December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: The Law Loft: Surviving the Biometric I.D. Card
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have been surprised not to hear more about this aspect of the immigration reform laws. Unfortunately the alert which Tim forwarded is out of date, and I believe the reforms did pass in some form. I view biometric identification as a very disturbing development and I'd like to hear more about the wording of the bills as finally passed. If they really want to give people a card which proves their legal residence in the US, a less intrusive approach is possible. Rather than set up a database of all employees, and/or give each person an official identity card, instead have people come and prove their residency, then give them a card with the biometric information and a blind signature. No other information goes on the card, no information goes into a database. The signature is a certificate testifying that the person with the particular thumbprint is legal to work in the US. The card can't be transferred since no one else has that thumbprint. But no identifying information is recorded. There is no advantage in people coming in twice to get more than one card since their print will be the same each time, so no database is needed. A simpler approach dispenses with the blind signature and just issues a regular signature on the thumbprint or other biomarker. This is about as good since proving residency will probably require at least an incidental display of identity papers, so you are already trusting the agency not to log you, and you can just as easily trust them not to log the signature. This is an approach which accomplishes the goal with a minimal intrusion into people's privacy. I don't know how it compares with current biometric concepts - maybe this is similar to what they are proposing, minus the database. But there is a general principle that government regulations should use the least restrictive means where they violate people's rights, such as the seriouss privacy violations in the current proposals. So I think it should be possible to make a strong argument that privacy protecting alternatives which accomplish the objective must be considered. The key concept is to unlink identity from the credential. That is the crucial idea of credentials, one which has not yet pentrated the popular consciousness. Maybe we need to start pushing it more. You don't have to prove your identity to prove you have certain qualifications. There is no need to tie everything to a central identifier. A system of dispersed, stand-alone credentials will be far better at protecting privacy. Blind signatures can help protect against cheating, but policy can work too, especially when credentials are issued by a public agency on a large scale, so systematic and secret record keeping is impractical since so many people are involved. I know a lot of people will oppose even this form of biometric information, which is not tied to identity. Perhaps we could have some discussion on the degree to which people see this kind of system as a privacy threat. If the credential concept is new we could discuss that, too. Hal

2 1

Re: New crypto bill to be introduced
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:03 PM 3/28/96 -0500, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: >At CFP today, we heard about a new crypto bill being introduced >tomorrow, which will be similar to Leahy's bill with the >crypto-being-used-in-furtherance-of-crime portion removed and an >explicit no-government-mandated-escrow provision added. While this does sound like progress, I'm suspicious. Peter Junger's analysis raised serious doubt as to the ability of bill to open up the crypto export market as it purported to. And where, exactly, did this these changes come from? Who was consulted? What recommendations were NOT taken? >We have put our "List of Shame" numbers on our nametags. >-Declan You're overdoing it on this "List of Shame" thing. You don't know who actually made those anonymous postings, and it's been observed that those names seem to correspond nicely with an NSA-hate list. It would not take a great deal of imagination to conclude that the NSA was motivated to de-focus our anger at the Leahy bill and replace it with a great deal of back-stabbing commentary. (If that was the intent, it succeeded...) On the other hand, I've also noticed that there hasn't been a lot of specific analysis of the Leahy bill in the last few weeks, and my suggestion that the Leahy bill be informally re-written to address Junger's objections (as well as my own, and Tim May's, etc) has not resulted in a great deal of repair work. Now, miraculously, a replacement bill appears that includes SOME repairs. (obviously, we have to wait to hear how most of it comes out...) I get the impression that we are being sequentially offered ice cream cones with decreasing amounts of poison in them, in the hopes that at some point we'll bite. It seems to me that whoever is writing these bills should be willing to make a statement about what his goals are, and who he's talking to as he crafts them, and what changes he was UNwilling to include. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: PPV Descrambler (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > > "This is cypherpunks. Not Cable-TV-Piracy-Punks." > > Cable-TV-Piracy-Punks? Who's this guy? I asked for a text file (for > informational purposes of course). Oh and David K. Merriman, PPV is > not on cable. > Video Scrambling & Descramblin for Satellite & Cable TV R.F. Graf & W. Sheets ISBN 0-672-22499-2 $31.95 PPV is on the Austin, TX cable systems. Several varieties even.

