December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: "This post is G-Rated"
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:50 PM 1/26/96, Mike McNally wrote: >The "enforcement" is always a reactive thing. I don't think you'd get >far with a parent explaining that the material they consider indecent >which somehow showed up on alt.kids.only would be dealt with by >blistering flames. ... >So you think those who want a "controlled cyberspace" would be happy >with newsgroups that stay "mostly decent"? I strongly doubt it, and I >will also add that such "enforcement" is far, far less effective on >newsgroups than on mailing lists. By the way, we should always be ready to would-be censors/moderators of Usenet that "kid-friendly" alternatives either exist, or could be created by those interested in screening stuff. What many of us object to is the notion that legislators in some particular country can cause the 12,000+ Usenet groups, or the accesses via the Net and Web, to be turned into something safe for all children, or all Muslims, or all women, or all vegans. AOL and its ilk are used by parents I know as a "kinder and gentler" introduction to the Net for their impressionable ankle-biters. There are a zillion special interest groups that want their members protected from various kinds of stuff out there in the world. I don't have to list them here. We as Cypherpunks should strenuously point out that the speech of adults on forums like Usenet should not be reduced to the level of what all children should hear. Nor should we endorse "voluntary self-ratings" proposals, for the many reasons discussed here recently. I for one will not slow down my speech, slow down my postings to Usenet, by carefully reviewing my words to see if they are offensive to children, their parents, their grandparents, Mormons, Jews, Boy Scouts, schizophrenics, high-strung neurotics, Muslims, animal rights advocates, queers, Rosicrucians, persons of color, persons of no color, or persons of poundage. Fortunately, the technological trends strongly mitigate against the Net and the Web ever being controlled by the censors of any one country. "Not even speed bumps." --Tim Boycott espionage-enabled software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: "This post is G-Rated"
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:50 PM 1/26/96 -0600, Mike McNally wrote: >Bill Frantz writes: > > >Enforce? Enforce? Exsqueeze me? > > > > On cypherpunks, Perry is the principle enforcer, although others frequently > > join in. > >Oh, right. I remember now. All the off-topic junk I see on this >list is just my imagination. All the billions of "UNSUBSCRIBE" and >"SIGNOFF" and "SET NO-MAIL" messages I see on the mailing lists I'm on >are just bits of lint that slip by. Absolutely correct. What we don't have is general firewall discussions and general conspiricy discussions (which are directed elsewhere). Perry performs a needed function. >The "enforcement" is always a reactive thing. I don't think you'd get >far with a parent explaining that the material they consider indecent >which somehow showed up on alt.kids.only would be dealt with by >blistering flames. Such parents would not let their children read unmoderated/unrated newsgroups. I think they are failing their children, but they would certainly disagree. >So you think those who want a "controlled cyberspace" would be happy >with newsgroups that stay "mostly decent"? I strongly doubt it, and I >will also add that such "enforcement" is far, far less effective on >newsgroups than on mailing lists. The people who want a "controlled cyberspace" will not be happy. I want explore the consiquences, both technical and social, of taking the control away from them by putting in the hands of individuals and minor children's parents. This approach would destroy their principle argument and make it less likely that they will succeed. However, unlike the motion picture precedent, I think multiple rating agencies will not only be desirable, but necessary. I assume that in addition to the Christian Coalition's rating service there would be a Hottest Pics of the Net service. Bill

