December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: crosspost re remailers
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:30 PM 5/14/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote: >Actually, there hasn't really been any discussion on cypherpunks, which I >find a little surprising. I'd have thought that a remailer going down >because of political/legal pressure would raise more of a ruckus. People >seem jaded, but I'm not sure why. I thought the statement that remailers are supposed to be ephemeral and common was the answer. If one is shut down, a dozen spring up in its place. Advertising new remailers does become an issue. What mechanisms are in place for new remailers to advertise themselves? I find it interesting that this remailer is being shut down by private action and not by government. (Yes, they are threatening government action, but if they couldn't do that they would find some other threat.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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: distributed keys
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:47 AM 5/15/96 -0600, Matt Smith wrote: >Has anyone heard of an algorithm for managing keys automatically in a >distributed system? > >For instance, if some low level security were to be implemented in a >a networking stack where authentication was to be implemented, you would want >to have each node have it's own signature so that signature checking can >take place when one node connects to another node. The trick is then >getting every node's keys distributed to every other node. > >... > (4) Have a machine responsible for generating the public-private keys for each node. It has its own public-private key pair. It uses it's private key to sign each node's public key. Every node gets three keys: it's public and private keys, and the public key generating machine. When nodes make contact they exchange signed public keys and verify the signature of their partner's key with the public key of the generating machine. This is a simple certificate hierarchy scheme as seen in SET, the US Post Office CA system, and VeriSign. Note that the generating machine does not need to be on any network. In fact, it could spend most of its time locked up in a safe since it is only needed when generating new keys. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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: Why does the state still stand:
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:01 PM 5/14/96 -0700, blanc wrote: >3 problems which immediately come to mind: > >. What if someone, hired on one occasion but fired at another, > decides in anger to > "turn coat" and report everyone to the > IRS (or other fine government agency)? I expect that as corporations move to the net, they will not have the highly centralized structure of existing corporations. In any case this structure is in large part imposed by the state in order to facilitate tax collection. For example the existence of the "Human resources department" is largely the result of state coercion of corporations. In web businesses ones primary relationship will be with ones immediate coworkers, rather than the greater corporation. They will consist rather of a network of relationships -- contracting will move up, and the Keiretsu structure will move down. I expect the institutional structure will resemble that of the mafia -- a loose confederation of networks rather than tight whole. Thus defection by one party can only cause limited damage. In my judgement the Keiretsu form of economic organization is growing in large part because of improved communications and lowered communication costs. The Keiretsu form does not in itself facilitate tax evasion, but it does mean that the state has to apply coercion more directly to more people in order to collect taxes, and that its coercion has to be more visibly arbitrary and disruptive. >. What if a company does not pay as expected - other than adopting > Assassination Politics, what method could an employee use towards > getting their expected remuneration for work done? In order to do business, one will need a good name (or good nym). If one does not have a good name, one will be poor. That is why I said "every man his own credit bureau". >. Wouldn't everyone need to have two jobs (or source of regularly > accepted cash), in order to be able to pay for services where > suppliers do not accept virtual cash transactions? (TCM has > mentioned before about the need to pay for some things > in tiny quantities - like quarters for a phone call, etc.) Existing forms of ecash are costly and inconvenient, hence unsuitable for spending in tiny quantities. I expect that in the not very distant future every shop will offer its own cash, and that some of these will be in the form of millicents -- suitable for automatic lightly supervised transactions between computers. I expect the transaction cost advantage will eventually be on the side of electronic money, rather than physical money. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