1 0

Re: Traffic Jams on the Internet
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:54 PM 3/27/96 -0500, Mark M. wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >On Tue, 26 Mar 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > >> It occurs to me that it would be good if people sent in some >> non-governmental/hierarchial solutions to this problem, such as ones using >> digital cash as "postage" for prioritized mail. > >I read an article on various Internet pricing schemes a while ago and one >of the ideas was a pretty clever solution. Internet services would be >classified according to their bandwidth requirement and need for >interactivity. The cost per byte of e-mail might be very cheap whereas the >cost per byte for videoconferencing might be more. There's no real way to >rip off this scheme, because if you try to send an e-mail and classify it >as "high priority" it is more expensive. The phone companies have dealt with this kind of problem for years. For example, there are issues of phase jitter and bit error rate that they deal with all the time. If anything, they don't quite understand the email type communication of, "Oh, anytime in the next 10 minutes, and tell me if it doesn't get thru and I'll send it again." In ATM, these characteristics are bundled into what is called Quality of Service. That, along with bandwidth, make a reasonable basis for charging. Email is a bit like flying standby, while video is more like the Concorde. IMHO, the only long-term solution to the problem of bandwidth allocation involves markets. Markets feed cost information back to the users and give the providers incentive to improve service. 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

Re: ITAR double standards?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:20 PM 3/27/96, Asgaard wrote: >I believe in this parallel thesis. As was reported from the dec -95 >OECD meeting in Paris: > >>The statement from SHELL International is interesting. >>They can accept 'a trustworthy international key escrow >>infrastructure based on X.509 certificates' but they also >>need to 'protect their assets against Government intelligence >>gathering, organised crime, civil unrest and data privacy >>legislation obligations'. Indeed, there are _many_ reasons for multinational and/or non-U.S.-based companies to be suspicious of the United States or any of its minions holding the keys to confidential business information. Bamford's "The Puzzle Palace" reports on many incidents in which U.S. agencies intercepted business transactions for various reasons. Even of allies, as in the case when one of the NSA's SIGINT antennas picked up a message from the U.K. government to the ambassador in Vienna alerting him to the coming devaluation of the pound. (A great opportunity for Ollie North and his covert ops boys to make some extra millions by currency speculation.) Likewise, ITT routinely cooperated with the FBI and pre-NSA surveillance agencies to supply the traffic of corporations and businessmen. Given that even nominal allies spy on each other (Pollard spied on the U.S. for Israel, Chobetsu routinely spies on U.S. companies in Japan, France bugged Air France jets to spy on U.S. businessmen, etc.), I just don't see any international agreements that protect adequately. And when I say "nominal allies," consider that many in Washington have been saying in recent years that Japan is America's "real" enemy! (I certainly don't endorse this view...they're all a bunch of rascals.) I believe the obvious flaw in the whole key escrow debate, the flaw that is so obvious it seldom gets discussed, is that it is expected that the U.S. will be the holder of keys. Or its minions in Europe and Asia. Flawed, irretrievably. --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: What backs up digital money?
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) > At 1:46 PM 3/27/96, Scott Schryvers wrote: > >Question. > >If e-cash were backed by gold would that make it more reliable than say the > >dollar? > > This question, and much of the debate that appears here about digital money > in its many and confusing forms (e-cash, digicash, bitmarks, e$, > cypherfrancs, chaums, etc.), displays a "type error" in thinking about > digital money. > > No form of digital money extant is an actual currency in the conventional > sense. Nor does this seem likely. Nor necessary. Nor useful. Nor important. > > Rather, think in terms of _checks_ or _wire transfers_ and the like. An > order to transfer funds from one account or place of holding to another. Tim is right when he goes on to say that digital money is not exactly like any of the traditional financial instruments. However I think it is more like cash, and for that matter more like currency, than like other things. Here are some of the ways it is like cash. It is basically anonymous, with neither buyer nor seller able to learn the identity of the other, even with the help of the bank. It is untraceable; there is no way to know, given a piece of cash, under which transaction it was withdrawn from the bank. It is a bearer instrument; anyone can hold it, and whomever presents it gets the value (that is, it is not "made out" to a certain individual). A piece of dcash is an asset, a claim on the bank. When dcash is withdrawn, the bank must debit (reduce) the customer's account immediately. Likewise, when it is deposited, the depositor's account gets credited. Between those times the net amount of money in bank accounts was reduced, by exactly the amount of circulating dcash. When the money supply is counted, circulating dcash will need to be included with traditional currencies like cash and coins (I think that is M1), since it is not counted in the bank accounts. The difference with checks and wire transfers is that in those cases there is a direct transfer of assets from one account to another. These are not bearer instruments; in fact wire transfers aren't really financial instruments at all, and do not carry value. There is normally no anonymity or untraceability either, with these kinds of transactions. So I see them as being very different from dcash. The best analogy to dcash is the private currency which was issued by banks and other financial institutions prior to about 1850 (in the US). Until that time the US government did not issue paper money, it was all private. A bank would issue bank notes, which would circulate in its local area as money. They were backed up by "real money", specie, metallic coins, which the bank kept in its vaults. The digital cash issued by Mark Twain bank is in many ways a throwback to these old bank notes. There are differences, of course. A lot of attention is focussed on the non-transferrability, the fact that you have to deposit the cash at the bank after each transaction. Some people say that this means that the cash doesn't circulate, hence is not a currency, hence must be more like checks, etc. But I disagree. I view this aspect of dcash as superficial and unimportant. First, it may not be technically necessary. Some cash systems have been proposed which allow for transferrability. But second, even if it is necessary to exchange cash after each transaction, that can be done completely automatically. In fact, the agency which does so doesn't even have to be the bank, as far as the financial aspects go. The exchange has no financial impact on the bank's accounting procedures. And it can be completely automated for users. They don't even have to be aware of it. Their software can turn in received dcash at the bank for fresh banknotes, anonymously and automatically. So I view dcash as a circulating currency, where the act of transfer in some implementations requires some technical assistance from an agent of the bank able to make digital signatures on its behalf. It is more than simply a mechanism for transferring funds from one account to another (unless you think of government currency in those terms). I view it as possessing real value, as being a genuine asset in the same sense as other forms of cash. Hal -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQBVAwUBMVnJehnMLJtOy9MBAQGoxwIAiFRtBo215dXzlRWR1drH8dQR63zKkPoQ 5EDk85YM8fxIaDg/cYrGEzl+bDlF2qOJisjrCl9XkTJEBrifHavrEQ== =792N -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3