1 0

Re: Crypto Exports, Europe, and Conspiracy Theories
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:06 PM 1/26/96, Alex Strasheim wrote: >Why aren't foreign companies flooding America with strong crypto? Well, >there are clearly pressures of the sort Tim described at work. But there >are other factors as well: Let me emphasize that I was raising the issue as food for thought, as an obvious question. Put another way, there are a lot of non-U.S. cryptographers, Cypherpunks, and programmers. They should be looking at the (putative) $60 billion a year cost of the ITARS as evidence that a market for strong crypto probably exists. (I will be interested to see what non-U.S. code gets developed over the next year or two, and how the U.S. government reacts to its importation into the U.S. The main RSA patents will soon be expiring, those that don't get thrown out in the wake of the RSA-Cylink-MIT-Stanford-PKP-Schlafly-etc. brouhaha, that is.) >o Crypto isn't at the top of the list of factors when people pick > software. Do most of use use 40-bit downloadable Netscape's ... Maybe not important for casual users, but there's that $60 billion a year figure again, so somebody cares. And digital commerce is front page news almost every day, with security a major hot topic. >o Most foreign countries aren't wired as well as we in the US are. > Most people in Switzerland don't have cheap easy access to the net, Though of course many countries are extremely well-wired. The Scandinavian countries, for example. And the U.K. (e.g., demon, one of the earliest full-service ISPs). But I don't want to get into a debate about numbers of subscribers, etc. My main point was that crypto tool development has traditionally been possible with fairly small teams...so I wonder why more development has not happened in Europe and Asia, given the apparently compelling advantages of not having to worry about the U.S. ITARs! (That this "apparently" may not actually be so real is of course my main "food for thought.") > for example. That's one reason that the web, a good Swiss idea, has > been developed primarily in this country. America has more people > thinking about the net than other countries do, and it's not > surprising that we're out in front in net software. A minor correction. Tim Berners-Lee is British, and was only working at CERN, which effectively straddles the French-Swiss border, near Geneva. And he is now, or was recently, working in New York. I would have a hard time calling his work "a Swiss idea." Obviously many of the ideas that go into the Web (hypertext, a la Bush and Nelson, connectivity, ISPs, etc.) are heavily American-based or -influenced. >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. I agree about Digicash (and I cited it as an example in my first article). However, the lack of available crypto for export, and the cloudy situation about Chaum's patents (*) has made Digicash almost a footnote in the race for digital commerce, with a dozen other more visible product announcements in the news. (* I wrote up my views on the problems with software patents, having to do with the inability to "meter usage," in contrast with physical objects such as microprocessors.) --Tim Boycott espionage-enabled software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

[rant] A thought on filters and the V-Chip
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[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. The purpose of all the ratings, and the filters and all the other stuff is not to "protect kids". It is to protect the prejudices of the adults. They do not want to see it anywhere in the world, not just inflicting some sort of imaginary harm on their children. I expect the first people to use the "reversed filters" will be the kids themselves. (Behind the parents back, of course.) I have known too many adults that believe that by restricting their kids access to information, they can prevent them from growing up. In these parent's minds, such information is what makes them want to hump their little brains out. Biology has nothing to do with it in their limited way of thinking. Cluelessness does not just cover computers with these people. It also covers any other topic that required more than two brain cells to understand. But censorship alone will not solve the problems that these people see in the world. They are afraid that somone, somewhere, is commiting "sin". They will do what it takes to stamp out all this immorality, no matter who gets hurt or what it takes. A good description of what is next is at http://www.cum.net/cnextstep.html . You have to realize that these people are busybodies who believe that they have the right to define what is right and what is wrong. In order to enforce these beliefs, they will need access to every means of communication in existance. Anything that prevents this enforcement will be seen as a threat and thus must be banned. Encryption will be one of the first things to go. Double entendres, sarcasm, and wordplay will be next. Fiction dealing with anything that would offend an eight year old (because that is where they stopped their intelectual growth) must be stamped out as well. More will follow as the demons appear in more and more forms. And they will never succeed... No matter how hard the censors have tried in the past to outlaw "smut", it has always existed in one form or another. All they do is drive it underground. If they stamp out crypto, they will just drive it underground. And in the process they will have stamped any freedoms you or I have underground as well... 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/ National Security uber alles!

1 0

Re: OFFSHORE RESOURCES
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You sez: : There has been sporadic interest on this list with regard to : offshore incorporation, banking, etc. While ads for offshore : services are common in the international press, until now, none : of these companies has an Internet presence. : THE ECONOMIST has an ad for OCRA, a group that specializes in : offshore company services. What's new is that they have a Web : page. It includes a good primer on the benifits from going : offshore and on selected offshore jurisdictions. I've never done : business with these folks, but they have good info. I maintain a small page with offshore resources at: URL: http://www.replay.com/offshore bEST Regards, -AJ-

