December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tomw(a)netscape.com" "Tom Weinstein" 28-APR-1996 20:13:00.23 >Rich Graves wrote: > >> 3. If I am Jack the Ripper, I have a way of proving that the code is >> my intellectual property. >How do you prove that? If I strip off your signature and sign it >myself, how do you know it's yours? Prior publication or timestamping. Admittedly, you could have come up with the same stuff independently (and will probably have modified some unimportant respects so that the code is different, even if you didn't). But that problem is there in any copyrighting/anti-plagarism scheme. For instance, I recently had an idea on genetic algorithms (I've been researching coding techniques for them.) I then came across a version of it in a journal, so I have to cite that journal when I give the idea - even though I came up with it independently. -Allen

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"mkj(a)october.segno.com" 28-APR-1996 10:29:40.72 >Most other arguments put forth so far in this thread, about how people >"won't stand for" certain government behaviors and so forth, I don't >find convincing. Modern military technologies, especially in the >U.S., make the prospects of a sucessful popular uprising dubious. Well, atomic bombing your own populace is not exactly the way for a nation-state to survive. Most other high-effectiveness means of taking out internal rebels also don't work very well. Why do you think a lot of areas with civil wars are kind of destroyed by the end of them? Even with the low level of military technology at the time, the South was quite thoroughly devastated by the end of the Civil War - and it would have been even without such "atrocities" (so-called by Confederate sympathizers) as the burning of Atlanta. >Which brings us to the "flight of capital" issue. Will nations be >able to compete freely for the loyalty of the rich? Or will the most >powerful nations form effective coalitions, and perhaps simply bomb >"rogue" nations into the stone age? It depends partially on whether those "rogue" nations have nuclear weapons (or, like Japan, the economic equivalents). I suspect that the best way to have a country with fully anonymous digital cash in widespread, legal use will be to have that country be a nuclear power. Thus, discussions of how to construct a backyard nuclear device (the subject of earlier debates on here between Jim Bell and others) may be quite relevant. Having those loyal rich types around to fund such an effort may make such possible, especially with the breakdown of the Soviet Union and the resulting availability of nuclear material. -Allen

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

At 02:12 PM 4/28/96 -0700, jamesd(a)echeque.com wrote: > >> When you cut off someone's air supply, even the nicest, gentlest >> person will go into an unrestrained, murderous frenzy. I expect >> something similar will happen to even the most "civilized" governments >> within the next few years, as popular crypto begins to cut off their >> money supply. > >False on two counts: > >First "frenzy" is exactly the opposite of what the >government needs to stay in one piece, to continue >to be a government. > >Secondly, when you cut of someones air supply, >they do not necessarily defend themselves. While that's obviously an imperfect analogy he gave, I think it's inadvertently instructive for an unobvious reason: Governments are _supposed_ to be products of the will of the people (at least, in so-called "freedom-loving" societies they are). If that's the case, then if society decides that governments should be reduced or even eliminated, those governments should have no objection. To whatever extent they DO have an objection, it can only be because the government is no longer representing the population as it was supposed to do, but has started to represent the vested interests of people whose livelihood depends on that government. And to whatever extent this is happening, that's all the more reason to get rid of that government. Unfortunately, that's exactly the position we find ourselves in today. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

BOW_itz
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

4-29-96 WSJ has page one leader on the December federal bust of Bernard Oskar Bowitz, an EE peddling gear for cellular piracy. It lays out the cyber-tracking and -trapping. "This case offers a glimpse into the crime in the 21st century," scowls a US Attorney. Bowitz derises, "I'm very flattered to hear they think I'm a mastermind. I think they're watching too many Arnold Schwarzenegger movies." BOW_itz (but see below) ----- WSJ opens a pay-for-it Web site today: www.wsj.com