suggestions for starting an e-bank
by brookfld＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi! If I were going to start an e-bank, what would you suggest? 1. What type of e-cash system? 2. What services to offer? 3. Where would I get information? 4. Where is there a need in the marketplace? A friend of mine has the means and desire to do this, and he wanted me to ask and then forward the answers to him. Thank you in advance. --Richard

2 1

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 27 Mar 1996, Mike Duvos wrote: > tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) writes: > > > At 1:46 PM 3/27/96, Scott Schryvers wrote: > > >> Question. If e-cash were backed by gold would that make it > >> more reliable than say the dollar? > > Not necessarily. Historically, gold emerged as the primary > currency metal because [Excellent points about gold's practical use, good timing, and industrial value countered by the current lack of industrial value.] > Basically, one can create monetary value for any commodity whose > supply can be controlled, usually by the folks wishing to lend it > value, by simply making a stable market in it, and having the > reputation and power to control that market in perpetuity. > > The best example of this is probably the diamond market. Here we > have a rare but intrinsically worthless material, the gem quality > diamond, which has no useful industrial applications at all, > since non-gem quality diamonds and substitutes, both synthetic > and natural, are in abundance. I was with you until this. In fact diamonds are anything but rare. Their value is the result of the most exceptional marketing by DeBeers, and the very tight restrictions on supply. I might note that the restrictions on supply are even somewhat tangential. DeBeers has created one of the most historic, long standing and impressive market distortions anyone has ever seen. Of course this only goes to further the argument (which I think you are adopting) that it is fairly simple to estlablish a commodity of "value" regardless of intrinsic worth) > Gem quality diamonds are extremely valuable, because their supply > is carefully controlled, and because of clever marketing designed > to convince every male human in North America and most of Europe > that shelling out two months salary for one is the unique and > true symbol of everlasting love. Even gem quality stones are relatively abundant believe it or not. > The diamond industry has even made plans for the holographic > fingerprinting of every diamond they release, should synthetic > gem-quality diamonds ever hit the market, so that they may > continue their control of the supply of their "currency", even in > the face of a flood of absolutely identical "unsanctioned" gems. Again, even absent the intrinsic value of the substance it seems that marketing and perception will dictate "effective value." > I recall a very clever Science Fiction story I read a number of > years ago in which aliens completely destroyed human civilization > by manufacturing all the world's goods and services, and > accepting payment only in cowpies, which were subject to an > arbitrary and complicated grading system similar to that used by > modern gemologists. One day, the aliens simply left, and human > civilization, consisting mostly by then of PhD Cowflopologists > with expertise only in interpreting swirls on lumps of shit, > promptly folded. This is precisely the point, and why, while I agree with your comments about gold today, I think the most important issue is the long term solvency of a commodity. As you have noted, anyone can make a substance worth something in the short term. (Tulips) The challenge, and the goal in my view, is to create a currency based on a backing which endures the long term, and the unthinkable (collapse of a major government or some such). > Before I digress to far from your original question, let me state > the point I am trying to make here. If a entity, or group of > entities, with reputation and power to make a market, decide to > demoninate a currency using a rare commodity, it makes little > difference whether the rare commodity is near-perfect crystals of > carbon found only on land that they own, a vault filled with gold > bars, exponentiated random numbers modulo the product of two > large but closely guarded primes, or statistically unlikely > swirls in wads of digested plant material dropping from the butt > of a cow. > > In all these cases, the important thing is not the commodity, but > the entities guaranteeing the market, and the perception of their > reputation and ability to support said currency in perpetuity. > Absolute control over the supply of the commodity in question > doesn't hurt either. When the value of the intrinsic worth of a commodity in question does become apparent is in periods of transition, flux, disorder, or strife. The security of a currency is going to be a major factor, especially immediately following introduction, to its popularity- except in unusual circumstances (tulips, market distortions, etc.) > Indeed, US government backed e-cash would be a far more trusted > and reliable currency than gold backed currency printed by > DigiCash BV. I'm not sure this is precisely true. While gold itself might not be the best choice, the general principal that a commodity based currency is less secure or