December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

PGP and pseudonyms
by Steve Reid 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Suppose someone were using a pseudonym, and had a seperate PGP key for this pseudonym. If this person's secret keyring were stolen, could person=pseudonym be revealed, based on the key ID? Or would it require knowing the passphrase? ===================================================================== | Steve Reid - SysAdmin & Pres, EDM Web (http://www.edmweb.com/) | | Email: steve(a)edmweb.com Home Page: http://www.edmweb.com/steve/ | | PGP Fingerprint: 11 C8 9D 1C D6 72 87 E6 8C 09 EC 52 44 3F 88 30 | | -- Disclaimer: JMHO, YMMV, IANAL. -- | ===================================================================:)

1 0

Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:50 PM 4/28/96 +0000, Jonathon Blake wrote: > Jim: > >On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote: > >> Government feeds on its own size; once government is dramatically reduced >> below its current size, it will become even less able to resist further > > The only true part of this paragraph is that government feeds > on its own size. > >> contraction. Probably few government employees realize this. > > What was the name of that government department that was > created to obtain and store Helium for the US dirigible > fleet? And just how recently was it abolished. I don't see that what you said challenged what I said. For most of this century, government (and in particular, the Federal government) has been on a fast-track to expansion. Only quite recently has this expansion begun to slow. I was referring to contractions to come; not to contractions (if any?) that have occurred in the past. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: The Joy of Java
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"frantz(a)netcom.com" 27-APR-1996 02:59:17.07 >At 3:57 PM 4/26/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >>I think the interesting target date to plan for is a year from now. >I said a few months ago that I thought Java would be ready for prime time >in a couple of years. I think we are in complete agreement here. If Java can indeed be reworked to provide proper security (e.g., if Perry's incorrect in this case - everyone's falliable), then how much modifications are likely to be necessary? I'm currently looking at the possibility of learning a modern high-level computer language, and Java looks like one of the more promising options. (I currently know a bit of Applesoft Basic, Quattro Pro Macro language, VAX/VMS .COM file language, and MS-DOS batch file language.) In other words, I'm wondering if it's worth my while to learn Java now, or if I should wait (and possibly learn another language) until the bugs are worked out? Will removing the flaws make it such a different language that learning it now won't be of much use for someone like me? Thanks, -Allen

1 0

Re: Mindshare and Java
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"ses(a)tipper.oit.unc.edu" "Simon Spero" 26-APR-1996 02:36:25.74 >In SolidOak, the verification is more or less free of charge, as it runs >the signature code in a separate low priority thread, which often gets to >complete during network induced latencies when fetching sub-classes, which >can be initiated on class download before the code is instantiated.It also >allows multiple classes to verified with just one PKOP, so the cpu cost >is amortised over a lot of stuff Umm... doesn't that allow code with a faked signature to be temporarily trusted, long enough to possibly do some damage? For instance, in fetching sub-classes, what is the code allowed to "know" in fetching them? Such information could be sent out, including by what the code was requesting. Sorry if the above is not applicable; please explain why not, if so. -Allen

1 0

Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 27-APR-1996 23:39:58.42 >Now, how are you going to impose taxes on heads if it becomes impossible >to track down a person? You have to find them to tax them. With secure, >anonymous communications, people can exist without giving away their >location, business interests, property holdings, etc...etc... Travel However, one can ask at various points for identification, possibly cryptographically protected. If that ID hasn't had its head tax paid recently, then you sieze the person. (See below for why I'd call this a probably growing tendency). The ID in question can be biometric, and thus can't be passed (easily) from one person to another once the head tax has been paid on it. Now, what sorts of points one can ask for identification is one place where it gets interesting. If you are doing property taxes, then you can require that the "registered owner" present the cash. But that doesn't prevent someone from hiring someone else to be the registered owner. However, except for schemes such as Assasination Politics et al, enforcing that supposed owner from becoming the de facto as well as de jure owner can be difficult. (In other words, if he says you don't own the property, and the state backs him up because he's paid his head tax and you haven't, then you've got a problem.) Other such interactions are whenever you get caught doing something physical, such as through various police stings. If you don't have your head tax paid on some ID with biometric links to you, then you get put in jail longer. >The only option for government becomes forcible seizure of land and or >persons to enforce taxation. Note that even today property in >the United States owned by tax evaders is difficult to seize if >one cannot prove tax evasion. (Taxation is merely one example of >regulations that become difficult to enforce with proper cryptography in >place by the way). As the state becomes more and more desperate, it seems likely that seizures (or even destruction) of property and persons on such grounds will become more and more frequent and easy. Unconstitutional in most cases? Probably... but they may stop caring. >This being so I think it obvious that a manner of market economy among >political systems will emerge. Some nation states will participate in >what liberal-economists call a "race to the bottom" where they will >continue to reduce regulations and so forth to attract businesses and thus >income. Those on the far left somehow count this a _bad_ thing, citing >typically environmental issues. It never ceases to amaze me that they >don't get the message when 20% of the corporate population departs and >they still don't realize that just raising taxes won't solve the problem. Agreed. I just don't think the "bottom" is zero. In most areas, some government is likely to remain. (Indeed, for my purpose of maximizing individual choices (with the most important of such choices being those known as civil liberties), I currently believe that this is for the best.) -Allen

1 0

Re: Anonymous banking
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 27-APR-1996 23:07:10.42 >Well, using attorney client confidentality to shield things otherwise >discoverable just doesn't work. Given discussions as to attorneys holding passphrases, et al, perhaps a tutorial from the lawyers on the list (yourself and others, since disagreements among J.D.'s have been known to happen) on what attorney-client confidentiality does cover? >There are many mail forwarding services that don't use attornies. An >attorney is going to charge you by the hour for this service. I don't >think you really want to pay for it. Most of them aren't anonymous, either... although that does give me the thought of going to one outside the US and its reporting requirements. They'd know who I was (or at least the address it was going to), but at least nobody else would know. Any suggestions, since you've been writing of the joys of nymdom recently? -Allen

