December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Tim's friend's mildly retarded son
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:16 AM 3/16/96, Timothy C. May wrote: >(I'll spare the usual stuff about how the Founders smoke a pipe of cannabis >now and then, how "canvas" comes from the Dutch word for this herb, how >special interests got hemp and "reefer" outlawed, and how the effects fell >mainly on the poor and inner-city folks.) I meant "and how the effects of criminalization fell mainly on the poor and inner-city folks." Just thought I should make this clear, because many who advocate drug laws do so out of some notion that by illegalizing some drug they are _helping_ the poor folks. In fact, they are helping to destroy inner cities by making illegal drugs a profitable thing to trade. And since people living in cities are more likely to come in contact with police than are folks living in suburban areas, the implications of illegality are even more strongly felt. Far removed from crypto, except the the sort of thinking that says the FDA and DEA know best what people ought to be allowed to buy and ingest is very similar to the thinking that government agencies know best what codes and ciphers people ought to be allowed to use. --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, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Kid Gloves or Megaphones
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:11 PM 3/14/96 -0800, Eric wrote: > The debate which must be taken to the public >is whether we want payee anonymity or not. I am confident that people >want their privacy and are willing to let others have theirs as well. My initial impression of Chaum's work, from his 1985 CACM paper, was that the technology gave you strong anonymity; I was surprised when I first saw references to payees _not_ being anonymous (subject to the usual limitations of getting the digicash to them anonymously and getting the service you want from them anonymously.) We've had discussions on this list about topics like kidnap ransom, which need payee anonymity to make sense at all; we later had discussions about how to provide it given that it wasn't a standard feature. So first we need to tell people that the technology _won't_ provide payee anonymity unless used carefully, and then we need to tell them that it _can_ provide anonymity if you want it.... Depending on the details of Ian's method, I don't think the debate needs to be taken to the public, or even done - it may simply be a done deal once the technology's out there. If Mark Twain Bank or Merita Bank or the Federal <Exonive-Deleted> Reserve wants to offer Digicash(tm) with Payee-Non-Anonymity, they can always make it a contractual requirement that their payees not use anonymity techniques in return for being paid. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 pager 408-787-1281 # "At year's end, however, new government limits on Internet access threatened # to halt the growth of Internet use. [...] Government control of news media # generally continues to depend on self-censorship to regulate political and # social content, but the authorities also consistently penalize those who # exceed the permissable." - US government statement on China...

1 0

Free News access
by Alexey Boldyrev 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone know, how to get free online (not through FTP) Usenet News access?

1 0

Re: Jump Start ecash With IPhone
by eggplant＠inlink.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Jim McCoy wrote: >| Two problems: >| >| 1- Chaum did not have the clue to pick up on this when two >| cypherpunks (who shall remain nameless...) pitched this >| and several other ideas to involve ISPs in jump-starting >| ecash almost two years ago, so why would he figure it out >| now? > > But now we don't need no stinkin' license. We just use Mark >Twain ecash. > > The big problem with this is that net phones can be subject to >delay & drop out, and I don't want to deal with that when I'm talking >on the phone. > >Adam > >-- >"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." > -Hume One thing to remember, this is still a developing program. With the increasing of bandwith and the development of new and better compression algorithyms, this will slowly fade. This is only the begining. In a couple years, the transmision and reception could be as good, if not better than the normal telephone, you never know. -- "... In Germany they first came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me-and by that time no one was left to speak up..." Pastor Martin Niemoller ++++++++++++ ************************************** * Matthew Murphy ------------ eggplant(a)inlink.com * ---------- * http://www.inlink.com/~eggplant * The Web page is under construciton at this time though.. * Please don't mind the mess.... * ************************************** ++++++++++++ finger eggplant(a)inlink.com for my PGP key.

1 0

Re: FCC-type Regulation of Cyberspace
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:18 AM 3/15/96 -0800, you wrote: >Timothy C. May wrote: >>>Mr. Frantz, unless you can prove your claims here, forthwith, I must inform >>>you that they are in violation of the Truth in Speech Act of 1996. Please >>>retract them, now. > >Bill Frantz wrote: >>Political speech, not commercial speech. The act doesn't apply or is >>unconstitutional. > >I see: The bill of rights reads: >"Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of *political* >speech". >Never knew that until now. Non-election-related political speech only, of course. And excepting support for Communism or opposition to Prohibition or to approved wars, or to anything the military does to get them approved. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 pager 408-787-1281 # "At year's end, however, new government limits on Internet access threatened # to halt the growth of Internet use. [...] Government control of news media # generally continues to depend on self-censorship to regulate political and # social content, but the authorities also consistently penalize those who # exceed the permissable." - US government statement on China...

