December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Remailers - What exists?
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Question: Which remailers can be run without root? Which remailers can be run best on the most systems? Which remailers are easiest to set up? --- My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li "In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti 00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 24-MAY-1996 20:51:51.95 >Nothing. Perhaps block e-mail from the address the threat mail was sent >from after a certain number of legitimate complaints. >This, of course, depends on the threats/whatever being sent to the >remailer in question as a 'first in chain' mailer. It also depends on the remailer being able to tell that the messages in question came from a particular address. If the messages are encrypted with the keys of the other remailers in the chain (as should be the case for proper privacy, etcetera), then there's no real way to tell for many cases. About the only exception would be recognizable spam, all being sent along the same remailer path (notice that lots and lots of mail is being sent from an address, and is going out to the same other remailer). >Ask the recipient if he or she wishes all encrypted mail addressed to his >or her key to be supressed. This is a version of the final remailer blocking mail to a particular address, at least using the possible means (see above). -Allen

1 0

Re: Anarchy Online
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"cp(a)panix.com" "Charles Platt" 24-MAY-1996 20:49:17.28 To: IN%"llurch(a)networking.stanford.edu" "Rich Graves" CC: IN%"declan(a)well.com" "Declan McCullagh", IN%"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" Subj: RE: Anarchy Online Received: from toad.com by mbcl.rutgers.edu (PMDF #12194) id <01I53IQ90DU88WW6WB(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu>; Fri, 24 May 1996 20:49 EDT Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA19674 for cypherpunks-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 1996 14:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from panix.com (panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA19649 for <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>; Fri, 24 May 1996 14:35:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from cp@localhost) by panix.com (8.7.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id RAA16576; Fri, 24 May 1996 17:35:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 17:35:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Platt <cp(a)panix.com> Subject: RE: Anarchy Online In-reply-to: <Pine.GUL.3.93.960524131950.29645M-100000(a)Networking.Stanford.EDU> Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com To: Rich Graves <llurch(a)networking.stanford.edu> Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com>, cypherpunks(a)toad.com Message-id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960524173225.12653D-100000(a)panix.com> X-Envelope-to: eallensmith Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk >On Fri, 24 May 1996, Rich Graves wrote: >> Oh, I have no doubt that he believes everything you tell him. So, Charles, >> do you think I'm a net.loon, and why? Please reply publicly on >> cypherpunks. I'd like E. Allen Smith and Jim Bell to read this. >Your wish is my command, but--who are they? I am not particularly sure why Rich named either me or Jim Bell as particular recipients of this message. If you're curious as to what my viewpoint is, I would suggest reading over various CuDigest issues that show up as having messages from EALLENSMITH or E. Allen Smith on them (the mbcl.rutgers.edu sometimes fluctuates). >Actually Rich it took me a while to remember you. The Zundel affair didn't >loom large in my life (because I wasn't part of it, I guess). I assumed >you had long since moved on to more important matters. I have no idea >whether you are a net.loon. But I am sorry if I misspelled your name in my >book, and indeed as soon as I get offline here, I'm going to do a word >search. We're making the text into pages right now, so the time is right. I would guess Rich is referring to that Declan was actually the second person to put up a mirror and publicize it; Rich was the first. (I may not be completely accurate in this; not being one of the participants, I didn't exactly follow the Rich-Declan discussion on the subject here on cypherpunks that closely.) Interesting book from what I've read of it; I will read farther when I have time. -Allen

1 0

FW: INTERNET NETWORK PROFESSIONALS
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This was posted to a local mailing list; I thought some of you might be interested. .. Blanc ---------- From: Herbert Edelhertz[SMTP:edel@halcyon.com] Sent: Friday, May 24, 1996 16:08 To: seasigi(a)halcyon.com Subject: INTERNET NETWORK PROFESSIONALS >Date: Fri, 24 May 96 11:56:09 CST >From: "Sharon M. Hughes" <smhughes(a)dttus.com> >To: edel(a)halcyon.com >Subject: INTERNET NETWORK PROFESSIONALS >X-UIDL: d791369eb8aa0a0d02201d3a635acbd5 > > Herbert, > > My name is Sharon Hughes and I am a recruiter at Deloitte & Touche > Consulting Group. We are looking for Internet Network > Developers for a new start-up venture in Chicago. > > I would like to post this ad with the Internet SIG, Pacific Northwest > Users Group. > > Your assistance to this matter is appreciated. > > Thank you, > > Sharon Hughes > > _________ > Internet Developers for Startup Opportunity > > Deloitte & Touche Consulting Group is the Management Consulting > Services division of Deloitte & Touche LLP, the worldwide accounting > and professional services firm. We have over 2,700 consulting > partners and staff in the US and over 6,000 worldwide. > > Deloitte & Touche Consulting Group is looking for Internet gurus > (multiple positions open) for a fully funded startup with tremendous > growth potential, starting immediately. The positions are located in > a northern suburb of Chicago. > > Specialists are required with implementation experience in Electronic > Commerce and the Internet in the areas of e-mail integration, > encryption, authentication and secure transport over the Internet. A > minimum of three years experience in one or more of the following > three areas is necessary, in addition to object-oriented development > in C++ on Unix (Solaris). Unix inter-process communications, > distributed computing software development and optimization a plus. > > Internet Transport/Security: TCP/IP, HTTP, FTP, SSL, CGI, IPSET, firewalls > E-mail: e-mail integration, SMTP, MIME, S/MIME, MAPI, SET, X.509 > directory services, LDAP, X.500 > > Encryption: RSA, PGP, PEM, MOSS, integration of encryption > technologies > > Experience in HTML, Web Servers and Web Home page creation only, > without development experience in other areas will not be adequate > qualifications. > > Minimum educational requirement is a B.S., with M.S. preferred. > > > Please submit resume to: > > Sharon Hughes > Deloitte & Touche Consulting Group > 180 N. Stetson, Chicago, IL 60601. > > Tel. (800)895-0469 > Fax (800)895-0465 > Internet: smhughes(a)dttus.com > > > >

