December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Long-Lived Remailers
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:31 PM 5/21/96, David E. Smith wrote: >Unless Alice will automatically rotate between some random set >of Bob1, Bob2, Bob3... It also wouldn't be too difficult >to set up a message that goes through several points before >emerging at a randomly-chosen exitpoint, including a >completely independent remailer. Sure, Alice can always herself add remailer steps. I explicitly mentioned this in my message last night, when I wrote: "(Hal, to use him as the example, could start using his own choice of remailer hops to accomplish much the same result. We've talked about this for a long time, too...." But this is just using more remailers. We know this works. What Mark Grant was suggesting was something different, a kind of "disposable final emanation point," designed to go away easily under legal pressures. --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: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
by Ben Holiday 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 21 May 1996, Daniel R. Oelke wrote: > > Ben Holiday <ncognito(a)gate.net> wrote: > > At this point there are 2 options, which I havnt examined closely: The > > first is that you require them to send a request for their "consent-code" > > which can be used to decrypt the mail. Under this arrangment you could > > This could be done with no "storage" as well, by a slightly > different method and still require end reciepient acknowledgement. > The end reciepient could be required to reply and include the encrypted > message. The remailer would then decrypt the message and send back the > plaintext. Only storage would be the key vs. a message id database. Well, if we've gone that far, why not attach an encrypted copy of the key to the peice of mail, and eliminate all storage from the r-ops machine? > > The second is to simply include the > > consent-code along with the encrypted peice of mail and a legal notice > > stating that decryption of the mail constitutes your consent to receive > > the mail, as well as your agreement to hold the remailer-operator harmless > > By reduction - you could just do a rot13 on the message and > append the "legal notice". If all the information for decoding > a message is present in that message, is a different encoding > mechanism really any different from straight ASCII text? > (i.e. Netscape 9.13 might have auto decoding built it....) > Then, the user doesn't do anything "extra" - does this invalidate > the notice? Donno. IANAL. :) > I might be wrong, but I don't think that this second method would > gain you anything in the 2 situations where operators will get > hassled. 1) Posting of copyrighted material - the lawyers will > at least harass you no matter what kind of legal notice is up front. > 2) Mailing of "harassing" information - the person still gets > unwanted email, and has no way to stop it. [RANT MODE ON- skip to the next paragraph if you dont like politiks] Here we are back at step one again. In the end, it would seem that there isn't much that can be done about the worst forms of abuse, without filtering mail for content. However, someone pointed out that other package delivery services have acheived freedom from responsibilty for the content of the packages they deliver - and I beleive that a part of the explanation for this lies in the fact that they /do/ make attempts to limit abuse in-so-far as they are able. Part of limiting the remailers liability is tied up with legitimizing them as a useful service, and establishing to the public that we are concerned with abuse. Too many people beleive that the whole point of a remailer is to facilitate illegal and abusive communication, and unless that changes we can expect to be dealt with as criminals at worst, or at best as purposfully negligent. I'm not certain what the solution is, but I am certain that doing nothing isnt it... [RANT MODE OFF--] One idea that came up a while back was a sort of limited tracking of mail -- an example would be keeping a hash of the email address where mail was received from for 48 hours, with the hash value being attached to the peice of mail as a header. This would accomplish two things: We could source block an address without knowing the source; and if push came to shove an address could be backtracked to its original source, provided a complaint was made in time, and that the Bad Guy sent another mail from the same address. I think that legally there would be a good argument that the remailer ops had made a reasonable attempt and holding lawbreakers accountable, while still preserving the anonymity of non-abusers. Just a thought.. Ben.

3 2

Re: SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FA
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 20 May 1996, David E. Smith wrote: > > I realize that this would be a civil case rather than a criminal > > one, maybe it would have to be child porn or something illegal to get that > > far, but if I were to set up a remailer under my real name, and the CO$ > > wifes approval for this, and I don't want to expose Suba to any liability > > in this. (So relax Alex). > > If you don't get the necessary approvals for that, I'd be I have approval to find out more information. NO, I GET TO BE THE MARTYR. > will at least get me away from my ex-girlfriend :) Sometimes it seems like it would be worth it. > Lest you jump for that delete key now, I'm serious. We'll see. Petro, Christopher C. petro(a)suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow(a)crash.suba.com