1 0

UK newspaper names Zimmermann a "neo-Nazi sympathiser"
by Declan B. McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)well.com> Subject: Re: UK newspaper names Zimmermann a "neo-Nazi sympathiser" To: Declan McCullagh Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 18:13:11 -0800 (PST) Cc: fight-censorship+(a)andrew.cmu.edu Zimmermann stands to recover a lot if he sues the Telegraph under British libel laws. --Mike [...] > > Subject: "PRZ a nazi" to be retracted > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com (Cypherpunks) > Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 21:58:48 -0700 (MST) > Cc: prz(a)acm.org (Philip Zimmermann) > From: Philip Zimmermann <prz(a)acm.org> > Reply-To: Philip Zimmermann <prz(a)acm.org> > X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] > Content-Type: text > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Precedence: bulk > > The Sunday Telegraph of London printed a story last Sunday about neo-nazis > using PGP to encrypt their communications. The story said that PGP was > devised by an American neo-nazi sympathizer. As the creator of PGP, and > a human rights activist, I was outraged by such a defamation from a major > newspaper. I called my lawyer Phil Dubois, who seemed to look forward to > having some fun with this newspaper. > > Not wanting to wait around till the morning, and slow lawyers, I called > Robin Gedye, the reporter in Bonn who wrote the story, at 7am Monday morning > Bonn time, and woke him up at home. I introduced myself and told him how I > felt about it. He had never heard of me, the Clipper chip, the controversies > of cryptography, and knew nothing about PGP outside of the couple of > sentences in his story that mentioned PGP. He said it wasn't really so bad, > because he didn't specifically identify me by name. One can imagine the > effectiveness of that excuse with me. I then went into some detail with him > to bring him up to speed. I also called his editor in London, who also had > never heard of me or PGP. > > After some checking, they discovered that the Daily Telegraph, a related > newspaper, had run an article about my case just a week before. They also > found about 20 recent articles on me in the UK press. The editor said that > my story "checks out". It was good to know that they now believed that I > was not a neo-nazi after all. > > Anyway, Mr. Gedye says that the Sunday Telegraph will print a retraction > next Sunday. Not just a little retraction, but a whole article on the > subject, written by Mr. Gedye himself. I'm glad to see that this probably > means that he will dig into the subject more, in order to write such an > article. > > I guess this means maybe I'll find some other things to occupy Phil Dubois's > time. > > -Philip Zimmermann > 23 Jan 96 > > > // declan(a)eff.org // My opinions are not in any way those of the EFF // > >

3 2

Re: Doctor Denning
by Mark Grant, M.A. (Oxon) 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 26 Jan 1996, Peter Monta wrote: > It seemed to boil > down to the vacuous "if everyone could just agree that key > escrow is a good thing, there would be no problem". Actually, I think that's "if everyone could just agree that key escrow is a good thing, there would be no problem. And if they don't, then we'll just ban everything else..." Mark

1 0

Re: Doctor Denning
by Weld Pond 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Monta pmonta(a)qualcomm.com wrote: >What I found interesting was the lack of meat behind >"Crypto Anarchy is Not Inevitable". It seemed to boil >down to the vacuous "if everyone could just agree that key >escrow is a good thing, there would be no problem". If found this interesting too. I was waiting for the reason it wasn't inevitable but it never came. Denning seems willing to predict a future where there are no more technical advances in fields like steganography and dc nets. Besides, won't the penalty for communicating using non-government approved methods be life in prison? What you are hiding *may* be evidence of a murder or that you are a drug kingpin. Unless the penalty is worse than that for being convicted of the crime you commited, criminals will use non-approved crypto and benefit greatly from it. I don't think the public will buy this type of sentencing. Remailer operators will be sentenced to life once unapproved crypto goes through their system, even stego. ISP managers will have to go to jail too if they let 1 non-government approved message slip though. If this is the way it is enforced it will be too easy to set up ISPs and remailer operators. All the big on-line services could be targetted too. You don't like AOL? Just sign up using one of their handy disks and the CC# you just scammed out of a dumpseter. Don't forget to use a payphone! Post non-GAKed crypto messages to usenet from AOL with cool subjects like, "Here is where to leave the money." and "#43r5637 to #4847d66". I don't see how enforcement is workable. Weld Pond - weld(a)l0pht.com - http://www.l0pht.com/ L 0 p h t H e a v y I n d u s t r i e s Technical archives for the people - Bio/Electro/Crypto/Radio

2 1

Doctor Denning's URL
by mpd＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I screwed up and mistyped the URL in my prior message referencing Dorothy Denning's updated article on "The Future of Cyptography." The correct URL, pasted directly from my browser which is now displaying the article, is... http://guru.cosc.georgetown.edu/~denning/crypto/Future.html Sorry about that. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

At 01:06 PM 1/26/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >A minor correction. Tim Berners-Lee is British, and was only working at >CERN, which effectively straddles the French-Swiss border, near Geneva. Wouldn't it be awful for CERN if they had to get export/import licenses for PROTONS? Each pass? Sorry, couldn't resist.

1 0