1 0

Re: code vs cypher
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jamesd(a)echeque.com" 28-APR-1996 19:31:33.43 > > [Rich Graves] continually brings up this irrelevant > > topic whenever someone complains about [his] egregious > > statism on other issues: At 07:39 PM 4/28/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > And what's wrong with being a statist on _some_ issues? > A strict party line will do nobody any good. I believe my complaint was primarily that he kept beating on Nazi issues, which are now entirely off topic since the German attempt to politically censor the internet was defeated. Now if the next time somebody calls him a statist, Rich would tell us what he is doing about the CDA, instead of lecturing us about the Simon Weisenthal center, that would be fine, provided he tells us ONCE, or maybe twice. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

1 0

Re: Book: The President's Eyes Only
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"hoz(a)univel.telescan.com" 28-APR-1996 13:57:13.98 >The cypherpunks relevance (Besides the David Kahn quote) is >the frequent mention of NSA decrypts and SIGINT. The frequency >that nations and individuals have used (and apparently continue >to use) breakable encryption is incredible. The intelligence >that has been derived by breaking them is worth a great deal, >in dollars and maybe lives. This book has made me understand a >bit, why a government might try to limit strong cryptography. But do keep in mind that it's not just the US government that can decrypt weak cryptography. So can a lot of other governments... including ones like France and Japan that engage in a lot of commercial espionage. And ITAR restrictions have hindered the use of cryptography in the US by limiting the market for products. As has been said on here in the past, there are probably several groups within the NSA. Some think that getting the info is more important than protecting US citizens from having _their_ info stolen. Some think the reverse. And the ones in the NSA (and the rest of the US government) with darker motives (power et al) are going to be in the first group - they're not concerned with effects on US citizens. -Allen

1 0

Re: code vs cypher
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"jamesd(a)echeque.com" 28-APR-1996 19:31:33.43 >You continually bring up this irrelevant topic whenever someone complains >about your egregious statism on other issues: And what's wrong with being a statist on _some_ issues? A strict party line will do nobody any good. In other words, politics makes strange bedfellows, such as libertarians with (non-PC) liberals on many free-speech issues, libertarians with militia types (including the neo-Nazis) on freedom of association, etcetera. -Allen

2 1

My nym: Statement
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I thought I would take a moment to discuss my nym, given the Web of Trust issues floating about right now. When I developed this nym I hoped to merely avoid connecting my political views with my real life persona. Generally speaking many of my associates, my family and what clients I still serve would find my political views somewhat distasteful. It was with a view to prevent this connection that I originally created the nym on cypherpunks. As time went by I found it useful for other reasons involving my previous employer which I won't go into in detail. Some on the list have met me, either at the cypherpunks meeting in D.C. when the clipper issue was emerging, or relating to ongoing and emerging projects. Others have spoken to me on the phone extensively or briefly. Really I preserve the nym for reputation capital more than anything else. I serve the list best with my input (whether you agree with it or not) when there is some reputation context attached. Hopefully the majority of it relates to the perception that I post 'good' material or that I 'have a clue.' With any luck some of you are not so quick to delete messages that bear my address as you would be to delete something from "nobody(a)whereever.com." By the same token, certainly some of you are burning up the "D" key when I post a lot. If nothing else a consistant address helps in filtering. Those generally interested in my subjects of expertise and interest will have an extra bit of filtering information (1=is a black unicorn post) as will those who find my posts annoying. When I communicate securely it's generally with people who I have some business or personal dealings with. This tends to eliminate the need for me to be extensively interwraped in the web of trust. Those who don't know me would be as unwise to send me sensitive mailings as they would be to cc: fbi.gov. (At least until "is not a fed" signatures start to become popular). Because most of my encrypted traffic is of a financial and business nature I like the overkill of a 2048 bit key. I also want a published 2048 bit key in the event it becomes difficult to publically distribute keys in the future. The man in the middle problem with my nym is not really an issue as far as I can tell. I suppose someone might argue that they wouldn't want to mail me anything asking for legal advice for fear it might be intercepted and returned to them with disinformation attached. As these are people I generally don't know, it's equally likely to them that I am simply an agent provocateur who has no man in the middle problems. - From my end, man in the middle attacks are difficult to use against me because those with whom I have extensive business and personal communications know me well enough to permit end to end verification through seperate secure channels. (I use secure telephones regularly, and this permits voice recognition). "But you could be more than one person..." So? Do you like this group's legal and political views? Then who cares how many people I am? I suppose if it makes people happy I will get 10 signatures binding me strongly to the larger web of trust. It's never seemed worth the effort before. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMYQf/S1onm9OaF05AQHBFQf/cHK9XAeFsWSGb02skl+2Tbr71fBb5EB9 B9ySM9+z6pbaXlTrpE5b4U2951Q3qidpppm09f05KHKYhfdVjck3I2vvoF1tFa9q gVZnjW8CmiYQFc7F65wvvdvjeet7sB4+ki/PbojXz9cYt7x5mDegdPWEOAx82yh1 eLs3WyMqUAL2NUqNaL48Dr7Y8xSvO24qdyARC4FHEvDQFomhYme6kZ33RKtKaoFx K2qCGYEJkyaIMtNkBYR5B15JPhmLuEKUbHDkQYiaYv1cRKguF55nGlh9vsq6Qr5j oyB5MkK8sZZKqwIFnUPLwxD3d1DCgvm5gWV3W2LeiQq9Ovk74Nh95A== =Xm1B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li "In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti 00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1