this thread, since much of what we knew at the time about the Japanese high command and their motivations and actions was learned through MAGIC intercepts. It also has quite a lot to do with how these intercepts (and related documents) were released over time; the intentionality of what was released, when, and how shows a good deal about how this subject was managed by our government. Since I practically started it (by calling into question Tim's recitation of the story invented about the 500,000 Americans "saved" by dropping the bomb), I'd like to call on those who are interested in it to do some more searching, reading, analyzing and talking. But not here. Thanks, /jordan

1 0

Re: Futplex makes the news!
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Duncan Frissell <frissell(a)panix.com> wrote in "Re: Futplex makes the news!": [..] "Then there was the time that my RA (Resident Assistant) in my dorm in a small (private) liberal arts college in the Northwest found out I had a gun in my room..." Ah. The only semester I lived on campus, the RA was our roommate, who just finished doing a round of bong hits with us, then walked around the hall and busted everyone else who was smoking dope. It's sad when a noneteen year old kid tries to act like your mother or father.

1 0

Concerning Jim Bell
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- It has been brought to my attention that I did not make this as clear as it should be. I consider Mr. Bell to be a crank and a loon. He has no interest in any sort of honest discussion. He wishes to draw in others in the hope of "punishing me". - From now on, I am ignoring all of his posts and "killfiling" him. You may now go back to your scheduled and unscheduled lives. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMRUhaeQCP3v30CeZAQGCpAf9FvV2sIHX9q5qajkgXWJsG7EG1JgMOvdH XeRhc0qCrFJPcYfDBFvP6+Ck1dnsYNVzY+wDhMRDpHqky0KegRNENOFiU6NBhy+U mbSCxlFU4FTa+xwRAm7BF8a0G1HGXkFzUOP6O7zf/WONE3+3EZr+aPlr0cm5maja Xz5bRzi1SKlDQsxNK/msvYKXYyU5CLX2lVCGf7/qro2QezLNMz5skf9GJ9Tq7S5P 1gOiVjzNzYnmJj+76Uz+72zlvOHjIYrxf5FxsDsqqda2dBRyX9vmPmpWUMLBcoPi kgZ4GtHryVgjKy5dkxk3U24hJIRYZiLwWl8gDiFuJDnC0PZwR3w7aQ== =Lfox -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ Is the operating system half NT or half full?

2 1

Re: free speech and the government
by Stephan Mohr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 16:02 03.02.1996 -0800, you wrote: >Stephan Mohr writes: >> >> Well, I feel that I agree with the people on the right of free speech for >> i.e. the neo-nazi stuff or other political, ideological and/or religious >> ideas. But there is still something that leaves me uneasy: imagine there >> would be a way to easily make a powerful poison, easily applicated to >> your town's water-reservoir, or a very easy way to build some strong >> explosive device. etc. Actually, I think that stuff like this does exist >> already. >> >> But the idea that one day I just put 'easy made deadly poison for millions' >> into my webcrawler and whoop there it is on my screen or on the screen of any >> other fool, doesn't sound to right to me. I would like things like this >> to be better put aside and locked up. > >You can't put the genie back into the bottle. >Once something is invented or described, the knowledge >is out there. Someone who wants to use that knowledge >for "wrong" purposes can find it. > >Maybe a lot of people around the world could agree that >the knowledge to make something really dangerous (say Sarin nerve gas) >should be suppressed. But where do we draw the line? If >we, or rather our government acting obstensibly in our interest, decides >to supress the information on how to make Sarin, not too many people >will complain. But the tendency of governments is to regulate and >restrict and tax more. What happens when governments suppress >knowledge on how to make gunpowder? Or printing presses? Or >encryption? > Actually, I am glad that the whole story started over some neo-nazi stuff and not a recipe to easily make a very potent poison. I wonder if there would have been as many 'poison-sites' as there are zundel-sites. And what 'poison-site'-maintainers would think after some fool would have used the poison to kill a bunch of kindergarten-kids by putting it into their food. And how some governments would react and what type of restriction on the net would not only be accepted, but even demanded by the people. Yeah, I know, the guy could have gotten the idea elsewhere as well, but you know how people think and how governments like to link unrelated stuff to gain power. And it is nice to see how much publicity you can give to something by prohibiting it. >Many people argue (rightly IHMO) that once started on the slippery slope >of suppressing knowledge there's no stopping until we're all >under the boot heel of the police state. > >[..] I think that you are right in saying that you can't put the genie back into the bottle. But I think it makes a big difference if you make it widely available to everyone and maybe even to people who do not want to have it. It would be nice to have some type of obstacle in the way to this type of information. It is like putting drugs, alcohol and other dangerous stuff out of the reach of children. Or putting a fence at some dangerous cliff to prevent people from falling over. The dangerous stuff will still be there and you just can't flatten every hill. But there is a responsibility that comes with information as well as with any other thing. So I do not want to outlaw some type of information, I agree that this is not feasible (I hope) nor desirable. But I think that there should be some possibility of control on a public medium. Not to control the content but to control the access. The idea is to give control to those in need of control without interfering with the free exchange of information of others. This could be done, for example, by giving them a choice of providers or browser software (jewish, catholic, anarchist, terrorist, gay, straight ... flavoured provider/browser). So you can say whatever you want, but everyone can decide whether he or she wants to listen to you or not (in a more sophisticated way, of course). And it is not just 'don't click on my page than'. Here encryption may play an important role: not only to protect your privacy, but also to protect others from having to read your stuff. Most or the governments will not accept the idea of free speech like this. And I am afraid, but I guess they could still tear down the whole net if they want to. So, wouldn't it be better that, if there should be some type of control technology, that it is conceived by the netizen and not by, say the german, chinese, or french government. Stephan

1 0