1 0

Re: Children's Privacy Act
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"declan+(a)CMU.EDU" "Declan B. McCullagh" 24-MAY-1996 23:16:49.32 >From a strict libertarian standpoint, it may implicate property rights. >I won't argue that. >But I tend to think of my (and individual) privacy rights as ones that >should receive greater attention than a businesses "privacy rights." If >they have mailing list info on me, I'd like to know where they got it. Well, it's either from someone you chose to hand it over to... or from someone you didn't. In the first case, it's your problem. In the second case, then you've got a claim. We have no disagreement on that governments and other coercive institutions shouldn't be allowed to collect more information than necessary, or to release any such information to an uninvolved third party. As Hal pointed out, we also have no disagreement with trying to reduce the level of information that you give out by accident or for the sake of convenience - e.g., credit cards. -Allen

1 0

RE: Truth is equivalent to law? (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi Blanc, Forwarded message: > From: blanc <blancw(a)accessone.com> > Subject: RE: Truth is equivalent to law? > Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 18:14:33 -0700 > > The quote I offered had to with our capacity to know the phenomena of = > the world (in any amount) and consequently our ability to exert control = > over these universal forces (or "laws") to whatever degree. Why is this so surprising? We are nothing more than a manifistation of those self same forces. It is not us manipulating nature, it is nature manipulating nature. This is why there are no Truths and what we do know of truth is more a tale about us than about what we 'know' of the universe.. The universe is sentient, and we are it (as far as we know). What you and others offer is a bipolar anthropocentic example of the schism our rapid technology has generated in our lives. > I guess your argument is that we can't even discuss the properties of = > truth, harmful or not, because we can't even be sure that there is any = > truth in existence. There is no absolute truth. As I have stated before when this issue has arisen, the truth we all see and know so well is nothing more than a representation of what good pattern recognition engines our brains are. One which makes mistakes in easily proven ways (e.g. optical illusions). > This makes all your robotics projects bogus exercises in futility, hmm? Actualy I have been building robots for nearly 20 years now. Jim Choate \\///// "Don't have a cow, man" | | / (.) (.) ===========================oOO==(_)==OOo========================== Tivoli an IBM company CyberTects: SSZ Customer Support Engineer SOHO Consulting/VR/Robotics 9442 Capitol of Texas Highway North 1647 Rutland Suite 500 #244 Austin, TX 78759 Austin, TX 78758 Email: jchoate(a)tivoli.com Email: ravage(a)ssz.com Phone: (512) 436-8893 Phone: (512) 259-2994 Fax: (512) 345-2784 Fax: n/a WWW: www.tivoli.com WWW: www.ssz.com Modem: n/a Modem: (512) 836-7374 Pager: n/a Pager: n/a Cellular: n/a Cellular: n/a ===================================================================

1 0

Alternative to remailer shutdowns...
by MAILER-DAEMON＠kermit.aatech.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There are hundreds of machines littered around the net that dont bother adding "received" headers to mail. I dont think that these provide anything near the security and anonymity that a single remailer (much less a remailing chain) provide, but it seems to me that routing outbound traffic from a remailer through one of these sites would provide at least /some/ measure of protection for the remailer-operator. It feels a bit underhanded, but it may be that involving some "innocent" bystanders in the remail process would be useful. Even if the sites being routed through /were/ keeping logs it would still require their participation in any investigation to discover where the mail had originated, and this would introduce the question of whether the (psuedo)anonymous sendmail host should bear any liability for not tracking where mail came from. The operator of the particular smtp host would seem to have a pretty good defense should a charge be raised, but in defending the smtp-host you could also be strengthening the defense of the r-ops. Another possibility is that rather than operating remailers at all, maybe we should be operating non-logging smtp hosts that dont add received headers. Building a client to take advantage of these servers would be trivial (i wrote one last night, and i am not proficient in C) and it could be argued that the situation was not created intentionally to allow anonymous messages, merely to preserve disk space and bandwidth. Flame Away...

