December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Freedom and security
by Clay.Olbon＠dynetics.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:38 PM 4/30/96, angels(a)wavenet.com (CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatche wrote: >My concern is not so much with network sabotage or infiltration (there are >plenty enough organizations addressing that problem) but with personal >safety within the Internet community - that means you, not your hard drive. This is a totally facetious point. I am fully capable of protecting myself and my family from ANY threat posed by a single individual over the internet (and from most threats posed in person as well). There is no "personal safety" issue. This is fantasy. When someone dies from an email message, come back and talk to me about security. Until then, the biggest threat to my security on the internet comes from groups such as yours and from the government. In attempting to limit access to anonymous remailers and cryptography, you are attempting to limit my ability to protect myself, while substituting dubious governmental protection. I say dubious, because in the real world, there will always be those who break the law (if cryptography is outlawed...). You do have one point I agree with: >Freedom of speech cannot function without law. This is absolutely correct. There must be a law to protect the freedom of speech, and we have that law, it is called the 1st amendment to the Constitution. I saw a .sig the other day that said "What part of 'Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech' do you not understand" (unfortunately I don't remeber whose .sig it was). The self anointed internet censors often try to muck up the basic issue of free speech with the "evil" pornographers and bombmakers theme in an attempt at convincing the public to give up freedom for illusory security. You fall in that net.censor category, in that you are attempting to restrict freedom. Although you may actually believe in what you are doing, you are wrong. Fortunately, I still have the right to disagree strongly. Clay --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clay Olbon II | Clay.Olbon(a)dynetics.com Systems Engineer | ph: (810) 589-9930 fax 9934 Dynetics, Inc., Ste 302 | http://www.msen.com/~olbon/olbon.html 550 Stephenson Hwy | PGP262 public key: on web page Troy, MI 48083-1109 | pgp print: B97397AD50233C77523FD058BD1BB7C0 TANSTAAFL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Nazis on the Net
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I stand behind my original post and the analysis in it. I am amused at the tremendous attempts by people with certain political affinities to bail out Weaver by a series of arguments based either on profound ignorance of political realities or with their own private dictionaries. The whole argument of racism vs. white separatism vs. white suppremicist seems more to come from people who argue whether someone is a Baptist or a Christian or a Southern Baptist or a Protestant. (In mathematical set theory one would trace the fallacy in thinking to the false idea that any given element of a set cannot be the element of more than one set. Thus, if (X is a member of Y) it cannot also be a member of Z.) I understand that James D. is not accusing me of being a "child molester" but merely using it as a reductio ad adsurdem argument. Let me continue in this vein. The issue of child molestation was dragged in and had no relevance on the immediate political isues of Weaver et al. But imagine people are arguing about the deep fundamental differnces between someone who is a "child molester" vs. a "pedophile" vs. a "boy lover." --tallpaul On Apr 22, 1996 22:26:41, 'jamesd(a)echeque.com' wrote: >Content-Length: 2008 > >"E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>' wrote: >> > Randy Weaver was neither a neo-Nazi nor a racist. He was >> > (and, so far as I know, still is) a white separatist. >> > (One would think liberals would tolerate this - they >> > tolerate the equally offensive black separatists, >> > after all...). > > >The well known child molester tallpaul wrote: >> Might we know the source of his complete info on Weaver's political and >> racial beliefs. >> >> I see, in essence, three hypothesis: >> >> 1) Cover the ass of a potential neo-Nazi or racist (or both) without any >> reference to what is really true; >> >> 2) Get information from outer space; > > >Well, child-molester-tallpaul, I notice that the liberal lapdog press >calls him White-Separatist-Randy-Weaver as though he was baptized >"white separatist" at birth. > >Presumably if they had one grain of evidence that he was a Nazi or a >white supremacist, they would call him White-supremacist-Randy-Weaver. > >I notice that you have not one grain of evidence that he is a nazi, >just as I have not one grain of evidence that you fuck little boys >up their asses, but you insinuate that he is a Nazi until somehow proven >innocent (and how can anyone prove himself innocent of thought crime), >and you also insinuate that anyone who suggests otherwise must be >a nazi or nazi sympathizer himself. Obvious proof that you are >a homosexual child molester. > >(Note for the seriously humor impaired. I have no more reason >to believe that tallpaul rapes little children than tallpaul >has to believe that Randy Weaver was a white supremacist or >tallpaul has to believe that Allen Smith is a Nazi sympathizer.) >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > | >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