trustworthy than a government backed one (even a powerful and imposing government) is not one I'm prepared to endorse without reservation. > One good inflation-resistant indicator of whether gold is a good > value is the ratio between gold and silver prices. Both of these > metals are mined with similar difficulty, and have similar uses > for backing currency and as coinage metals. Historically, there > have been times when gold and silver prices were approximately > equal. > > I have no doubt that if the unwashed masses were sold the notion > that gold was the single reliable inflation-proof form of wealth > they could own, and the holdings of international bankers were > sold into the hands of millions of individual citizens, a > controlled devaluation would follow, together with much chortling > and uncorking of champagne, as gold and silver prices became > nearly equal again. I believe this correct. > As long as people who count have vaults full of the stuff, and > wish to carry it on their books as an expensive asset, it will of > course continue to have its current inflated value, and nothing > will be done to depress the market. In that sense gold is a > reliable asset, as long as most of the little people refrain from > jumping on the bandwagon. Just like diamonds. Again, while the commodity itself (gold) may not be appropriate, I don't believe this ends the argument. > > No form of digital money extant is an actual currency in > > the conventional sense. Nor does this seem likely. Nor > > necessary. Nor useful. Nor important. > > Actual currency can circulate forever in the economy without > eventual conversion into some other kind of money. The > requirements of current digital cash systems for centralized > clearing to eliminate double spending and to mint new coins tends > to preclude the kinds of perpetual peer-to-peer transactions we > think of when we conceptualize "currency." Which suggests that private currencys must utilize e-cash (if at all) merely as monetary instruments which continue to look much like what exists today. (e.g., drafts, checks, bonds...) > Real electronic currency could be invented, but would have to > live its life within a population of tamper-proof smart cards > communicating with each other through secure protocols. Whether > anyone will bother to implement such a system remains to be seen. I concur. > Until then, the "check" model of digital money is, as Tim points > out, the correct one. I concur again. > > The point being that talking about "what backs up digital > > cash?" is misleading. (What really backs it up is the > > reputation of the entities, but I digress.) > > "The reputation of the entities" is the only important > consideration regardless of what the cash is denominated in. In > most cases, the valued commodities, if they exist, are simply > pretty window-dressing for some unseen but powerful syndicate. Yet here I must differ. I'm still not convinced that a legitimate commodity somewhat resistant to the market distortions you cite does not exist. Don't ask me what it is yet, I'll have to give it some thought. > -- > Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ > mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $ --- 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

1 0

RE: What backs up digital money?
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Perry E. Metzger > >I'd say that anything directly dealing with digital cash, its >implications, deployment, and technical issues associated with >it. General discussions of whether the Federal Reserve is a bunch of >evil old men and the like are what are out of bounds. [...etc.] .................................................................. So you mean rather than merely, or only, complaining that things have not, or are not, working right (in our favor, to our benefit), because of what Evil Old Men have done to the system as it now operates, the discussion should go in the direction of: . "doing something about it", or . ideas on methods and techniques which would work, which could . make a difference (potentially, hopefully) towards the success of techie systems which would result in greater personal, individual control, also including perhaps: . clarifications on why, in spite of the resistance of those who are apprehensive about the break-down of law&order, these are a "good thing" to promote and implement (for those who don't "get it"), . aiming more at postive improvements and successes in the future, rather than focusing too much on past mistakes, failures, injustices (where the reader could wonder, "so how does this relate"). ...or something like that. .. >Blanc

1 0

Re: PPV Descrambler
by David K. Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:34 AM 03/28/96 +0000, you wrote: >I've been looking for a file on how to make PPV descramblers and havn't >found any. Commercial descramblers cost around $200 base price. If >anyone has a file on how to make them please e-mail me one. Thanks. > >captain_lee @mail.interconnect.net > This is cypherpunks. Not Cable-TV-Piracy-Punks. Dave Merriman ------------------------------------------------------------- "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." P. J. O'Rourke (b. 1947), U.S. journalist. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> http://www.shellback.com/personal/merriman/index.htm

4 3