December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: MixMaster fair use
by Rev. Mark Grant, ULC 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 21 May 1996, Jim Choate wrote: > What confuses me is the part above that states that I agree to use Mixmaster > for solely non-commercial use. This is NOT GNU or copyleft. Isn't that because it uses RSAREF? AFAIR the RSAREF license says you can't use any RSAREF applications commercially without paying license fees. Mark

1 0

Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
by Rev. Mark Grant, ULC 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 20 May 1996, Rich Graves wrote: > On Tue, 21 May 1996, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: > I like the "knock-knock" approach, though it would of necessity impose > load. If someone has an anonymous message waiting, send them a simple note > with instructions on how to retrieve it. I have a partial implementation of this for Mixmaster if anyone wants to try integrating it into the main code. It works (or worked) for single packet messages but I never finished the multi-packet code. Of course, if Mixmaster is being rewritten anyway then it won't be much use. AFAIR it also relies on the 'In-Reply-To:' field in the header working correctly. Mark

1 0

Re: Long-Lived Remailers
by Rev. Mark Grant, ULC 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 21 May 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > Traffic analysis will be quite easy to do, of course, as all mail sent to > the persistent address comes out of the "disposable(a)foo.com" address. > Q.E.D. Yeah, but the attack model I was assuming was lawyers rather than intelligence agencies. The NSA could probably easily link the two together, but the Church of Foobar(tm) probably couldn't. They'd only have access to the logs on the ISP and the information you gave when you signed up, not the raw packets on the Net. Mark

1 0

Re: MixMaster fair use (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 16:06:07 +0100 (BST) > From: "Rev. Mark Grant, ULC" <mark(a)unicorn.com> > Subject: Re: MixMaster fair use > > On Tue, 21 May 1996, Jim Choate wrote: > > > What confuses me is the part above that states that I agree to use Mixmaster > > for solely non-commercial use. This is NOT GNU or copyleft. > > Isn't that because it uses RSAREF? AFAIR the RSAREF license says you can't > use any RSAREF applications commercially without paying license fees. > But, it doesn't say word one about RSAREF not being used, it specificaly mentions Mixmaster. Jim Choate

1 0

Re: NIST Draft Key Escrow Paper
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Contrary to what the attached note says, there is no draft copy available yet. OMB publications at the number below says: "We're just finding out about the report. We're not sure if they're going to give us copies or not." -Declan > [Forward] > > From: Elaine Frye <elaine.frye(a)nist.gov> > Subject: draft key escrow paper > > May 20, 1996 > > Note > > To: Key Escrow Distribution List > > From: Ed Roback, NIST > > Subject: Release of DRAFT Key Escrow Paper > > FYI, today the Interagency Working Group (IWG) on > Cryptography Policy released a DRAFT paper entitled > "Enabling Privacy, Commerce, Security and Public Safety in > the Global Information Infrastructure." > > The DRAFT paper discusses a voluntary draft key management > infrastructure, supported by private sector key management > organizations, that would permit users and manufacturers > free choice of encryption algorithms, facilitate > international interoperability, preserve law enforcement > access, and, most importantly, provide strong system > security and integrity. FYI, the paper was released by the > IWG co-chairs Ed Appel (NSC) and Bruce McConnell (OMB). > > Comments on the draft paper are being solicited. No > deadline is specified. > > At present, I do not have an electronic copy of the draft > (25 pp). Copies are available through the OMB publications > office at 202-395-7332. I anticipate that the document > will soon be available widely on the net and will forward > you a web address when available. > > > ***************************************************** > Elaine Frye > Computer Security Division > National Institute of Standards and Technology > Bldg. 820, M.S. Room 426 > Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001 > Voice: 301/975-2819 Fax: 301/948-1233 > ***************************************************** >

2 1

Re: NIST Draft Key Escrow Paper
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We've just heard back from Ed Roback of NIST that he'll fax us a copy of the Draft Key Escrow Paper, which we'll scan and send to Pat Farrell for his Web site. I'll ask Pat to announce it's availability when ready.

