December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: The Crisis with Remailers
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:32 AM 5/20/96 -0700, Ian Goldberg wrote: >I mentioned this to Chaum, and he didn't really seem agree with the need for >something lower-level... > >Another problem with postage in Mixmaster: the minimum ecash payment is >$0.01. Do we want to charge that much for email? Need we consider >micropayments? Absolutely! Given the exponentially increasing rate of data transmission ease, and corresponding cost reduction per bit, any "reasonable" minimum payment today becomes an unreasonable one tomorrow, and a hilariously outrageous one 10 years from now. Suppose the US Government had put a "information storage tax" on hard disks in about 1980, of about $10 per megabyte which would have worked out to be about 1/20 of the retail value at that time. Today, a 1.6 gigabyte hard disk would cost about $1850, which would be $250 for the drive and $1600 for the tax... Any more questions? Many months ago, I suggested using the idea of "probabilistic payments," in which a person could make a very tiny purchase with a large coin, by in effect "gambling" with the payment: You could buy a 0.1-cent email with a 1-cent coin, in which the likelihood of actually paying is 10%. Statistically, both myself and the vendor will be happy in the long run. An advantage of this system is that the payments can be made arbitrarily small and of indefinite granularity: I can pay you 0.3156893 cents with only 1-cent coins. I would be surprised if I was the first to think of such a system, at least in the ecash world, but I never heard anything to the contrary. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: encrypted open books (Was why does the state still stand)
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 20 May 1996 jamesd(a)echeque.com wrote: >> Look up cypernomicon, "open encrypted books" At 01:30 PM 5/20/96 -0700, Wei Dai wrote: > There is indeed a short section in the Cyphernomicon about encrypted open > books. Unfortunately it doesn't describe it in detail, An organization, such as a bank, issues signed, non anonymous promises to pay to various nyms -- in other words bank accounts, or interest bearing bonds, or some such. A nym would like to know what the total amount of such signed obligation is, so that he can be sure it is less than the total value of the institutions good name and readily findable and confiscatable assets. But we do not want a bunch of outsiders getting a list of lots of private information about who owns what, (such as auditors who are usually in the pockets of the tax collectors). The institution needs to be able to prove that it only owes total amount X in this form, without letting Tom, Dick, and Harry know who it owes amount X to, and why. To do this it organizes its accounts in a binary tree, and constructs a one way checksum tree checksum, revealing to each custom the part of the tree he is on, all the way up to the root, which must be the same for all customers, and must be placed in some public place, so that any customer can tell that his account is included in the total openly admitted obligations of the institution, and any customer can, by revealing secret information, prove that he is one of the people that the institution has publicly admitted owing money to. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

INFO: Sen. Burns tells White House "Three strikes and you're out"
by Voters Telecommunications Watch 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