1 0

Re: Book: The President's Eyes Only
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:08 AM 4/28/96 -0700, rick hoselton wrote: >I just finished reading "For the President's Eyes Only", >a book by Christopher Andrew. [stuff deleted] >I suppose I tended to look upon ITAR restrictions on cryptography >as a sign of a power-hungry, self-agrandizing, government that has >lost track of the fact that its legitimacy depends on protecting >the blessings of liberty for its citizens. That's partly true, >but there's more to it than that. > >After reading "For the President's Eyes Only", I can understand that >many in government believe that they are protecting the public by >outlawing cryptography. After careful reconsideration, I still >believe in strong free crypto, but it made me think very hard. >I think that some on this list and in sci.crypt should be ashamed of >their ad hominem attacks in an area where reasonable people disagree. > >The crypto-game is being played "for keeps". Someday, all crypto >may be too strong to break, but for right now, many "bad guys" >(and whatever your philosophy, I bet you can find some) use weak >crypto, and this allows the US Govt. to know more about what goes >on in the world. Here's one reason why I object to this. While "reasonable people" occasionally disagree about things, in the political arena my experience has been that the main reason they disagree is their differing VALUES, not the interpretation of those values. For example, if a person simply disliked the concept of freedom (for others, anyway) or wanted to maintain the power of an existing government against future reductions based on technological developments, he'd object to the deployment of good crypto by ordinary citizens. One could argue that his position is "reasonable" given his value system, but in reality his would be a particularly hostile position with regards to my rights. Yes, "bad guys" exist, but for most if not all of us the vast majority of those bad guys would have no use for crypto, and probably wouldn't be able to figure out how to install and run PGP. Only a very tiny fraction of "bad guys" would benefit from crypto, yet that's all the government is talking about. The reason is simple: The government's "bad guys" are NOT OUR "bad guys", not at all. The government is almost entirely uninterested in the common criminals who do most of the damage; it is focussing on the few people who are the biggest threat to _it_, not a threat to the public. It is this self-interest that makes the positions of the government-apologists unreasonable, and worthy of our scorn. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com As long as Uncle Sam keeps his finger on a nuclear >trigger, I can see a strong case that knowing what he's doing and >not getting too surprised are (mostly) good things. > >There will be a price to pay when everyone uses strong crypto. >There will be great benefits derived, as well. It will be very >expensive, but worth it. If we want to make it happen sooner, >we should understand (and respect) our opponents in this debate. > > >Rick F. Hoselton (who doesn't claim to present opinions for others) > > >

1 0

Re: arbiter/escrow agent for hire
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 28-APR-1996 20:43:07.41 >My key is available on the keyservers, as far as I know. >Sandy Sandfort, for one, has spoken with me extensively and his signature >is on my key. If you like, I suggest you ask him as to his view of my >credibility/continuity. My information would appear to be out of date; I was getting it from one of the web-of-trust studies which stated that your new key was not signed by anything except itself. Sorry. >Note, this hardly assures you that I'm not several people working >together, merely that this nym is connected to at least one person who >posts on cypherpunks regularly and has had a presence here since just >after the lists foundation. It would admittedly help if your messages were signed also; this would provide somewhat of an additional confirmation. However, I very well understand that this is not always possible/practical; note that I don't have a key yet. -Allen

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"s1113645(a)tesla.cc.uottawa.ca" 28-APR-1996 19:36:41.10 >What is interesting is how it applies to the middle-class, where most of >the tax-base is. Currently, yes... but the divide between rich and poor is growing. (So long as this divide is determined by merit, and the poor still have enough to survive, I'd call this a good trend. So would various other people on this list, perhaps without my caveats.) In other words, the middle class is going up or down. The factory workers are going down; the high-ability workers (including information workers) are going up. So just talking about the rich makes sense. -Allen

2 1

API for the next release of NOISE.SYS available...
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If you're interested in seeing the preliminary API for the next NOISE.SYS release, send a message with the subject "send noise-api" and my mail filter will respond in kind. Thoughful comments and criticisms or suggestions would be most welcome. If you're seriously interested in taking a look at the source code before the next version is released (that is, if you intend to comb it for bugs, optimizations, security flaws, etc. etc.) drop me a line. Rob. --- Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" to <WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com> for a copy of my PGP key.

1 0

Freedom and security
by angels＠wavenet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>No. "Those who sacrifice security for freedom, will have neither" is >not consistent with Franklin's statement, nor is it true. Security and >freedom are antithetical, and worse than that, security is always an >illusion. But you can have your illusion, as long as you keep it out of >my life. Censor yourself if you wish, but don't censor anything I might >want to look up. > The relationship / balance between security and freedom is always a defining factor in a society. My point is that a society with no laws and no codes of conduct is not a free society. This is not the same thing as saying that all societies need government. Small communities can and do operate without major legislation, using what sociologists refer to as "informal social controls", e.g. peer pressure. But even those small communities require and enforce boundaries on the conduct of their members. There is no society that tolerates the murder of its innocent members. The Internet may once have been one of those small close knit communities, small enough not to require law enforcement - although even then it had rules that had to be followed. But that Internet is gone, and it will never return, because now its the biggest city in the world, and the history of the change from pastoral communities to urban life, to the development of nation states and power blocs is also the history of crime. And as the Internet grows, so will its security problems. My position is to seek a balance between the freedom of the individual and the security of the community. My argument is that when the security of the community is threatened by the freedom of the individual, the community will always prioritise its safety. Good government of course means maintaining individual freedoms *and* maintaining community security. I actually disagree that they are antithetical. On the contrary they are a balance that any society has to find. Where individual freedom takes over you have the urban jungle where predators consume prey. Where security takes over you have the totalitarian state. Neither is necessary nor inevitable. We are simply concentrating on the problem from two different angles. My concern is to maximise community safety while protecting individual freedom. Your angle is to maximise individual freedom while protecting community safety. There is IMHO very little difference between the two. ********************************************************* Colin Gabriel Hatcher - CyberAngels Director angels(a)wavenet.com "Two people may disagree, but that does not mean that one of them is evil" *********************************************************