1 0

Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
by Bruce Baugh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:02 PM 5/20/96 -0700, Hal <hfinney(a)shell.portal.com> wrote: >My thought is to turn the block list concept on its head, and make it a >"permit list". Simply, the remailer will only send mail to people who >have voluntarily indicated their willingness to receive it. On the whole, I like it. The problem comes when someone is trying communicate anonymously with some other person who doesn't have a clue about the whole thing. It would be neat to have soem way of generating a message to the effect "Someone is trying to communicate anonymously with you. [short explanation of good and bad uses of anonymity] If you would like to receive this message, [instructions about permitting]" Unfortunately, I don't know how one could separate those messages from all the rest of the traffic. -- Bruce Baugh bruce(a)aracnet.com http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce

1 0

Re: The Crisis with Remailers
by droelke＠rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

tcmay(a)mail.got.net wrote: > > At 5:25 AM 5/21/96, Lance Cottrell wrote: > > >An interesting problem with anonymous postage is that it is likely to kill > >cover traffic generators. > > > > I doubt it. It's easy enough for remailers to, for example, pass out free > tokens to other remailer operators. > > (Jukebox and other coin-op concessions often pass out tokens (slugs, or > marked coins) to storeowners and bartenders to use to stimulate the > market.) > Wouldn't the "income" from other cover generators help cover the cost of a remailer running its own cover generator? Also - remailers could possibly give postage free service to traffic for other remailers.... i.e. only the last node (who has the most exposure anyways) would require payment. Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Oelke Alcatel Network Systems droelke(a)aud.alcatel.com Richardson, TX

1 0

Re: SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FAST
by hendersn＠zeta.org.au 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>At 02:08 AM 5/20/96 EDT, you wrote: >> What countries are noticeable for being anti-Scientology? >> They would appear to be good locations for special-purpose >> remailer ultimate-output ends. > >Scientology was illegal in Australia last time I heard. Not at the moment. It was only banned in one state(can't remember which one) and that ban was lifted some time ago. > They declared >that you could not be a religion and charge a fee for religious service >the way that Scientology charges. It was tried, but didn't work. The final court ruling was that Australian Government wasn't allowed to decide what did or didn't constitute a genuine religious practice. $cientology can charge what it likes. > They then defined them as practicing >medicine, and hit them with snake oil laws. And the religion cover let them skip away unharmed. The Church's "benefits" are spiritual in nature(allegedly) and therefore not subject to medical regulations. Now to try to get this back on-topic, there was one NOTS document which was posted anonymously before the whole pack made it to alt.religion.scientology. It described a process(or "ritual" if you prefer) designed to help _physical_ affliction. It _may_ violate an FDA ruling prohibiting the Church from practising medicine. It is _definitely_ a violation of copyright to post it and one person, Keith Henson, is getting sued for quoting it. Now, was sending this NOTS document through an anonymous remailer a good or a bad thing to do? Zed(hendersn(a)zeta.org.au) "Don't hate the media, become the media" - Jello Biafra PGP key on request

1 0

Re: Hiding remailers behind nymservers...? (fwd)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:57 AM 5/21/96, Jim Choate wrote: >Forwarded message: > >> Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 18:53:15 -0700 (PDT) >> From: Steve Reid <root(a)edmweb.com> >> Subject: Hiding remailers behind nymservers...? >> >> This 'middle-man' remailer... What does it really accomplish? Sure, the >> operator is hidden, but that's only because of his/her nym at c2.org... >> AFAICS, the 'middle-man' has just taken the liability off himself and put >> it on the unhidden remailers. Why not just use the existing unhidden >> remailers??? >> > >The first thing it accomplishes in my mind is establishing pre-meditation to >conspire to the commission of a felony. No, think of scienter again. And creating something or some service that _may_ be used in connection with a crime does not make the creator a conspirator, unless it can be shown that he was involved in the planning of the crime used with his thing or service. For example, if I open up a car rental place and one of my cars is used in a bank robbery, was I involved in a "pre-meditation to conspire to the commission of a felony."? Clearly not. (And before anyone brings up "required ID" at car rental agencies, such ID is not required by any local, state, or national laws, so far as I have ever heard. It is perfectly legal for me to rent things to people without demanding credentials. A sufficiently large deposit may be enough. ID is often used to satisfy insurance requirements, and to help in collecting any unreturned items.) Now it may be that operating a remailer may be interpreted by some courts as being a "public nuisance," a theory I credit to Brad Templeton, but this has not yet come even close to happening. --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."

2 1