============================================================================= ____ _ _ _ / ___|_ __ _ _ _ __ | |_ ___ | \ | | _____ _____ | | | '__| | | | '_ \| __/ _ \ _____| \| |/ _ \ \ /\ / / __| | |___| | | |_| | |_) | || (_) |_____| |\ | __/\ V V /\__ \ \____|_| \__, | .__/ \__\___/ |_| \_|\___| \_/\_/ |___/ |___/|_| SENATOR BURNS (R-MT) TELLS THE WHITE HOUSE "THREE STRIKES AND YOU'RE OUT" OF THE ENCRYPTION DEBATE BURNS SAYS CLIPPER III PLAN IS A "SWING AND A MISS" Date: May 20, 1996 URL:http://www.crypto.com/ crypto-news(a)panix.com If you redistribute this, please do so in its entirety, with the banner intact. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table of Contents News Text of press release from Senator Burns (R-MT) How to receive crypto-news ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEWS The hemorrhaging of the White House publicity campaign surrounding the Clipper III proposal that started in Interactive Week and the House of Representatives continues today in the Senate. Earlier today we received the attached press release from Senator Burns' (R-MT) office. Although this author has not yet seen the proposal, it is wonderful to see Congress leading the fight against the White House on this issue. >From the recent slew of encryption legislation (H.R. 3011, S.1587, & S.1726), it's clear that Congress understands that the best people in the world to sort out this issue are the public and industry. The three Clipper plans have been hatched by a secretive Executive agency without considering the needs of the public and industry. This is the start of a highly-charged tug-of-war between Congress and the White House over who holds the keys to your privacy: you, or the government? Congress says you, the White House says the government. It's crucial that we support Congress as they go head-to-head with the White House. Keep an eye out for the first leaks and analyses of the Clipper III report that will undoubtedly appear on the net soon. DON'T FORGET! Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) will be on HotWired *THIS WEDNESDAY*, May 22nd at 4pm EST at http://www.hotwired.com/wiredside/ You can tune in and listen to the chat with the RealAudio software (http://www.realaudio.com) You can ask questions of the Senator through a moderator and get real, immediate responses. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- TEXT OF PRESS RELEASE FROM SENATOR BURNS (R-MT) [Note that feedback to Senator Burns can be sent via email at conrad_burns(a)burns.senate.gov -Shabbir] For immediate release: Contact: Matt Raymond Monday, May 20, 1996 (202) 224-8150 Randall Popelka (202) 224-6137 Burns: Clipper III Strikes Out New Clinton Computer "Wiretap" Plan Circulates With Few Changes WASHINGTON, D.C. _ Montana Senator Conrad Burns today criticized the Clinton administration's latest computer security proposal as yet another government-driven mandate and urged swift passage of Burns' "Pro-CODE" bill, which addresses export of encryption technology and prohibits mandatory decryption-key escrow. Burns reacted to the circulation of a draft administration proposal entitled "Achieving Privacy, Commerce, Security and Public Safety in the Global Information Infrastructure." The proposal, dated May 10 and dubbed "Clipper III" by critics, moves toward the loosening and possibly eventual elimination of export controls on encryption technologies, but only if companies and individuals surrender a copy of their code keys to a government-approved third party. "It's three strikes and you're out at the old ball game, and I would say that the third version of the administration's Clipper Chip proposal is a swing and a miss," Burns said. "It's time to quit relying on government mandates for what is truly a matter of great concern to the private sector: the expansion of commerce on the Internet and other computer networks. "The administration has been using export restrictions as a billy club to force American companies into accepting government control over the keys to their computer files and transmissions. At least this new proposal admits that the current 40-bit limit on exports is outdated and a poor guarantee of electronic security and integrity, but it again operates from the standpoint that the government, and not the private sector, knows best when it comes to key strength and control over those keys. "We can only stick our heads in the sand for so long. It is important to point out that the criminals and trouble-makers who are apparently targets of this plan are unlikely to enroll in any key-escrow system. Law-abiding businesses and individuals would suffer at the hands of this misguided proposal. "While this may appear to be a compromise of the administration's earlier positions, we have to remember that an executive action can be reversed just as quickly after an election year. It is crucial that we pass legislation to codify a solution to the administration's current outdated export policies, and to ensure that the government won't force anyone to give up the keys to their computers." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOW TO RECEIVE CRYPTO-NEWS To subscribe to crypto-news, sign up from our WWW page (http://www.crypto.com) or send mail to majordomo(a)panix.com with "subscribe crypto-news" in the body of the message. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- End crypto-news =============================================================================

1 0

No Subject
by unknown＠example.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

! > The Australian law is (or was) based on the idea that if you charged ! > someone $2500 for eating the flesh of christ, it then becomes ! > legitimate for the government to check out whether or not the ! > customer was getting actual flesh of Christ. ! ! Well, although it makes for an expensive steak, it is still quite ! cheap considering that in the days of JC, they did not have ! refregirators. Must have gone to great pains to preserve the stuff! Mohels suckle the blood from infants with vino as chaser. The origion of lycanthropy. Love, Qut

1 0

Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From hfinney(a)shell.portal.com Mon May 20 22:32:43 1996 > Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 20:33:33 -0700 > From: Hal <hfinney(a)shell.portal.com> > Message-Id: <199605210333.UAA04650(a)jobe.shell.portal.com> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com, ravage(a)ssz.com > Subject: Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns (fwd) > > I think Jim is right about the knowledge requirement, which although not > stated explicitly in the statute, has been held by the courts to be an > essential element. My point in quoting is more to show an example of the > kinds of clearly illegal postings which operators have to deal with. > The point I was trying to make was that if this position is the official position of the FBI then they are guilty of the crime because they posted the Unabomber Manifesto in toto on their webpage which is accessible inter-state.

