December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: L. Detweiler is a CyberAngel
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"llurch(a)networking.stanford.edu" "Richard Charles Graves" 3-MAY-1996 17:30:30.47 >Subject: L. Detweiler is a CyberAngel >ROTFL. From >http://snyside.sunnyside.com/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/Announcements/Cy… >Special mention must go to an ongoing debate about anonymous remailers, which >was an area where we were less informed. Thanks to an154280(a)anon.penet.fi >for lots of very helpful suggestions. For those of you interested in the >debate about anonymity we have two suggestions: firstly we have a HUGE FAQ >on "Identity, Privacy and Anonymity on the InterNet", written by L.Detweiler, >and if any of you want it, please write to us and ask for it (WARNING it is >138k!) Secondly you can write to help(a)anon.penet.fi for their FAQ on their >anonymous service, which is also very educational. I had noticed that earlier, yes... see why I think they know less about the Net than even _I_ do? -Allen

1 0

Re: CryptoAnarchy: Late Comments.
by mkj＠october.segno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm amazed at the long thread my naive "CypherAnarchy" question generated -- not to mention the astonishing range of perspectives, spanning from the unusual to the bizarre. (Yes, that was a joke.) I haven't joined in much up to now, simply because it has taken me some time to digest it all. But now that the thread seems to be winding down, I have extracted a couple of interesting points for additional comments. "Snow" discusses nations without borders, then asks: > Are these the deep waters you refer to? In part, yes. But I think the possible definitions of "nation" and "government" are diffusing even more broadly than you suggest. A paragraph which I edited from my original message went something like: "Suppose a large multinational company finds a way to increase profits by cutting labor costs. To what extent does this resemble a global 'tax increase' on the world population?" A line of thought which (skipping over a lot of boring intermediate stuff) led me eventually to the questions, "What are taxes?" and "What is wealth?" Clearly, when the government exacts payment of taxes from us, it is more than just a screwy method of recycling used currency! Taxation, to oversimplify quite a bit, is essentially compelled labor. But it is even more than that. Taxes must be paid in dollars, and the U.S. government maintains tight and detailed controls over what types of labor and value can be converted into dollars, by whom, and how. Therefore taxation is also compelled *behavior*. It keeps us locked into roles which government has significant power to shape. In fact, due in part to tax policies, important traditional American lifestyle values such as "being independent" and "living off the land" have become damn near impossible today (while "normal" forms of employment frequently entail the waiver of important Constitutional rights). Once taxation is seen as compelled behavior, it is natural to ask how many other legal controls on behavior might have the effect, at least in part, of a sort of hidden tax. The military draft? Seizures of property in criminal cases? Obviously. But what about regulations on industry? Suppose Congress passes a bill which consolidates some segment of the military industry. Or suppose a government reserves to itself some of the most profitable lines of business, such as drugs and gambling. To what extent do these actions resemble taxes? My point being, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and clearly more than one way to increase government wealth. Cryptography may be able to hide value transactions when they take the symbolic form of money, but can crypto hide value in all its phases? If not, then crypto will change only the forms, not the essence, of taxation. It cannot shield us, for example, from outright forced labor (such as compulsory military service) or increased criminal penalties, etc. A final thought: Just as TV is in the business of selling eyes and ears to advertisers, the U.S. government has long been involved in some activities which might, to the cynical eye (such as my own), resemble the selling of "exploitation rights" over its population to the highest bidders. Note that such a strategy could do a complete end-run around any tax collection problems caused by cryptography! "Snow" also wrote: > Fine. So change the tactics. Instead of "Rising Up", simply use an > ages old an respected solution. Take out the leaders. Note, I am > _not_ suggesting Mr. Bells assination politics, rather, given a > violent revolution, or the beginings of one, shorten it by taking > those who make the policies you disagree with. But who the hell ARE the real leaders, and how are we supposed to find them? Hint: I don't think they're the people on TV! Politicians today aren't leaders, they are the heads of an unseen Gorgon: If you cut one politician down, two identical copies will spring forth in that same place! --- mkj

1 0

Re: Why I dislike Java. (was Re: "Scruffies" vs. "Neats")
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:03 AM 5/3/96 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >... The problem I have is >that I expect that increasingly pages will arise for which information >can only be extracted with the use of Java. Some flunky from some desk >will will come up and scream "what do you mean I can't get a copy of >Foo Corporation's merger press release because we won't run some >program! Thats bullshit! Do you know how much money the risk arb desk >pulls in, you twit! This must never happen again! Fix it immediately!" Unfortunately the market decided that function and price were more important than security. (I know, I spent 10 years developing and trying to sell an OS with strong security features.) The only thing I can suggest to you is, spend the bucks, desk real estate, confusion etc. and have two machines; a secure/reliable one and an insecure/unreliable one. Make sure OS manufacturers like Apple and Microsoft know that you want to be able to disable the build in Java they have announced. You may be able to develop a way of transferring the clipboard between the machines so the dancing Java displayed economic numbers can be easily and safely transferred to the secure machine's analysis program. Regards - Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

