December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: 5th protect password?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:13 PM 4/21/96 -0700, Steve Reid wrote: >No need to be so defensive, Mr. Bell... I didn't say that samples used to >detect drugs are OK under the constitution. I just said that, IMNALO, >samples taken for identification have always been okay. The samples taken >to detect unauthorized molecules are the exception to the identification >rule I noted. I do agree that requiring people to provide such samples to >detect illegal substances (as I said, a recent development) is wrong. > >I wasn't trying to score points for either side of the debate, I was just >pointing out that _before_the_war_on_drugs_, the samples listed in the >previous post were used exclusively for identification. And _my_ point was that before about 1900 or so, the various "identification" (your distinction, not mine) examples that were listed by the SC were not demanded, and not regularly demanded. I came to what I considered (and still consider) a reasonable conclusion: The Constitution does not support (and certainly does not OBVIOUSLY support) exceptions based on identification principles. I don't doubt that somebody could have presented this (the "identification" aspect) as intended to sound like a reasonable exception; the issue is whether this is just an opportunistic justification or whether there is some logical basis for this position. That latter conclusion would have been stronger if there had been no exceptions to the 5th amendment other than identification techniques. But the "straw that broke the camel's back" principle is at work here: Having added the drug-testing issues to the mix, the fig leaf has dimished in size, and it becomes harder (and, in fact, impossible) to explain why the natural interpretation of a document written in 1783 could be so CONVEEEEENIENTLY re-interpreted so as to allow exceptions which were did not become technologically "interesting" for 150-200 more years. The most obvious interpretation is that whenever an investigative technology that the cops would like to use appears, and if that technology appears to be proscribed by some Constitutional protection, the Constitution is automatically re-interpreted to allow it anyway. The exceptions occur only when the new technique is so unreliable (polygraph, for instance) that certainty of test results can't be guaranteed. This is particularly true when the technique has just as much, if not more, ability to cause an acquittal as a conviction. The reason this subject is NOT noise is that the issue of providing decrypt keys is going to be a more and more important issue, and it is vital that faulty precedents be replaced by good ones. It would be very useful to be able to prove that the only reason these "exceptions" are considered exceptions is that somebody thought they'd be a useful investigative technique, and was pissed when it was denied to him. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

DC gossip on Mike Nelson
by Declan B. McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just heard from a reliable source: Mike Nelson of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy has moved on from the position of civilian co-chair of the Interagency Key Escrow Alternatives committee (I think I got that right) and will be replaced by Bruce McConnell, deputy to Sally Katzen at OMB/OIRA. -Declan

1 0

Re: [Yadda Yadda Yadda] Re: 5th protect password?
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>To which Black Unicorn responded: > >> I have US$ 50,000 that says it didn't. Care to take me up on it? At 09:07 AM 4/21/96 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Though I think the wager offered way out of line, I wish that > this mechanism for handling disputes were used more often on the > Cypherpunk list. It's easy for folks to shoot their mouths off > when they can do so at virtually zero cost. The results are > endless flame wars with only rare resolution. When money is at > stake, there is an incentive to be more temperant in ones claims. This mechanism was tried extensively on the extropians list, and in my judgement it was totally unsuccessful. When money is at stake, flames concerning ill considered factual claims are replaced by power moves to manipulate the system, obtain corrupt adjudicators, and intimidate, exclude and silence dispute in order to win, or conceal evasion of, ill considered bets. > I would be interested to see if Jim Bell and Black Unicorn could > engage in a "friendly" wager on the question in point for the > nominal sum of, say, US$100. Perhaps they can cooperate to frame > their dispute in unambiguous terms, mutually agree upon an escrow > agent and pick a referee or other resolution mechanism to decide > their "case." Wouldn't that be something? This would work at $100. But the temptation is always to escalate the bet, to win by bluffing, with the result that the dispute is escalated, rather than resolved. At $500, our problem would become much worse, rather than much better. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