1 0

Re: Layman's explanation for limits on escrowed encryption ...
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 24-MAY-1996 15:07:57.78 >On Wed, 22 May 1996, Ernest Hua wrote: >> Could someone with some knowledge of NSA/DoS/FBI intentions please >> explain why key length limitations are necessary for escrowed >> encryption? >To deal with the possibility that someone might slip through the cracks of >the escrow process. >Insurance. Hmm.... what were the normal key-length recommendations again? This appears to imply that the NSA can break at least 64-bit, and probably 80-bit, encryption. How does this translate into public key lengths? E.g., how many normal bits is a 1024-bit PGP key equivalent to? -Allen

3 3

Re: [SCARE]: "If you only knew what we know..."
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:07 PM 5/24/96 -0600, David Rosoff wrote: >At 01.03 PM 5/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: > >>If the Libyans are so bad (and they probably are) then why shouldn't the >>public in other countries be entitled to pool their contributions and take >>their government down? > >I believe I understand the basic concepts of AP - perhaps not the far-reaching >implications, but the fundamentals. I've thought about it, and I am against this >system. What will happen when you've killed off all of the politicians/gov't employees >who haven't quit? Do you really think this will make things better? 1. There will be no politicans and government employees, except for those few who do not arouse the ire of more than a tiny fraction of the population, and are paid for by voluntary contributions. In other words, damn few. 2. There will be no taxes and no war. Any disputes will be of very small scale, a handful of people at most. 3. Individuals will be able to, and in fact will be responsible to defend themselves, although they may be able to do it by proxy. People will always have the option of defending others, and will do so if they believe that it deters future crimes that might be against them. >Anarchy simply >won't work with people. Have you ever read Lord of the Flies? I'm sure some >people haven't. Yes, I read it years ago. That book is fiction. Whether it represents any sort of potential reality is highly questionable. Even its premise is stilted: It hypothesizes a tiny, essentially homogenous society populated by immature boys, dropped into circumstances entirely foreign from anything they had ever known, with no adult guidance at all. Can you really expect good results from this, in fiction no less? Would it have made a good book if everything had happened hunky-dory? Anyway, anarchy is tradionally considered unstable because the strong are able to oppress the weak, and the weak can't effectively fight back, so governments are instituted. The system I've described, AP, allows a substantial number of anonymous weak people to (anonymously) pool their resources and defend themselves against a smaller number of strong oppressors. This is NEW. It may, in fact, allow anarchy to exist in a stable form, which may sound like an oxymoron but is not. If anarchy does indeed work, when suitably stabilized, then your premise is simply wrong. > Have any of you AP proponents >considered that perhaps our oh-so-corrupt government officials are simply >the best that our amoral, decaying populace has to offer? What would we >gain by rubbing them out? I see we have another Dr. Pangloss here. "the best of all possible worlds." We have plenty to gain by removing them from their positions of power. They are wasteful parasites. They engage in make-work. They manipulate the rest of us. They criminalize activities that should not be crimes. They make us waste our resources, for example by keeping ever-larger numbers of people in jail and prison. They are protected by militaries, which are wasteful uses of our resources. Ultimately, they end up killing huge numbers of people, ultimately just to protect the supremacy of these government employees and officeholders. > Maybe the current form of government isn't perfect, or even great, but it is still >much better than anything that could possibly result from anonymous terrorism, >which is really what AP is, isn't it? Who is to say that we even need a government? What, exactly, is the function of a government? Is that function truly necessary? Remember, AP changes the political landscape substantially. You can't any longer say things like "governmnet is necessary so that we can protect ourselves against foreign nations," because there will no longer be any foreign nations, or foreign armies, etc. >Peace can only be achieved by understanding, not through force or fear. Sounds like a truism that isn't necessarily true. Don't deny individuals the right to defend themselves. If you do, then you actually encourage force used against them, and magnify their fear. Don't selectively apply this rule to ordinary citizens, while forgetting to apply it to officials. And maybe we don't really even need to "achieve peace." I've come to the conclusion that the only reason war is "necessary" is to protect the leadership of a country, not to protect its citizens. Remove that leadership from power, and peace will be automatic. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: (Fwd) Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:14 PM 5/24/96 EDT, Paul J. Bell wrote: >Right, someone tells your wife that you are sleeping with someone else. >The truth, does it hurt? (-: Let's ask John Bobbit, shall we? Ouch! Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0