Known Arms Traffickers
by Vincent Cate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have added a checkbox to my arms-trafficker page so that if you want to be added to a list of "Known Arms Traffickers" you can be. The URL is: http://online.offshore.com.ai/arms-trafficker/ The page that says: "Click here to become an International Arms Trafficker" -- Vince

1 0

Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>1) Read as wide a variety of the stuff out there you can > (even the books by "dangerous crackpots"). >2) Take a vacation to a tax haven you like because of what > you've read about it. What tax havens would you like, if you did business in tax havens, which of course you do not ;-) --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

3 4

Re: Freedom and Security
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: angels(a)wavenet.com (CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher) >Site security is not at all the only problem. Are you not aware of spams >and scams going on all the time? Are you not aware that sexual predators >operate in IRC? Or that child pornography is a world wide trading game? >Have you never heard of email forgeries or impersonation? What about tthe >victims of harassment and hatred who don't know how to deal with it? What >about all the people who have never heard of killfiles? Who don't know how >to report a problem nor who to report it to? Haven't you ever been mail >bombed and wished you could find out who did it? I find it interesting that Mr. Hacher is claiming spams as a reason for CyberAngel activities. I had sent him several examples of spams, to which he replied with messages showing a distinct lack of knowledge (thinking I could filter out messages from the address - which was a mailing list to which I wish to subscribe, for instance). He then noticed my piece in CuDigest suggesting that spams and other Internet abuse would be something proper for the CyberAngels to be involved with - instead of the censorship they advocate. After noticing this, he wrote me back, told me that spams were not something that they were concerned with - they weren't a _real_ problem like pornography - and legally enjoined me not to send mail to the CyberAngels. (I would thus appreciate someone forwarding this mail to Mr. Hatcher; he is not visibly on the list. In case anyone is wondering, I forwarded _at most_ one copy of each message that I had received via email; I most certainly did not mailbomb him.) As has been previously pointed out, it is not possible for "sexual predators" to commit actual crimes - as opposed to utilizing freedom of speech and freedom of press - over the internet. There are four points that may be made regarding child pornography: A. What is defined as child pornography may vary from place to place. As an example, I believe the pornographic videos involving Traci Lords (who was below the age of 18 when they were made) are legal to posess in most of Europe. This difference is similar to that in ages for statutory rape; Mississipi, for instance has one of 12. (I view this as too low, in case anyone is wondering.) B. Even if something is claimed to be child pornography, it may not actually have involved the use of children. Makeup, plastic surgery, and digital editing are all involved in the creation of such faked child pornography; the latter two are advancing at a rapid rate. While the offering of such as "child pornography" is a variety of fraud if compensation is involved, somehow I doubt the CyberAngels would be much interested in getting someone prosecuted for it. C. As has been pointed out by others, even if actual child pornography is on the Net, it is not in and of itself doing any harm to children. It is the production of actual child pornography that does so. While it may be argued that giving child pornography a market value will encourage its production, two counterarguments may be made to this point. First, much of the sexually explicit images on the net are in violation of copyright; I do not believe that the CyberAngels are trying to get people prosecuted for this. Second, driving a market underground tends to raise prices - look at the Drug War; thus, any reduction in supply due to illegality of the market will simply compensate the producers more. D. As has been pointed out, the use of child pornography is a classic "Horseman" (of the Four). In other words, the CyberAngels are using child pornography as a red herring for their even more objectionable activities. >Maybe you feel like a veterano and can afford to look condesendingly at all >the thousands of fresh-faced netizens just arriving online and say "well if >they can't take the heat they should stay out of the fire" - but if we are >to call ourselves an emerging "community" then we must take responsibility >for our city, and that means caring about other people's problems. I have no objection to the CyberAngels assisting victims of alleged harrasment with such mechanisms as kill files; I have some doubt as to their technical ability in this area. I object, however, to their more proactive activities, such as "patrolling" and soliciting people to make complaints about usages of free speech ("harrassment"). These involve either attempts to cut off someone's Internet access at the ISP's level or, worse, attempts to attract governmental attention. The first may be the right of the ISP, unless it is governmental or has a previous contract agreement stating otherwise; it would still be preferable if others such as the CyberAngels were to learn the basic lesson of "mind your own business." Bringing goverment into the matter may both result in a violation of individual civil liberties and may result in increased governmental control over the Internet. As has been pointed out by others, the Cypherpunks are doing things to help other people on the Internet in areas such as mail forgery/impersonation and mail-bombing. (A properly run anonymous remailer will not forward a mail bomb any more than a properly run post office will.) I sincerely doubt whether the CyberAngels are actually doing anything about these problems as opposed to their fetish of pornography. >When your address is forged and you get flamed and bombed, or if you start >receiving anonymous death threats, your freedom is under threat. It's not >enough to say "Well I just turn off my monitor" >The Internet is a city - it needs 911 services and it needs Neighborhood >Watches. And neither professional law enforcement nor neighborhood watch >are by definition a threat to anyone's freedom. Freedom within the context >of Community does not and never has meant the freedom to kill your >neighbor, or rob someone, or rape someone, or harm someone. In the context >of the internet Community too, freedom is not the individual's right to do >whatever he or she likes - because then the Community is no longer free. By definition? Probably not... although it depends on the definition. Some implementations of such activities - such as the CyberAngels and their current and proposed activities - are such. Freedom is the right to do what will not trespass on another's freedom; I defy you to show how having pornography available, including "obscene" material, trespasses on the freedoms of others. I also defy you to show how having fully anonymous remailers available is a violation of anyone's liberties. >Freedom is under threat from two directions - from selfish individuals who >care little for the Community, and from the over zealousness of governments >who seek greater and greater control over individual thought and action. >The first step is to acknowledge that we have a problem within the Internet >Community - because if we don't address it responsibly then we have only >ourselves to blame when the governments try to take it over. We can face >our problems or we can deny that they exist. And how, pray tell, will bringing such alleged problems to the attention of government - as has been an activity of the CyberAngels - avoid increased governmental intervention? >By asking me the question: "What crime?" you are indicating to me that you >prefer denial. No. We have a disagreement about what is crime - what is an exercise of individual civil liberties, and what is a violation of them. >"Two people may disagree, but >that does not mean that one of them is evil" That depends on what they disagree. I believe we disagree in ways that include enough fundamental freedoms that calling you evil is proper from my viewpoint. -Allen