1 0

RE: Tim's friend's mildly retarded son [NOISE]
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:31 PM 3/15/96 -0800, Simon Spero <ses(a)tipper.oit.unc.edu> wrote: >Tim May> (A few years ago I also bought some nootropics in TJ. I felt no effect. My > >Headline: > Drugs Fail to Raise Tim May's IQ to 75 > >Simon // "Bad journalists live for moments like these" Hey, in Cyberspace, nobody can tell you're not a _real_ journalist. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 pager 408-787-1281 # "At year's end, however, new government limits on Internet access threatened # to halt the growth of Internet use. [...] Government control of news media # generally continues to depend on self-censorship to regulate political and # social content, but the authorities also consistently penalize those who # exceed the permissable." - US government statement on China...

1 0

Re: Man in the middle attacks
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:30 AM 3/14/96 -0500, cme(a)cybercash.com (Carl Ellison) wrote: >Take, for example, my bank account. I go to my bank today and open an >account. I give them my SSN and sign a form. They give me an account >number. >Given digital signatures, I still go to them, give them my SSN and >digitally sign a form. They give me an account number. They keep, in a >database of their own [rather than some CA's database] my name, SSN, public >key and whatever other identifying information they need to feel warm and >fuzzy about tracking me down in case of fraud. The SSN isn't there for tracking you down in case of fraud. It's there because the IRS insists they collect it on interest-bearing accounts so they can tax you. Your driver's license, if they ask for that, is something they want to see for fraud prevention, because that's harder to fake than an SSN. And your SSN is a perfectly appropriate thing to use with a key-centered approach: "This is my SSN, please use it for my bank account", signed key 123456789. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 pager 408-787-1281 # "At year's end, however, new government limits on Internet access threatened # to halt the growth of Internet use. [...] Government control of news media # generally continues to depend on self-censorship to regulate political and # social content, but the authorities also consistently penalize those who # exceed the permissable." - US government statement on China...

1 0

RTFM & such
by JonWienke＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-03-15 03:14:52 EST, you write: >At 07:30 PM 3/14/96 -0500, Yawn82(a)aol.com wrote: >>How the hell do I get off this list? > >You can check out any time you want, but you can never leave. > > I seem to recall getting a message explaining how to do this when I subscribed. Jonathan Wienke "Let's flame these bozos! They're too stupid to live!" --Dr. Ziploc

1 0

Re: Why escrow? (was Re: How would Leahy bill affect crypto
by JonWienke＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-03-15 02:56:56 EST, Jim Bell cites Deranged Mutant: >And if you recall the requirements the government wanted to put on >telephones equipped with Clipper, one thing they eventually admitted was >that they were insisting that such phones be designed to be inoperable with >a telephone that had its "key-escrow" not "enabled". And they still wanted >to >call it "voluntary! That's a laugh! > > >>Of course that depends how you give your key to an escrow agent. If >>it's already escrowed when you buy a phone, for instance... > >That's the real danger with any such legislation. Individuals can generally >only get things that are manufactured for sale. (You can't buy a car with a >7-cylinder engine, for instance...) If manufacturers are dissuaded from >building a good crypto telephone, then key-escrow can be as "voluntary" as >you want and you still won't be able to exercise your rights. Of course, you could always hack up a direct-dial version of PGPfone or Nautilus to turn your multimedia computer into a crypto phone... Jonathan Wienke

1 0

Re: FCC-type Regulation of Cyberspace
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:10 AM 3/15/96, Bill Frantz wrote: >Mark Miller and I had a discussion about the restrictions on commercial >speech a few months ago. I contended that these restrictions (generally >that you can prove your claims) are good for markets because they provide >startup companies (and other newcomers to the market) with a small amount >of positive reputation capital that they would otherwise have to invest to >obtain. Mr. Frantz, unless you can prove your claims here, forthwith, I must inform you that they are in violation of the Truth in Speech Act of 1996. Please retract them, now. (Yoy can of course find the complete description of how citizen-units ascertain the veracity of their claims at their local Ministry of Truth office. Minitru is always to help citizen-units on their quest for truth.) Do you see the problem? Personally, I don't care if you choose to have some bunch of people called the "Food and Drug Administration" telling you which substances you may buy, and in which quantities, but I care greatly that you (the general you) wish to stop me from making my own decisions, or listening to those I choose to trust, over the FDA. This is what it all boils down to. Think about it. Be careful of the utilitarian point of view that the "FDA saves lives." (It has also cost a lot of lives, by denying effective treatments for needless years of extra butt-covering tests just so no bureacrat will ever have even a single Flipper-kid on his watch.) Mexico has no FDA. A trip to the pharmacies of Tijuana is instructive. A friend of mine was just here. On a business trip to SF and LA, he drove all the way down to TJ to buy a "personal supply" of a nootropic drug for his mildly-retarded son, a drug the FDA has not approved but which Mexicans and Europeans have been buying for years. U.S. Customs, aware of such tragedies, waves people through who are carrying "personal supplies" of (non-narcotic) drugs. We should learn from this kind of "anarchy" the Mexicans enjoy. --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, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2