Re: Freedom and security
by stevenw＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Jim Ray wrote I haven't bothered reading this particular thread up until now, but in my opinion, based on this drivel, you're getting dangerously close to being certified officially by the Cabal as an ignorant kook. >Nor does freedom increase through less laws or no laws. Of course it does. However, to maintain community resposibility must also increase. >Freedom increases >as respect and care for one another increases. Hogwash. That's community again. As respect and care for my neighbor's peace and quiet I lose the freedom to blow leaves on a Sunday morning. This is independent of what the law says. >Meanwhile, since we do not >live in utopia, all societies at a certain level of economic development >and of a certain size of population require law and law enforcement to >protect citizens from predators. Hogwash again. Law and law enforcement only exists due to the failing of such societies. Prisons and executions are the ultimate failure of a society. Their existence (like hierarchical structure) is not a given. But if it is all you know, then of course it's what you assume. And don't forget that it is fundamental that law and law enforcement also protects predators from citizens. Your analysis is rather one-sided. >The Internet is beyond the stage of small communities exercising informal >social controls (peer pressure). How so? >It's now a major industrial city and will It's industry being? >develop law, law enforcement and government, whether anyone likes it or >not, not least because the Community will always respond to crime by trying >to protect itself. True, but there are individuals before community. > And the crime is already here. The idea that the >Internet is not controlled is IMHO one of the biggest myths around. It's >like a large group of people are still living in some far-off utopian rural >paradise. Wait a minute. A large number of people living in a utopian paradise? Surely this is ideal. If there were the crime and activity you describe, then it would not be utopian and would not be paradise. But maybe this is paradise, but only to a criminal. And interesting that you use the world "still". You obviously equate "unorganized" with "backward". You even say "rural". You a city boy by any chance? >Does anyone really doubt the extent of State control and power >across the Net? Excuse me, can someone remind me why we're all here please? > My point is that this is inevitable. The Internet is a >mirror of the rest of the world, not a new form of society, and I fail to >understand why anyone should be surprised that that is the case. You said it. You fail to understand. The reasons are obvious. Your eyes are closed, your mind is shut, and you can hardly be heard over the traffic. >I disagree with this statement. I do not believe that laws breed more laws >nor that laws lead to less freedom. I believe bad laws compromise freedom >(eg CDA) while good laws protect freedom. Freedom for whom? Freedom, like technology, is neutral. Laws are always of the form "You shall" or "You shall not". Laws against mugging (to protect the citizens) do not prevent muggings. They restrict the freedoms of muggers and eventually incarcarate them. The existence of muggers causes people to restrict their own freedom, by not jogging at night etc. Mugging is a social and a community failure. A "good" law against the activity reduces overall freedom while simultaneously failing to address the problem. In short, a simple, ineffective, but visible fix. A perfect business for politicians to be in. >>>I don't believe that security is the enemy of >>>freedom. I believe that freedom needs security in order to exist at all. >> >>Good. Join us in spreading cryptography around, and security will >>bloom (along with freedom). > >Cryptography enhances and protects privacy, which does not inevitably lead >to greater security. Security for the sender, yes, in that no one else can >read the message, but security for the Community? Sure. It means that the community can continue life as normal without realising that the Mayor is gay. She does a fabulous job, everyone gains, the community is very secure. Or shall we throw some FUD into the equation, tell everyone, and have the uproar wreck the community? > Doesnt that depend what >the message said? The technology itself is neutral. Facts are neutral too. It does not depend on the message. >Child pornographers >encrypt their hard drives so that law enforcement cannot gather crime >evidence - that is certainly a state of greater security for the >pornographer, but it does not improve our Community, and as child >pornography increases, the law is by definition broken more and more, and >so the Community becomes less free than before. And that's not the tyranny >of government but the tryanny of criminals. You really have laws on the brain, don't you? Lets see. Breaking laws reduces freedom? This is where you have the wrong end of the stick. Making, not breaking laws reduces freedom. If our mayor friend above looks at 1 naked minor a week, how does this reduce the freedom of her community? What about 100? Much less free obviously. >I do in fact support cryptography for personal security, not least because Does that personal security extend to encrypting your hard drive? What makes you different from Ms. Mayor? >********************************************************* >Colin Gabriel Hatcher - CyberAngels Director >"Two people may disagree, but >that does not mean that one of them is evil" But ignorance plays a big role :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Weller | Weller's three steps to Greatness: | 1. See what others cannot | 2. Think what others cannot stevenw(a)best.com | 3. Express what others cannot