3 3

Re: SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FAST
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The problem that I think the Scientology postings raise is that the remailers cannot really be used to post copyrighted material. That is what got the netherlands hacktic remailer shut down. This shows, BTW, that being outside the United States is no guarantee of immunity. Most Western countries support copyrights. Maybe the operators can try to plead that they are like "common carriers" and should not be blamed for what people post. Still it is going to take deep pockets at best to prevail in this dispute, and it isn't even clear that the remailer will win. Maybe the lawyers on the list could comment on legal liability of a remailer used to repeatedly post copyrighted material, whether Scientology scriptures or Microsoft Word binaries. I don't see how it can happen. (This ties in, BTW, with my posting yesterday about problems with the "anonymous company" concept. It is not clear that any of the technologies we have discussed will allow continuous, long-term and reliable broadcasting of illegal material.) Presently all the remailers operate for free, which makes it even harder to justify taking the chance of facing an expensive lawsuit. On the other hand, at least if no commercial gain is involved the operator might escape some forms of damages if he loses. A for-pay remailer which is posting copyrighted material could be in even more trouble, it seems to me. Again, legal opinions would be welcome. This was the basis for my suggestion that remailers may have to stop supporting posting of messages, and instead be used for private mail between consenting individuals. Granted, this would probably eliminate 99% of non-cover remailer traffic. But I would argue that as long as the core functionality is there of letting people communicate with each other anonymously and consensually, we would still offer an important service. After all, what is the purpose of anonymous remailers? It isn't really to allow harrassing and abusive messages to be sent to one's enemies. And it isn't to defeat intellectual property laws by proving that no one can stop this material from being posted (remailers can't succeed in doing this, as I said above). Rather, I view remailers as a natural extension of encryption. Encryption hides the contents of the messages you send from eavesdroppers. But they can still see who you are communicating with. Remailers extend privacy protection beyond "what you say" to "who you say it to". When used with pseudonym servers and some of the extensions we have discussed here over the years (maildrops, etc.), they can allow the anonymous two-way communication that is needed for real privacy. This has nothing to do with tweaking Microsoft or Scientology by posting information they own. If people want to do that, they need to find another method. Maybe they can get usenet shut down if they try hard enough. I don't know how that battle is going to come out. But I don't see the remailers as playing an important role there. Hal

7 7

Re: Rural Datafication (Was Re: Edited Edupage, 9 May 1996)
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 14 May 96 at 19:35, Timothy C. May wrote: > (This is having yet another interesting side effect: the wealthy who > can afford digital DSS dishes are suddenly very uninterested in > local cable problems, and the impetus for improvement is lost. > Obviously the "poor" are then left with a decaying, outmoded > infrastructure. Even as a Darwinian, I have to feel for them. They > got sold a bill of goods, about how awarding "the franchise" to TCI > or Sonic or Galactronic Cable would result in "universal access," > and now they're stuck.) Hey Tim, where are your badwith-saving manners? You should simply have said : "You asked for it, brother..." ? ;-) Regards! JFA DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee Limoges porcelain, Silverware and mouth blown crystal glasses 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.

1 0

Re: Why does the state still stand:
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 15 May 96 at 0:45, Ed Carp wrote: > The problem, however, is twofold - (1) the government will > play mind games on the rest of the population to make you look like > a terrorist, or whatever turns the populace against you, Well, first of all, we should find how much of the population *really* believe in what govt says. There is a difference between the politically correct opinion that Joe & Jane Public give to a poll interviewer and what they really think. Second, you suppose that Joe & Jane Public really like and approve what they understand from what the medias say. And finally third, this system does not work according to the will of a majority. It wouldn't take too many peoples who believe that the medias and their perceived lack of integrity is widely responsible for the way the world goes right now, to have a substantial prize put on the head of the medias. Therefore, any journalist with two+ working neurons will realize that sticking to the most objective facts available would be the best way to build a great reputation while sticking to govt propaganda would be a great way to attract a prize on his head. > and (2) the > government tends to use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. They > don't care what kind of collateral damage they inflict (witness Waco > and Ruby Ridge) as long as they can make their point. If peoples decided to put a prize on the medias or some jounalists *before* they do on the govt, it might very well undercut many of the counterattack any govt might have. Among the ways a govt would have to circumvent that might be: - create their own medias and have tight security and anonymity - forbid the press from reporting certain events - etc. (Again, many counter arguments have as a basic premise that the populace is stupid. I do not believe the contrary, I simply say that I do not know. Future will show.) So, to see how AP will make the system evolve, you have to assess the communication capabilities of govt vs the individual. This is central to AP and the nature of actual govts. This is *why* the internet is *so* dangerous to any govts that seek to either retain or increase their power, even if it actually touches only but a tiny portion of world population. For the first time in the history of humanity, we have a peer to peer communication capability and an individual-to-world broadcasting capability that is not controllable in practice by any other entity (such as law, high finance, etc) The explains fully why the various govts what to find a way to enforce internet laws, breakable crypto schemes and non-anonymous protocols. JFA PLEASE NOTE: THIS POST DOES NOT MEAN THAT I ENDORSE MR. BELL'S SYSTEM. MY RATIONNAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT IT'S INTERNAL MECHANICS AND IT'S INTRINSIC LOGICS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I LIKE NOR ENDORSE THE SYSTEM. I SIMPLY CONCLUDED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PREVENT THE SYSTEM FROM BEING IMPLEMENTED. IMO, IT IS UNAVOIDABLE. DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee Limoges porcelain, Silverware and mouth blown crystal glasses JFA Technologies, R&D consultants. Physists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891