1 0

The Twilight of the Remailers?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:59 PM 5/21/96, Alex Strasheim wrote: >I'm closing my mixmaster, nsa(a)omaha.com, on the 4th of June. > >There wasn't an incident that triggered this, but Hal's post about the FBI >sort of spooked me, as have the lawsuits. I don't have a lot of assets >myself, but I do have partners. My lawyer tells me that there's no >reliable way to separate my personal net activities from those of the >company my parnters and I own, and that I could even be exposing my >parnters to personal liability. > >I can't speak for anyone else, but for me the problem with running a >remailer is that it's an inherently altruistic enterprise. That in itself >wouldn't be so bad, but the liability makes the extent of the altruism >open ended. If I knew that the worst case scenario would be $1k or even a >$5k personal loss I could do it, but an open ended liability that's shared >by my partners is unacceptable. > >I'm sorry for the inconvenience this will cause. Between Hacktic going down, Hal's comments that he may shut down his two sites, and this, plus others who are more quietly making plans to shut down, I think the thread title "The Remailer Crisis" is more apt than ever. As to potential liability, it is very likely to be vastly more than the examples Alex cites, of $1K or "even a $5k personal loss." Lawyers don't get out of bed in the morning for such insignificant sums. Keith Henson has been a friend of mine for the past dozen years (and I actually met him first in 1976), and he has kept me informed of his fight with the CoS. He's being sued for $100,000 by the CoS. (And they asked him a lot of questions about remailers, and who runs them. He didn't tell them much.) I can't say whether they are likely to win their suit, or what the judgment might be. But make no mistake about it, if the CoS wins and Keith is ordered to pay.... It's one reason I won't run a remailer that can ever be traced back to me. (I also don't have a box on the Net and don't really trust running remailers on machines someone else has root to. And I'm not a Unix person. And....) I figure that there are some, such as Detweiler, maybe government types, maybe others, who would make efforts to "take me down." Posting some child porn through my site to a Usenet group and then alerting the media would pretty much do it. (Or if binaries are not allowed, posting solicitations. Or if Usenet posting is not allowed...well, there are still ways...) "The Twilight of the Remailers"? Ironically, "copyright violation" and "clam secrets" were not even on the list of "the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse" that we thought would really put remailers under some extreme pressure. If the Scienotologists can shut down many of the remailers, imagine what the Horsemen will do! --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."

4 5

alternative sites for NIST GAK 3 draft
by Pat Farrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The computer at, and link to, www.isse.gmu.edu are slow and old. If you have trouble, copies are also at: http://www.epic.org/crypto/key_escrow/white_paper.html and http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/Key_escrow/Clipper_III Other related stuff at eff.org will go here when available. (c.f. .../Key_escrow/Clipper_II and .../Key_escrow/Clipper, predictably). Pat Pat Farrell Grad Student http://www.isse.gmu.edu/~pfarrell Info. Systems & Software Engineering, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA PGP key available on homepage #include <standard.disclaimer>

1 0

Re: Remailers, Copyright, and Scientology
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:36 AM 5/22/96, Allen Ethridge wrote: >I've been following alt.religion.scientology mostly for entertainment >reasons, and occasionally to correct some of the false statements about >psychiatry made by Scientologists. There's more to the story than you >appear to be aware of. The extra-legal actions didn't originate with >the alleged copyright violations, nor are the legal actions of the cult >limited to protecting their copyrights. Now that the cypherpunks have >been brought to their attention it's entirely possible that the major >posters on this newsgroup will become the subject of Scientology's, or >rather Religious Technology Center's legal actions. Ironically, CoS was trying to determine my name, from Keith. If I'm subpoenaed, I think I'll tell them to fuck off. I'm not a party to the CoS business in any way, save for whatever influence I may have had when the first remailers were implemented several years ago (by others, not me) and whatever ideas I may have discussed here on this list. >Yes, the cult does have a legitimate interest in protecting their >copyrights. No, the cult does not have a valid reason for using the >heavy-handed legal tactics of which they are so fond. I'm not a defender of CoS, let's make this clear. I knew they were flakes since I first heard of them back around 1967, before most of you were even born. But there is an ongoing, vitriolic battle between the CoS and its critics, and the remailers are one of the main "weapons" being used. I take no sides whatsoever, merely noting that it is, in Bill Stewart's words, "unsurprising" that CoS lawyers are taking the steps they are taking. --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