1 0

Re: SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FAS
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 20 May 96 at 9:53, jamesd(a)echeque.com wrote: > The Australian law is (or was) based on the idea that if you charged > someone $2500 for eating the flesh of christ, it then becomes > legitimate for the government to check out whether or not the > customer was getting actual flesh of Christ. Well, although it makes for an expensive steak, it is still quite cheap considering that in the days of JC, they did not have refregirators. Must have gone to great pains to preserve the stuff! Or did I misunderstood a few things? JFA Le mur est jaune, la banane est jaune, donc la banane est mure!

1 0

Re: AP
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 20 May 96 at 14:51, Jim Ray wrote: > [He IS L.D., nobody else would say "anti-psuedospoofing."] Since I hit C'punks around 6 months ago, I have no idea who this mythical figure is, alhought I see the name pop-up occasionnally. Is there a Detweiller FAQ somewhere? > Why be Jimbellish just before an election. If AP is inevitable, OK, > but why emphasis on murder when the press hates the 'Net? The people > will support it because jimbell comes off as a LOON, and people > dislike loons, and vote against them. Interesting. Has AP ever popped-up in the conventional medias? Then, again, I know an awfull lot of people who would applaude Bell. But most of them are not computer litterate. They are from another generation, not brainwashed by "Don't ask what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country"... > I'm 35, and I may actually die before I do. I hope not. [Black humor] any AP proponents with an eye (or a buck) on you? :) > >You'll note that the psycho-epistemology necessary to > >commit murder is quite close to the one necessary to coerce poeples > >to pay taxes. > > This kind of thinking might authorize a massive Cherokee > massacre if it spread, IMO. Please, do point out the similarities and the differences... I think that the context is very different. > We must reach the "quit stealing" > phase beore nuts can fantasize about a revenge phase which > likely will never be. Are you talking of an open war a la Bosnia? > We must either leave some wrongs in the > past or be cursed with them forever. This is what I was talking about taking things out of context. Since you agree on that, the Cherokee thing is ruled out. But govt action are a matter of the present and future. Some peoples see it as legitimate self-defense. Among the peoples who do not object to be coerced to pay taxex for services are two groups the one that: a) figure out that they get more than they pay and b) want to pay, even if they realize they get less than they pay for. the a) group is much bigger than b). At least by an order of magnitude. Now, in a world where the govt would not use coercion on economical and fiscal matters, b) would keep giving. But what a) would do? What they've already done since a hundred years: push for legislation that favor them. > Bottom line for me: "Two wrongs don't make a right." Please state the basic premise that make you declare what is "wrong" in the context of AP. I am not bugging you simply to do so. For example, do you think that, for ethical reasons, you are not only justified but actually *obligated* to use physical violence in certain contexts? I guess not. But many peoples think they have to... I think that you simply try to evade the necessity of defining for yourself what exactly is what the govt is doing. Personnally, I did not reach any conclusions yet. > We must, as > Libertarians, face the fact that taxation we object to is not seen > by many people as coercive. General opinion is not what define truth nor reality. If I refuse to pay my taxes, they'll use physical violence to get what they want. You might object that I enjoyed the benefits of the spending of taxes, but I am yet to see any contract that I entered with "society". > Even then, I prefer the judicial process to the oligarchy > this scheme would entail This scheme is *not* an oligarchy. Pay a visit to any good dictionary near you. Words have precise meaning and it is *much* better to stick to it... Actually, since it is ruled by money, it might be a "buckarchy", but again, everybody can spare a few bucks, so it might be a democracy too if you insist on twisting the meaning of words. > and I think I'd be an easy target for > wealthy statists, who could also use the system. At first look, of course. But operationnally, you have to consider the mind of the statist to figure out the likeliness of their using the system? I do not deny that it is very likely that a few statists will use the system. But most won't because they don't like to slain their milk cows. Remember, we are idea-processing machines. > If Bell could post > fewer times, he'd be more convincing. He is in many killfiles. JMR Many peoples cannot stand to see any opinions that differs from theirs. But why care at all be read by such peoples? DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee; Limoges porcelain, silverware and crystal JFA Technologies, R&D consultants; physists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 Unsollicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at US165 $/h Any sender of such material will be considered as to have ac- cepted the above mentionned terms.