2 1

Re: 5th protect password?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:03 PM 4/20/96 -0700, Steve Reid wrote: >> > A defendant can be compelled to produce material evidence that >> > is incriminating. Fingerprints, blood samples, voice >> > exemplars, handwriting specimens, or other items of physical >> > evidence may be extracted from a defendant against his will. > >> As you might expect, I see a problem (and a pattern!) with even these >> examples. Notice that with the possible exception of "handwriting >> specimens", the examples above all represent pieces of evidence whose >> utility was only made technologically possible by developments done more >> than a century after the writing of the Constitution. Fingerprints have > >I think you missed the main pattern... When a suspect is required to >provide fingerprints, voice, blood and/or handwriting samples, those >things are used exclusively for _identification_. Is this "a distinction without a difference"??? > >The only exceptions I can think of are when blood, breath and urine >samples are taken from a suspect to detect certain chemicials in the body. >But, AFAIK, those exceptions are entirely the product of the recent war on >drugs. This is odd. By mentioning those exceptions you just destroyed your argument. If you were trying to claim that "identification"-intended evidence was not protected by the 5th amendment, mentioning samples taken to detect drugs are obviously not of this type. The implication is that they represent an entirely different class of "non-violations" of the 5th amendment. How many other non-violations are you going to be able to pull out of that hat, along with that rabbit? This, as you might expect, is getting hilarious. Somehow, I think everything that might be construed as a violation of the 5th is going to be called "a special case" or "an exception" by those who see no problem, or at least those who are not willing to admit to a problem. What's so hard about admitting that the powers-that-be in this country today chafe at the protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, and try to do everything in their power to minimize or eliminate them? It's certainly not an unexpected possibility, and in fact most people probably recognize that it is unavoidable. Once you are dragged, kicking and screaming, to an admission that this kind of thing actually happens, your next task is to identify current policy practices which are the product of this kind of misinterpretation. See, my argument is that there is a pattern of violation of the 5th amendment, and glory be, you provide yet more ammunition for my claims. I think you need to go back, try to figure out the originally intended meaning of the 5th, and differentiate it from the subsequent 210+ years of wishful thinking on the part of the government. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Betting on the Unibells
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:07 PM 4/21/96, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >To which Black Unicorn responded: > >> I have US$ 50,000 that says it didn't. Care to take me up on it? > >Though I think the wager offered way out of line, I wish that >this mechanism for handling disputes were used more often on the >Cypherpunk list. It's easy for folks to shoot their mouths off >when they can do so at virtually zero cost. The results are >endless flame wars with only rare resolution. When money is at >stake, there is an incentive to be more temperant in ones claims. I believe Sandy was on the Extropians list at the same time I was (and maybe after I left), and must recall that this was tried. The Extropians tried several of these "market-based dispute resolution" schemes, including wagers on debates. In my view, all failed. Wagers and bets consumed far more list time to discuss, argue about, and (sometimes) resolve than the experiment was worth. Basically, not too surprising, as the actual stakes were quite low and the real-world consequences small. "Wiggle room" was always argued for, and "mediators" or "arbitrators" to decide the winner were hard to find for many of the bets. And many of the bets were poorly-formulated, at least in terms of having a neutral third party decide the outcome. (I don't doubt that better formulations are possible....it just requires a lot of work, and the stakes need to be worthwhile. Mediators have to get a big enough cut of the action to make it worthwhile for them to get involved. It takes motivation and effort to get inolved, and I can't see anyone with an IQ over 120--a slacker on this list--wanting to get involved in the "yadda-yadda-yadda" debate between the Unibells.) >I would be interested to see if Jim Bell and Black Unicorn could >engage in a "friendly" wager on the question in point for the >nominal sum of, say, US$100. Perhaps they can cooperate to frame >their dispute in unambiguous terms, mutually agree upon an escrow >agent and pick a referee or other resolution mechanism to decide >their "case." Wouldn't that be something? > >By the way, gentlemen, I'm not kidding. Everyone on this list >could use a respite from all the "yes-it-is-no-it's-not" posts >among various combatants engaged in "how-many-angels..." spats. I find it much easier to just let Jim Bell and Black Unicorn rant at each other. I delete their rants and insults. I figure if this keeps them occupied for hours every night, to each their own. --Tim May (Speaking of the Unibells...did you hear about the bomber who blows up his victims and then eats the pieces? The Unadahmer.) 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: OS/2 encryption
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:53 AM 4/21/96, you wrote: >In <Pine.SUN.3.91.960421035428.21453D-100000(a)polaris.mindport.net>, on >04/21/96 at 03:55 AM, > Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> said: > >>On Sat, 20 Apr 1996 mirele(a)xmission.com wrote: > >>> I have received a lot of comment about my request for OS/2 >>> encryption...perhaps I didn't make myself clear. > >>[...] > >>> *That's* why I inquired about disk security. Not because I'm trying to >>> hide something from Scientology...but because I don't appreciate people >>> messing around with something that I've worked very hard on. > >>Not to get too out of hand, but how is encryption going to prevent >>deletions? > >Well, anything to slow them down. It was reported to me that when Dennis >Erlich was raided last year, they rendered his computer unbootable because >of the deletions they had made. As it is, I haven't been able to find an >appropriate security utility beyond PGP (which I've been using for over a >year anyway). So this discussion is moot. [snip] I really don't understand this whole thread. Deana wants an encryption utility to keep her data from prying eyes. Simple. The cypherpunks list is the last place I'd expect to see people question her judgment about it. Encryption will prevent someone from reading Deana's email and other private documents without a court ordering her to divulge her key. Despite whatever inference a court may draw from her encrypting data, it's a smart move, IMHO, when you consider that the "Church" has raided 4 people's homes with ex parte writs of seizure and hauled off their entire computer systems (people who received letters from the "Church" not very different than the one Deana got). When the computers were seized they weren't taken to the court -- they went straight to the offices of the "Church's" lawyers, where paid experts executed extremely broad searches on the hard drives. If you can picture your worst enemy poring through your hard drive, file by file, you'll understand why something like secure drive or SFS would come in handy. Encryption may prevent deletions -- if I remember right, it was alleged that the "Church" had selectively deleted files from one of the hard drives (I think it was Arnie Lerma's). If everything's encrypted, selective deletions based on content would be impossible. OTOH, Steve Fishman, author of the famous Fishman Affidavit, alleges that people working for CoS came into his house under false pretenses and deleted the contents of his entire c:\ drive. As for the free legal advice, Deana's very legal savvy (IMHO, based on my time on a.r.s.), so I think we can spare it. She's surely weighed the consequences of what she's doing. Rich ______________________________________________________________________ Rich Burroughs richieb(a)teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause

1 0

[NOISE] Re: DC gossip on Mike Nelson
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:14 PM 4/21/96 -0400, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: >Just heard from a reliable source: Mike Nelson of the White House Office >of Science and Technology Policy has moved on from the position of >civilian co-chair of the Interagency Key Escrow Alternatives committee >(I think I got that right) and will be replaced by Bruce McConnell, >deputy to Sally Katzen at OMB/OIRA. But what will happen to Crow and Tom Servo? ];> It does explain alot about Government policy towards Cryptography though... --- | Remember: Life is not always champagne. Sometimes it is REAL pain. | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0

(Privacy) Stop unwanted email
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: 'reagle(a)ATHENA.MIT.EDU'" <reagle(a)MIT.EDU> >To: "Jack M. Spiegel" <mobius(a)llv.com>" >Subject: Stop unwanted email >Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 20:47:45 -0700 >Encoding: 43 TEXT > >4-20-96 9321 > >Hi reagle(a)ATHENA.MIT.EDU: > >Your name was on a list that I bought. It was advertised as a "clean list" >of people who do not object to getting junk email. After sending a few >hundred, I realized the list was not "clean" and decided to create a place >on the net where people can register not to get junk email. In the future, >I will offer to clean other lists that other commercial mailers are >compiling. Huh, can I ask who you purchased this list from and how much was my privacy bought/sold for? (I might have sold it cheaper! <grin>) >You can log onto my web site http://www.directnet.com/~spiegel, and >register not to be on the list. There are no graphics on the web page, its >just a form, so it won't take long to load. All you need to leave is your >email address (the rest, even your name is optional) and press submit. > >Before you get upset, think about it, you are already on some kind of list, >because I have your address. Registering at my web site will only take you >off the list. There is no advertising on the page, there is no money being >made by this. > >I will take your name off of this list and off any other list that other >mailers submit. I will not give your name or address out to anyone else. > >I know that some people don't have browsers and only have mail access. If >you are among that group, please send email to me at mobius(a)llv.com and be >sure to put your email address in the subject field and nothing in the body >of the letter. >****************************************************************** > DO NOT REPLY AND SEND BACK THIS LETTER, IT WILL BE IGNORED BY MY SYSTEM ! >****************************************************************** >By the way, if you get junk mail, refer them to my web site as well and by >all means, tell your friends to register. > >Maybe this will help. > >Oh, and if you don't care about junk mail, you don't have to do a thing! > >Thank you > >Jack Spiegel > > > > > _______________________ Regards, I am a creationist; I refuse to believe that I could have evolved from humans. Joseph Reagle http://farnsworth.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