3 2

[History] USPS tried to monopolize email? (c. 1981)
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Since I saw Paul Raine's presentation on proposed USPS electronic timestamping and CA services (btw, they are also proposing to archive business e-correspondence for a fee), I've been trying to recall a nasty little episode from about 15 years ago. Paul was adamant that the USPS would never seek a monopoly position on any e-service. However, back in the early 80's (It had to be in the 1980-83 range, I suspect 1981) I clearly remember a proposal that the USPS be granted the monopoly status as email carrier that it then and still enjoys for first class mail. As I recall, the proposal would require email to be routed to the nearest post office to the destination, and there printed and delivered as paper mail. Needless to say, this did not happen. I am not certain, but would not be at all surprised, if this suggestion actually emanated from the letter carrier's union. I remember a line from some official, along the lines of "We don't know exactly what this thing [email] is, but we own it!" I know that I am not hallucinating this, but the above is pretty much all I recall. Anyone else have more details? Peter Trei trei(a)process.com

1 0

Re: Lolitas and Cyber Angels
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:16 AM 5/1/96, Will French wrote: > I disagree. If (quite hypothetically) I were one of the >"models" in such a magazine (I'm 27 now, so I would have been 7 >at the time it was published), I would certainly consider anyone >posessing a copy, today or 20 years ago, to be exploiting me. While it may _embarrass_ you, or _mortify_ you, to become aware that these pictures of you as 7-year-old, I find it hard to understand how my possession of one of these pictures can (somehow) reach backward in time and "exploit" that 7-year-old instance of yourself. Whoever took the pictures may or may not have "exploited" you (an overused word), but someone viewing that picture today can hardly be said to be exploiting that 7-year-old. There is a more abstract argument that is made in connection with child porn. Namely, that a "market" is created, and that this market is in itself wrong and improper, and that it abstractly "exploits" an entire abstract class of people, namely, children. By this logic--and I'm not saying I buy this logic--even _drawings_ of nude children, for which there were no live models and hence no possibility of "exploitation" of an actual child, can be considered to be exploitative of an entire class of persons. This area is well trod...are morphs of adult models into apparent Lolitas exploitation? Are drawings exploitation? What about perfectly legal photos from some foreign country? (Will, what if that photo of you as a 7-year-old was taken perfectly legally at Sunny Buns Naturist Park? What if it was taken in Holland or Denmark? Would the fact that you are now embarrassed (em-bare-assed?) by it, or have discovered that certain people are looking at it with prurient interest, be enough to make the law "reach back in time"? As might be imagined, I am uncomfortable with these abstract extensions of the law. If this argument is bought, about children being exploited by drawings or nude photographs, as a _class_ if not as _individuals_, then it follows by the same kind of logic that _women_ may seek to have "Playboy" banned because some of them feel "exploited" as a member of a class. (This is of course being seriously proposed by some women^H^H^H^H^Hwimmin.) --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."