1 0

Re: crosspost re remailers
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:30 PM 5/14/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote: > > I'd have thought that a remailer going down > > because of political/legal pressure would raise more of a ruckus. At 11:02 AM 5/15/96 -0700, Bill Frantz wrote: > I thought the statement that remailers are supposed to be ephemeral > and common was the answer. Exactly so: Some nyms are valuable, most are valueless by design. All remailers should be valueless by design. The penet.fi remailer design is unsatisfactory precisely because it penet.fi is valuable, hence a target. If it gets shut down a lot of people lose their nyms, causing much inconvenience. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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: Fingerprinting annoyance
by Paul S. Penrod 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 14 May 1996, Black Unicorn wrote: > On Mon, 13 May 1996, Paul S. Penrod wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 13 May 1996, Senator Exon wrote: > > > > > in connection with a character and fitness report i have been > > > asked to supply a review board with a set of my fingerprints > > > i have never been fingerprinted before > > > i am not very keen on the idea now > > > of course refusing will attract suspicion > > > short of getting someone else to put their fingers in ink for > > > me does anyone have a cute method by which to obscure my prints > > > on those cute little cards without it being obvious? > > > i can fill out and manipulate the card myself i just need a > > > working method. > > > is there no privacy advocate who can help me? > > > > > > > First off, if you were born in the US, they have your feet and/or hand > > prints on record. Secondly, fingerprints are not an absolute proof > > positive means of identification. They are sufficiently unique enough > > that it satisfies the statistical error acceptability for many > > governmental agencies. > > > > I wouldn't worry about it personally. There are more effective ways of > > getting around such things if you really need to. If you don't have any > > historical baggage, then don't make waves. > > More effective? Why not share them with the list? The guy obviously IS > worried about it, and maybe reasonably so. > Yes. No, and for obvious reasons. If the guy is worried because he is paranoid, then that is his reality. It's not as difficult as you might think to find someone if you really want to - with or without fingerprints. If he is paranoid because he has baggage, then that is also his problem. We live by our own choices everyday - both good and bad. There are some consequences that take time to catch up with us, and some of those are unavoidable. If the job is worth it to him, then he will submit - otherwise there are lots of other places to work that don't require printing. ...Paul