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

17 Dec '03

! Theses peoples refuse to register their guns, although it is ! mandatory in canada (to be registered within 7(?) years...) There has been total firearm registration since 1968. ! > >> >You'll note that the psycho-epistemology necessary to ! > >> >commit murder is quite close to the one necessary to coerce ! > >> >poeples to pay taxes. You'll note that the psycho-epistemology necessary to commit murder is quite close to the one necessary to coerce poeples to pay rent. ! > Not really, only the time in history. Their property was ! > 100% taken, and they were marched to OK from GA. The IRS ! > may be bad...but they aren't THAT bad...[disclaimer: I ! > am (a tiny) part Cherokee. Consider that many whites feel guilty if they feel they don't have any afro-asian bloodlines. Consider the dangers of anti-racism to your self-esteem. ! You did not answer my question: When our local Mohawks accuse the ! white peoples to have stolen their land, I ask "when did I do that? ! I can't remember..." I refuse to be held responsible for things that ! were done several hundred years ago. Period. As I said, I *never*, ! not even in my early years, believed in original sin. Then you hold irresponsible refusals. ! > >Are you talking of an open war a la Bosnia? ! > ! > Hopefully not. Who can tell how far the anti-racists will go to establish their power cult. ! > and the legitimate self defense ! > options which are peaceful have not been adequately explored. IMO Racism. ! > >> 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. They Always lie on racial issues. ! I am sorry, but I do not accept that as a valid argument. What if ! somebody came to take away your means of feeding your kids? ! What if somebody was menacing you or your kids? ! There are instances, as you seem to agree, when killing is justified. ! What is meant by the sentence is: Thou shalt not initiate lethal ! violence. Racism. ! > Taxation is theft, I fail to see your point. Well, depends. Anti-racism is theft.

1 0

Re: Senator, your public key please?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 18-MAY-1996 14:43:54.95 >Well, this depends on what we assume a signature does. Quite. I've been considering what the _current_ (as opposed to the proposed) system of keys actually does. Signing a key says two things: A. I think that everyone who has the corresponding private key is willing, or was willing at some point, for all the others also with the private key to encrypt and decrypt using it. E.g., it hasn't been stolen; I'd thus be more willing to sign a security-conscious person's key (e.g., Perry) than a security-unconscious person's key (e.g., my mother). B. If there's a true email address attached, unless I'm doing this as a joke, I think that at least one entity capable of receiving (and probably sending) mail at that address has the corresponding private key. Neither of these appear to imply much patronage, unless Senators aren't allowed to send letters of reference for security-related jobs. (I'd think the Army could consult a Senator on whether to give someone a clearance...) -Allen

1 0

Canada allows crypto exports
by M. Plumb 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Several months ago I filed a set of export applications requesting permission to export cryptographic software from Canada. I learned a few things from these applications, my conversations with people at Export Controls, and my own careful reading of Canada's export laws. There are a few countries to which you may not export anything, without a permit. You need a permit to export most cryptographic software. It is legal to export Canadian software, even cryptographic software, which has no restrictions on distribution (this must be explicitly stated, not just implied by being available for public FTP). No paperwork needs to be filled out. Cryptographic software of U.S. origin may be exported, but you need to file paperwork. Cryptographic software from other countries may be exported without any paperwork. These are the Canadian rules. Canada interprets and enforces the U.S. export laws when they think it is necessary. While the U.S. government has sometimes objected to a Canadian interpretation, no Canadian exporter, acting with Canadian permission, has been charged by the U.S. government. The export of cryptographic software from Canada is under review right now. All of this could change at any time. A complete explanation of the process, and results is available from the Electronic Frontier Canada's web site at: <http://www.efc.ca/pages/doc/crypto-export.html> Marc Plumb mp(a)the-wire.com May 21, 1996

1 0

Re: Senator, your public key please?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 21-MAY-1996 04:37:46.63 >(ObCaveat: I personally think a free society cannot/should not outlaw >discrimination in any form, save that by government.) Agreed. >By the way, this issue has some echoes of another technogical issue: the >use of neural nets for loan approval software. Turns out that when a bunch >of things are entered into a NN loan package, including the all-important >default rate, the applicant's age, income, race, sex, education, employment ^^^^ >history, credit history, etc., that NN loan packages "end up" rejecting >many black applicants, more so than white or Asian applicants. (The NN >"concluded" that blacks were higher risks for default than whites/Asians.) >Even if no human being ever entered his or her biases and prejudices, the >NN spit out this result. >I recall there being talk about requiring "equality of outcomes," and that >such NNs might have to have deliberately-biased inputs fed in, but I don't >know what ever happened to this issue. The obvious solution in the above case is not to feed in the race information for governmental decision-making. I recall a similar issue when NN's were used for college admissions... while they didn't feed in the applicant's race, they did feed in the applicant's name, and the length of it turned out to have some correlations. (Why they were feeding in the name in the first place is another question entirely, although NN's and GA's tend to work the best when you don't understand the system at hand - which also tends to mean that you shouldn't try to interpret what information is necessary.) >In any case, I think this sort of issue, and the semi-related issue of >"discrimination via key signatures," to be likely important issues in the >courts in the coming years. It's related to that of the outlawing of IQ testing because of (I'd say for environmental reasons) blacks having lower IQ scores on average. The civil rights crowd are arguing for the PC egalitarian viewpoint that everyone _should_ be the exact same in capabilities (for some absurd view of "fairness"), and so want people treated the exact same despite obvious differences and the validity of such tests. -Allen

1 0