1 0

Re: ITARs and the Export of Classes and Methods
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:44 AM 5/1/96, Bill Frantz wrote: >At 11:49 AM 4/30/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >>An interesting situation for the ITARs, if they try to restrict bignum >>classes, for example. A class-based system, if done correctly (in whatever >>language, e.g., C++ or Java), should have _most_ of the hard crypto work >>already implemented in classes and methods (for bignums, modular >>exponentiation, etc.), with the final crypto program much more easily >>implemented and exported. > >Certain languages, e.g. Smalltalk, and I believe lisp and scheme, have >bignums as a built-in type. (Or more specifically, their integer types are >limited in size only by available memory.) I believe these languages are >freely exportable. As it happens, the three languages I am most familiar with and have on my Macintosh at this moment are: Smalltalk, Scheme, and Mathematica. All support bignums (arbitrarily long, limited only by local environment considerations). However, I seem to recall some "not exportable" stickers on at least the Mathematica box. It's not handy, but I recollect one of those black stickers one finds in such cases. (It might be that it contains functions for FFTs, for example, or it might be something else....) >Your problem stays here in the good ol' USA. You can't implement RSA >directly in these languages (I assume RSA in perl has the same problem), >because of the patent restrictions. Yet another reason to buy a T-shirt. About implementing RSA in one of these languages, it's fine if it's done for educational purposes, as Jim Bidzos told me a few years ago. RSA is a programming example in a couple of Mathematica books, for example. Implementing a system and deploying it (as a "system") changes things. But I think we can all agree that we are moving toward a situation where class libraries in languages implement a large fraction of a working cryptographic system, and the pieces only need to be glued together. It gets real hard to control the spread of crypto when this is the case. (It's already hard, but it will get even harder.) With Microsoft deciding to put a Java Virtual Machine in every copy of Windows * shipped, along with similar deals of course already in the works for other major environments, it seems to me that crypto developers should build with this in mind. The NSA must be going nuts thinking about this. --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."

1 0

Re: [LONG] Churchill Club: 20th Anniversary PK Crypto
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:14 AM 5/1/96 -0700, Dave Del Torto wrote: >Nice summary, Bill. Now I don't have to do it. ;) I hope this is OK with you... > > <http://www.well.com/user/ddt/crypto/pkc-daddies.html> > Nice web page. I should have added to the post that people should feel free to re-post within the bounds of good netiquette. 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