1 0

[NOISE] Re: Edited Edupage, 9 May 1996
by mccoy＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Doug Hughes writes: > "Jean-Francois Avon" <jf_avon(a)citenet.net> wrote: [... regarding the unfortunate poor who Mr. Avon hates...] > >You got to choose to do what is needed to live a better life. And > >most of them ain't doing what it takes. > > Are you saying those poor people in rural West Virgina only live > there because they are not trying hard enough to get out? Yes he is. They are poor and it is all their fault. [flame-bait approaching...] There are two kinds of libertarians, those who hate the poor and those who don't. I always seem to meet the former, I am beginning to suspect the latter don't exist. [...] > >> Education is one > >> thing (perhaps the only thing) that deserves to be subsidized in > >> this country. > >I think that it should not be subsidized. > >If you feel like subsidising education, then by all means, do it. > >But why should you stick a gun in my back to do the same? What if I > >do not want to do the same as you? > > > Then you will be living in a country with lower education standards, > increasing illiteracy, and a pretty pitiful base with a declining > socio-economic structure. Are you arguing that people are not equal > and those with more money should of necessity get better education? Yes, he is. It is times like this that I must count myself among the pitchfork and torch wielding mob, if only because I have been cursed with a small amount of compassion for those who were not as lucky as I. BTW Mr. Avon, the reason we, the unruly mob of collectivists, socialists, and [insert libertarian/anarchist buzzword here] should stick a gun in your back and make you cough up money for education is because we can. If you don't want to do so, they why don't _you_ move? Are your feet cast in concrete blocks? Welcome to the real world. jim

3 2

RE: Why does the state still stand:
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 14 May 96 at 22:01, blanc wrote: > From: Hal [on the idea of companies operating fully anonymously] > > It might be interesting to make a list of all the problems people > can think of why this idea won't work, paired with proposed > solutions and workarounds - sort of a mini FAQ for this important > (some might say ultimate) cypherpunk model. > .................................................................... > > > I think this is a much needed discussion - in particular as it > comes at a time when Uni is is "somewhat disconcerted" at the > defeatist attitude of some cypherpunks and since TCMay is getting > ready to read us the Cypherpunks Bill of Rights regarding the > subsidizatoin of other's people's cyber existence (heh). > > 3 problems which immediately come to mind: > > . What if someone, hired on one occasion but fired at another, > decides in anger to "turn coat" and report everyone to the IRS (or > other fine government agency)? > > . What if a company does not pay as expected - other than adopting > Assassination Politics, what method could an employee use towards > getting their expected remuneration for work done? The nature of anonimity, IMO, precludes any legal mechanism since the anonymity structure was established precisely to avoid any legal consequences. Here, I might be tempted to differeciate between two cases: 1) the entity who wants to get out of the reach of the governmental system 2) the entity who wants to get out of the reach of everybody (to con others) The only problem is, how will you differentiate between 1) and 2) *before* a conflict arises? The involved party would then have to resort to use some sort of unofficial tribunal. It would create a set of parrallel law system, and as much of them as there would be groups doing business together. Again, depending on the context, AP might wery well be the only solution or be no workable solution at all. But here, I think that AP would be the single most important factor ruling the socio-economical behavior of individuals or entities in the world. It already works that way in many countries of the world, especially in south america. In many places, you don't screw around too much or you get killed. As a friend of mine who lived in the jungle told me "if a guy fools around with you wife, you just shut up and take it, but if a guy fools around with your girlfriend, you have the sorcerer mix you a beverage... One of my friend had one and he died within ten days..." He said: "This system might very well go against our common moral principles, but in theses places, you can leave anything on the public place for several days and when you come back, it'll still be there. In theses countries, when you give your word, it *is* binding. Most business deals are simply verbal and there is an astonishing low level of defaulting on them. Thoses who tend to default dishonestly tend very much to die quickly. In thoses countries, no con man ever survives." > . Wouldn't everyone need to have two jobs (or source of regularly > accepted cash), in order to be able to pay for services where > suppliers do not accept virtual cash transactions? (TCM has > mentioned before about the need to pay for some things in tiny > quantities - like quarters for a phone call, etc.) Any physical currency can be made traceable (put a chemical or radioactive tracer or a zillion other tricks...) JFA PLEASE NOTE: THIS POST DOES NOT MEAN THAT I ENDORSE MR. BELL'S SYSTEM. MY RATIONNAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT IT'S INTERNAL MECHANICS AND IT'S INTRINSIC LOGICS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I LIKE NOR ENDORSE THE SYSTEM. I SIMPLY CONCLUDED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PREVENT THE SYSTEM FROM BEING IMPLEMENTED. IMO, IT IS UNAVOIDABLE. DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee Limoges porcelain, Silverware and mouth blown crystal glasses JFA Technologies, R&D consultants. Physists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891

2 1