2 1

Attorney-Client / Nyms
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > 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? Proposed FRE 503 probably has the best codification of the prevailing common law on the subject. I reproduce it in part below. Typos are mine. (a) Definitions. As used in this rule: (1) A "client" is a person, public officer, or corporation, association, or other organization or entity, either public or private, who is rendered professional legal services by a lawyer, or who consults with a lawyer with a view to obtaining progessional legal services from him. [...] (b) General rule of privilege. A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purposes of facilitiating the rendition of professional legal services to the client, [between the attorney and the client directly or indirectly]. (c) Who may claim the privilege. The privilege may be claimed by the client [or his agents or assigns etc.] The person who was the lawyer at the time of the communication may claim the privilege but only on behalf of the client. His authoriety to do so is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. (d) Exceptions. There is no privilege under this rule: (1) Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud; or (2) Claimants through the same deceased client. As to communication relevant to an issue between parties who claim through the samed deceased client, regardless of whether the claims are by testate or intestate succession or by inter vivos transaction; or (3) Breach of duty by lawyer or client. As to a communication relevant to an issue of breach of duty by the lawyer to his client or by the client to his lawyer; or (4) Document attested by lawyer. As to a communication relevant to an issue concerning an attested document to which the lawyer is an attesting witness; or (5) Joint clients. As to a communication relevant to matter of common interest between two or more clients if the communication was made by any of them to a lawyer retained or consulted in common, when offered in an action between any of the clients. (end) Generally speaking the particulars of attorney-client relationships are regulated by state statute, though some states define the provisions through common law. Note the confidentiality requirement. A client is estopped from claiming privilege if he discloses the content of the communication to a third party not connected to the attorney-client relationship. The identity of the client and the existance of the attorney client relationship are not confidential. There are some exceptions. Physical evidence is generally not protected by attorney client privilege unless it is a manifestation of communications between attorney and client (letters, documents etc.) Communications regarding future crimes or frauds are not protected. What I think you will be most interested in, however are the exception for stolen property and destruction of evidence. Stolen property may be held by an attorney for a reasonable time for inspection purposes, but must be returned to the rightful owner or the attorney will be a receiver of stolen goods and participating in an ongoing crime. Privilege will thus not apply. In re Ryder, 263 F.Supp. 360 (E.D.Va 1967). (Some courts will permit the attorney to refuse to disclose the source from which he obtained the property, however). Consider this in the context of trade secrets. All states have laws against destroying or concealing evidence. The attorney who advises his client to destroy evidence is a co-consiprator. Privilege does not apply. Clark v. State, 261 S.W.2d 339 (Crim. App Tex. 1953). (Interesting to wonder if advising a client to encrypt evidence is 'concealing' it). > > >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? I suggest you use a forwarding service, sign up with your nym name, and provide the address of a P.O. box for them to forward to, also in the name of your nym. > -Allen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMYQU6S1onm9OaF05AQHN7ggAstl9Is4Yyt0ZSPiOJYBJvFqPoj8kNtQL 6TuIubS4Ybu+5tWEqI6O/llmwE0NGw9q8ow4zK4yAm7PnbtvcFsRvjLy+KlPbU6/ rVTd1EI9Qz6rGTiK99j3bBxdYsQv4p4AwiC/+sdR/ZJyq6+ZR5PX/RzqPO/Tfxc6 nlM/G0S4PcA45W4v+lDRbj8GTcRaTlziPAl8/8xJGPuapZBrt8Icl92dLrCAFu7e vGe0u0yrRw/ljq2hQ1FjpQzEv4pbQ4XPxylqmoh7lTjkFw2KsT/pNb/36YUNisPv 4n4EiAcRCviVBSmaOF8DzgwANirTR5WEYj9ayIBwN5UmlwZnKWf/Bw== =N2Wa -----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

1 0