2 1

Re: Freedom and security
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:51 PM 4/30/96 -0700, CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher wrote: >Jim Ray wrote > >> Freedom is already diminishing at an alarming pace. >>That is why cypherpunks spread crypto, and why Libertarians like >>me rant. Freedom does not increase through more laws. > >Nor does freedom increase through less laws or no laws. I disagree. Plenty of laws do not increase freedom, nor leave it at its former level. They decrease freedom. Moreover, they usually do it without increasing the level of "security" of the ordinary citizen. > Freedom increases >as respect and care for one another increases. Meanwhile, since we do not >live in utopia, all societies at a certain level of economic development >and of a certain size of population require law and law enforcement to >protect citizens from predators. If all the government did was to "protect citizens from predators" the government would be dramatically smaller than it is today. >The Internet is beyond the stage of small communities exercising informal >social controls (peer pressure). It's now a major industrial city and will >develop law, law enforcement and government, whether anyone likes it or >not, Ya wanna play "chicken"? > not least because the Community will always respond to crime by trying >to protect itself. Which "community"? > And the crime is already here. Does the amount of crime which is demonstrably on the Internet, today, actually justify the interest shown by government agencies? Or, more likely, they are merely using whatever crime exists to foist regulations and control for their own hidden agenda? > The idea that the >Internet is not controlled is IMHO one of the biggest myths around. It's >like a large group of people are still living in some far-off utopian rural >paradise. Does anyone really doubt the extent of State control and power >across the Net? To whatever extent that exists, it will be stopped. > My point is that this is inevitable. I have different opinions about what is "inevitable." But I won't get into that right now. > The Internet is a >mirror of the rest of the world, not a new form of society, and I fail to >understand why anyone should be surprised that that is the case. Maybe it really _IS_ a "new form of society"? Maybe that's exactly why the government-and-control-types are terrified. Let it alone a few more years and it'll come back and destroy the control they currently have. > >.... laws only breed more laws, which always lead to >>less freedom. > >I disagree with this statement. I do not believe that laws breed more laws >nor that laws lead to less freedom. I believe bad laws compromise freedom >(eg CDA) while good laws protect freedom. Could you be more specific? And why is the government passing bad laws? Could it be that their goal is not more freedom, but is in fact less? And why should you do anything to support the government that's passing those bad laws? >>Good. Join us in spreading cryptography around, and security will >>bloom (along with freedom). > >Cryptography enhances and protects privacy, which does not inevitably lead >to greater security. Security for the sender, yes, in that no one else can >read the message, but security for the Community? Doesnt that depend what >the message said? I don't think it does. Cumulatively, we're better off if everybody has unbreakable security, because it'll assist the ordinary citizen more than it would assist a hypothetical criminal. > The technology itself is neutral. But government is not neutral. > Child pornographers >encrypt their hard drives so that law enforcement cannot gather crime >evidence - that is certainly a state of greater security for the >pornographer, And less work for agents of the government to do. That's what terrorizes them! > but it does not improve our Community, and as child >pornography increases, the law is by definition broken more and more, and >so the Community becomes less free than before. Laws being broken does not equate to less freedom. The presence of those laws is what produces less freedom. > And that's not the tyranny >of government but the tryanny of criminals. I think the ordinary citizen has far more to fear from the government than the criminals. For one thing, it is the actions of the government (by passing victimless-crime laws) which actually put a great deal of profit into crimes. >I do in fact support cryptography for personal security, not least because >I can ensure that my messages are authenticated. CyberAngels PGP public >key will be up on our new website opening very soon. I've had enough of >people forging my email. Well, then stop sending any. Or get your head straight on this "freedom thing." People will view you as being dangerous if you keep talking the way you have been. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.comJim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: [Fwd: Cylink can export 128-bit DH?]
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:22 AM 5/2/96 +0700, peng-chiew low wrote: >Daniel R. Oelke wrote: >> There are provisions for exporting DES for banking purposes. >> Generally it is a hardware card that "can't" be reused outside >> of the banking transfer machine. > >So far, I've seen DES software from a couple of U.S. companies. The question >is "Is it the U.S. domestic DES or "export flavored" DES? As for the hardware, >would'nt it be inconsistant if the DES supplied is the Domestic DES? As far as I know, DES is DES, domestic or export. If your DES interoperates with domestic DES (or popular implementations available on non-US servers), then you have DES. >I know DES as a subject here is one big YAWN, but for guys like us in the >Asia, it's not. Why? 'Cause the US crypto companies here in Asia keep telling >us about how good and wonderful and secure DES is, and that it is THE standard >used by the American Banking Association. It is THE standard. The political reasons are complex, but the bottom line is that large governments and other large organizations can brute force 56 bit keys. As far as the US government and the US banking system are concerned, this ability does not reduce bank transaction security since the US government can get the details directly from the bank by legal process. Most cryptographic experts recommend Triple DES, encrypting the data 3 times with 3 different keys. If the middle encryption runs DES in decrypt mode, the system can be made compatible with single DES by using the same key 3 times. The US government has never, to my knowledge, licensed the export of a Triple DES system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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

6 6

Re: Freedom and security
by drose＠azstarnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Re: Colin Gabriel Hatcher - CyberAngels Director On the Internet, no one knows if you're wearing your CyberAngels beanie. (With apologies to _The New Yorker_).

1 0