2 1

PICS & CyberAngels
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In view of the discussion of the possibility of PICS being required by law, plus that about the CyberAngels, I thought people might find it interesting that the CyberAngels home page has on it as one of their "responsibilities" making sure that all pages with sexual content - that pornography fetish again - have PICS or other (such as Safesurf...) ratings that would permit censorship of them. If parents want to keep their children from seeing sexual material, that's the problem of the parents - it shouldn't be the problem of anyone else. If something I put out offends someone (e.g., some political speech I've made), that's the problem of the person it offends. Sexual material is no different. -Allen

3 2

An interesting front end for the replay remailer
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

These folks' politics don't make much sense to me (but I gather that they really, really don't like Jehova's Witnesses); it's their setting up an "alternative" front end for the replay remailer that caught my interest. http://www.nano.no/~telemark/anon.html One could say that this makes a case for PGP-signing web pages, but on the other hand, the remailers don't and shouldn't care about content, so who cares if someone "misappropriates" a remailer. What are they "taking" anyway? -rich

1 0

WhoWhere is a Fucked-Up Operation
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:29 PM 5/3/96, Patrick May wrote: >Rich Graves writes: > > For a good demonstration of why WhoWhere? is not necessarily the greatest > > thing since spice racks, look up "Louis Freeh," "Fuck You," "Asshole," > > "System Privileged User," and "Stephen Hawking." I keep telling them that > > they'd better remove this last, but they don't consider it a priority. > > If you want further evidence of their technical skills, look up >my name. I'm responsible for the corp(a)spe.com account. WhoWhere has >therefore decided that I am responsible for every "corp" account in >their database and has attached my name to each and every one. I >informed them of this several weeks ago but they are evidently not >interested in cleaning up their service. > > Being both socially and technically challenged, perhaps they want >your Fucking Statist input on obtaining a government grant for a >clue-free business. I agree with my namesake that WhoWhere is one incredibly fucked-up operation. I tried to add an entry for myself, and my entry has (after several days) not made it. (I tried to be truthful, including such things as "felon" for what I do...perhasp their Thought Police considered my entry a joke, suggesting that they must be applying their own judgment to entries.) I then figured that some of their "automatically generated" entries for "Timothy C. May" needed correction. Not suprisingly, the system asked for a password, so I was unable to correct their defective entries for me. Fuck em. Then burn the body. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C'punks, At 11:31 AM 5/3/96 -0700, brerrabbit(a)alpha.c2.org wrote: >Do tell. How would someone, just for instance, who is considering >leaving a "permanent" job for the higher compensation available to >contractors and consultants be able to structure a business in such a >way as to benefit from these techniques? If we assume a rate of >between $60/hour and $125/hour (typical in Boston, New York, and the >Silicon Valley), how much can one save? How much effort and money is >required? How much risk is involved? > >There are many books on the shelves claiming to show how to avoid >taxes using these techniques. Most of them have the smell of >"dangerous crackpot" about them. Can you recommend any in particular? 1) Read as wide a variety of the stuff out there you can (even the books by "dangerous crackpots"). 2) Take a vacation to a tax haven you like because of what you've read about it. 3) Open a bank account with an established bank. 4) Ask your banker to recommend a trustworthy lawyer. 5) Tell the lawyer what you want to accomplish and do what he or she says, if it makes sense to you. 6) DON'T talk to anyone else--especially in your home country--about what you have done, are doing or are planning to do. 7) As your resources increase, repeat steps 2-5 in other tax havens. Don't put all your eggs in one basket if you have enough to spread around. 8) Send me $1000. If you follow my steps 1-7, you will save many times that amount. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 2