2 1

An alternative to remailer shutdowns
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Several remailers have shut down recently. This may be in part a byproduct of the ongoing struggle between dissidents and adherents of the Church of Scientology. Also, levels of abuse seem to be increasing in general as more people come on the net and learn to use the remailers. Since by their very nature remailers prevent accountability, there is nothing to stop one or more persons from sending illegal material which will cause the remailers to be threatened by legal actions. I was contacted by the FBI on Friday due to some threatening mail which was apparently sent through my remailer. According to 18 USC 875(c), "Whoever transmits in interstate commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." I may not be able to continue operating either of my remailers (alumni.caltech.edu and shell.portal.com) for much longer due to this kind of abuse. Shutting down remailers not only reduces the number available for general use, it also causes problems for people who are using the remailers to manage pseudonyms. If their reply chains used a remailer which shuts down they have to reconstruct the chains, which is at least a nuisance. There was also a posting recently to comp.org.eff.talk by Jonathon Cline, jcline(a)trumpet.aix.calpoly.edu, about efforts to set up fully anonymous nym based mailing lists. He mentioned that the decrease in the number of remailers is causing problems with their plans. An alternative I am considering would reduce the utility of the remailer while still allowing these "consensual" uses to continue. Presently the remailers deal with abuse via "block lists", sets of addresses that mail can't be sent to. Generally these are created when someone complains about some mail they have received. By setting up blocking, at least they will not get harrassing anonymous mail once they have complained. But in some cases, as in the case that is causing me headaches now, even one message is too much. 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. Someone who has not sent in a message granting this permission will not be sent mail. For larger forums such as newsgroups and mailing lists, permission may be granted by some consensus mechanism. Most would be blocked, but a few like alt.anonymous.messages and the cypherpunks list would be permitted, and others could be added if they wished. This should hopefully essentially eliminate complaints about abuse, much more effectively than the current method of block lists. People who want to test the remailer by sending mail to themselves, as most people do when they are learning, can simply register themselves on the permit list. People who want to receive anonymous mail, or participate in anonymous mailing lists, can register themselves. People who want to use nyms can register themselves. People who run other remailers can register. It's all voluntary, and if someone does get some objectionable message at least they will know that they granted permission. They can always ask to be taken off the list. Feedback welcome - Hal Finney -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQBVAwUBMaDr2BnMLJtOy9MBAQHWBAIAlh2uIanxTnI+GBqZ1zWcBE/AgF2TtQA/ TztTYczW7FI8ktAa3WVtsUkJeIOYxUDfC2jLvhHuGMXhEPs+jVijJg== =QajL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Is Chaum's System Traceable or Untraceable?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:10 AM 5/20/96 -0700, Ian Goldberg wrote: >>So are there any flaws with above procedure? > >Yup; with the current protocols, there's no way to do change. For the shop >to pay you change, besides suddenly losing your anonymity as a payee, you >would have to go online immediately to clear the coins, which assumedly >is infeasable. > >However, if you use the "fully anonymous" protocol, change becomes trivial. >You don't have to go online; the payer (the shop) does, which it assumedly >already is. Another benefit is that coins received in this way as change >are immediately spendable by you, without having to go online in between. > >The "fully anonymous" protocol turns out to be _exactly_ what is needed >for situations like this. Wouldn't it be interesting if someday, somebody paying for something with digital cash asked the shopkeeper "Why can't you give me change for my purchase?" and the answer was, "If we could give you change, you could overthrow all the governments in the world." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Assassination politics
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

So, how would I go about betting that a certain AIDS patient in Seattle area won't have his legs broken? :-) --- Dr. Dimitri Vulis Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0