1 0

Re: Add-in encryption module to Netscape
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I beleive the distilled wisdom on entropy availability is summed up by Wei Dai's post. On Sat, 20 Apr 1996 17:21 -0700 Wei Dai <weidai(a)eskimo.com> said: >It appears that a consensus has been established on cypherpunks regarding he meant coderpunks [bf] >entropy estimation. Hal summarized it nicely: > >> The first is whether this mysterious black box, the entropy estimator, >> is really possible. In practice the only way to know how much entropy >> you've gotten is to have a model for how the data is being generated, >> and to deduce from that an estimate of the entropy rate. So the entropy >> estimator can't be a general-purpose calcluation, but it must be one >> which is specifically chosen, developed and tuned for the specific source >> of entropy you are dealing with. > >I believe this whole thread about randomness and entropy started with the >search for a portable software RNG and the discussion of how to estimate >the entropy of spinners. If we accept the above paragraph, then we have >to reject spinners as a candidate for such a RNG, for two reasons. First, >we have no model of how spinners generate randomness, so we can't estimate >their entropy. Second, even if we developed such a model for a particular >spinner on a particular OS, the model itself would not be portable because >it would likely rely on nonportable assumptions about the OS. > >Do we have other candidates for portable software RNGs? At 11:38 AM 4/21/96 -0500, Alex Strasheim wrote: >Bill Frantz said: >> I have thought about the sources of entropy available to a Java applet, and >> there aren't many. You should design your protocol so entropy is not >> needed on the applet side. Entropy is normally used to pick symmetric >> encryption keys, and Initialization vectors ... >Is it feasible to make an input package that stores up entropy from >keyboard and mouse events as an applet is used? Then when entropy is >needed, whatever's available is used. If there's not enough a scribble >window or text field could pop up and the user could generate the rest. >(This isn't my idea, I'm inferring it from something Hal wrote.) I don't think there is a way to get "normal" keyboard/mouse data. A "scribble" window is certainly a possibility. However, see my comments below. >And over the long run, what, if anything, could Sun do to let applets have >access to more entropy in Java? Would it be practical to have an entropy >source in the api, that could be combined with other sources in the >applet? Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld(a)apollo.hp.com> posted to coderpunks: >Subject: Entropy overestimation in Ted Ts'o's /dev/random driver >Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 17:24:39 -0400 > >I just played around a bit with Ted's /dev/random driver a bit more.. > >It appears that the add_timer_randomness() function may overestimate >the amount of entropy in a sequence of timestamps by a factor of five >or more. It attempts to keep track of first- and second-order deltas >in order to avoid overestimating the amount of entropy added; however, >it seems like this may not be enough. > >Adding a third-order delta, and doing the 2nd and 3rd-order deltas on >the absolute value of the lower deltas seems to make things better.. Note that what Ted is using and Bill Sommerfeld is commenting on is basically a spinner. In looking over the detailed data (which I have not copied), it appears to me that even adding the 3rd order deltas may leave the actual entropy overestimated. The source of entropy is basically the system scheduler. It is a deterministic process, which depends slightly on the somewhat less deterministic processes of I/O interrupts etc. I feel uncomfortable estimating 1 bit/second from it, and prefer to accept Wai Dai's zero bits/second. One severe problem we seem to have is that all automatic entropy estimation techniques tend to over-estimate the amount of entropy present. Perhaps when the millennium comes, we will have hardware generation and be able to sleep at night. 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

1 0

(fwd) Important new web site discusses risks of loss of domain names
by Damaged Justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Original article has been snipped to save space. The report will probably be of particular interest to anarcho-capitalists, extropians, and other followers of polylegal systems.] >From: oppedahl(a)patents.com (Carl Oppedahl) Newsgroups: misc.news.internet.announce Subject: Important new web site discusses risks of loss of domain names Date: 21 Apr 1996 11:41:05 GMT Three graduate students at the George Washington University Law School (David Pauker, Stacey Halpern, and Jonathan Agmon) have prepared what is surely the definitive and comprehensive resource covering Internet domain name disputes provided, appropriately enough, in the form of a topic-specific web site. The site, called "What's in a Name?", is located at <http://www.law.georgetown.edu/lc/internic/domain1.html>. *Who should visit this site* For anybody who has a domain name ending in COM, ORG, GOV, EDU, or NET, this site is a must-read. It illustrates vividly how vulnerable any domain name owner is to loss of a domain name on just 30 days' notice, without any of the usual legal safeguards against loss of a valuable property right. *What's there* It will be apparent to any visitor that the "What's in a Name?" web site is the result of a prodigious amount of effort. The authors have drawn together nearly everything about the twenty-five publicly known domain name disputes, and provide a synopsis of each dispute as well as links to further information about them. (Because Network Solutions Inc. (NSI) conducts its decisionmaking process regarding domain name disputes in secret, one can only speculate how many other domain name disputes have arisen and how NSI decided the disputes. The authors can't be blamed for not knowing about all of the dispute decisions that NSI has made.) The authors go on to provide helpful background to trademarks and domain names, they discuss in detail the present NSI domain name policy, and they review a number of proposed replacements for the present flawed NSI policy. As counsel for Roadrunner Computer Systems Inc. in its lawsuit against NSI, I was particularly interested in the authors' comments on the present NSI policy, for example: "In the United States, NSI's Dispute Resolution Policy does not take account of common law or state registered trademarks, unfair business practices, dilution, or conflicts with even well known marks. "NSI's Dispute Resolution Policy is an imposed contract predicated on unequal bargaining power, failing to provide a proper mechanism for adjudicating disputes. "NSI, a private company, is acting in a quasi-judicial manner with limited mechanisms for judicial review." [snippage] -- frogfarm(a)yakko.cs.wmich.edu free market anarchist, natural law advocate, s..O).... You hit the smurf! --More-- male, lesbian, polyamorous, @.../.".. You destroy the smurf! --More-- reader, atheist, chaotic, $$*...].. You feel cynical! free and natural sovereign individual

1 0