December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Applied Cryptography - used copy?
by Will Rodger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:43 AM 6/18/96 -0400, you wrote: > Hi, > Didn't I read that with the new Applied Cryptography there was a >diskette or cd included that had all the programs on it? I noticed a copy >at the B Dalton and when I looked at it it contained no cd or diskette. >Was the aforementioned new edition with disk/cd a limited edition >available through the mail only? > TIA, > moroni > > Mail only. And, of course, you have to live somewhere Schneier can legally send you the stuff. $40 the set in MS-DOS, $120 for two-year sub., updated 2X/yr. Will Rodger Washington Bureau Chief Inter@ctive Week

1 0

Micropayments, Anarchy, It's All The Same... ;P
by Stephan Vladimir Bugaj 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>that is associated with any new technology should be better analyzed by the >>few who care about the future rather than those who just worship the future >>to ensure that the decisions which are made by this almighty 'market' >>(again, I distinguish this from either the 'people' or the 'consumers') > >Er...just how did you draw that distinction? I seem to have missed it. >I suppose that by believing the free marketplace best satisfies peoples' >and consumers' needs (not perfectly, just best) that I am a worshiper >here. So be it, but see if you can explain the difference between >non-marketplace decisionmaking and bureaucrat decisionmaking for me. > > > The distinction that I'm making is that the 'market' is governed by both consumers and producers. As such, what the market will bear can and sometimes does diverge from what consumers want. Taking a really silly example, let's say you want a blue car, but the auto industry decided that blue cars constituted too few of their sales to justify the purchase of blue paint. However, they did this study in Malibu, where everyone wanted a red car, because some statistician felt that was the perfect demographic for their line of cars. He was wrong. Now middle America, who loves blue cars, can't get any. They have to settle for red cars as the next best thing. Next year the market will probably readjust and blue cars will again be available, but for the year the bulk of consumers had little say in market decisions. Producers can and will also 'dump' undesirable products on the market as we have all seen before. Sometimes consumers complain, sometimes they just groan and bear it. But the fact of the matter is that the 'market' is comprised of two main elements: 'consumers' and 'producers' and the market climate is not solely determined by consumers' needs. Bureaucratic (government) decision making is no better. Keep in mind, however, that capitalist organizations (producers) are themselves bureaucratic institutions. Therefore, bureaucracy plays a central role in the free (sic) market. A balance between the power of the public and private sector generally best represents the peoples' and consumers' needs. How the market diverges from the polit is clear. The market is only concerned with consumers, and this leaves out the poor, who are undeniably part of the polity. In fact, if you take just the technology market, that market is primarily producer-to-producer (business-to-business) and the traditional consumer (an individual or family) is a relatively recent addition to this market. Interbusiness concerns still drive this market. >>'rammed down their throats'. Sometimes people forget that technologists >>and their venture capitalist backers aren't the best representative sample >>of the world's population, nor are they a reliable source of objective >>information about the correlation between the 'market' and the 'polit'. > >They aren't the best, they are simply more reliable than Hillary >Clinton and co. are. > > There are two ways to go on this. It's important to realize that while government officials are professional politicans with all the moral and ethical compromise that this entails, they are also ultimately responsible to their constituency. The role of government is different than the role of business, and I for one would not be willing to give up democratic government (ragardless of its hypocracies and flaws) in favor of a business bureaucracy as our national ruling hegemony. Businesses, especially ones governed by unmitigated capitalists, are responsible only to profit. The social darwinist perspective of most capitalists is such that this profit can come at any cost, and things will 'work themselves out' according to natural (sic) social selection. This is a morally and ethically dangerous viewpoint to have. The polity is supposed to be able to count on their government to be their voice of power against the transgressions of more powerful individuals at the top of the capitalist power structure. This is not usually the case, as government officials rely on these powerbrokers for their jobs and kickbacks, but at least in the United States the people have theoretical constitutional recourses against serious infringements of their rights. While centralized government has serious problems, weakening the federal protection of the bill of rights would serve only to increase the ability of the powerful to abuse the polity (and create chaos since 50 different sets of state laws would provide an amazing web of loopholes for would-be tyrants). Our government is supposed to be kept in check by the people, and I believe that is what people like the Cypherpunks are and should be doing. However, don't go running to Laissez Faire capitalists as your comrades in arms in the struggle to keep powerful institutions out of your personal lives, because you'll be more than just disappointed if you help private sector powerbrokers whittle away the protective powers of the public sector. Morally I'm more Anarchist than Centrist, but I'm also willing to face reality. >Agreed. The most forthright possible debate comes on cypherpunks IMO. >The least forthright comes from the government/media complex. Crypto- >anarchists aren't proposing utopia, just improvement -- which is a >much easier standard to meet considering what we have. I am sure >there will be problems and frauds, just as there were Ford Pintos. >Note that the Pinto phenomenon was possible in spite of pervasive >and growing govt. regulation, yet the response: Even more regulation. >Hmmmmm. >JMR > > There needs to be a balance between too much regulation, and too little. The public sector has a system of checks and balances which doesn't always work, but is institutionalized and respected. The private sector, however, is not so accountable and their only checks and balances are the laws that we the people are obligated to insist be enforced. Morality and justice break down easily in the face of bribes and hush-money, but with an institutionalized system of justice there is at least a modicum of accountability which is necessary for a society(ies) which is far too immature for true Anarchism. Keep in mind the role that capitalists played along side the government in Nazi Germany, (unchecked) power corrupts - regardless of whether you're in the public sector or the private sector. (Yes, capitalism was technically regulated in Nazi Germany, but that is not the point.) I am as unwilling to support Laissez Faire capitalism as I am to support an intrusive and restrictive government. ttl Stephan ------------------------------------------------------------------- This signature has been kidnapped by space aliens. If you find it you can call (415) 703-8748. I work for Studio Archetype, and they don't find any of this funny.

1 0

Safemail
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If the below is accurate, your company is in even more trouble. I do hope no one would think of RECORDING a conversation with a safemail represenative. I admit that it would be valuable to an attorney looking to sue Safe Mail, but it's not a very nice thing to do. Even if its legal. (which it would be in most states). ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 08:39:12 -0500 From: Scott Schryvers <schryver(a)radiks.net> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Snake_Oil_punks was Re: SafE Mail Corporation Talked with Randy of Safe Mail Corporation on the phone. Among the stuff he claimed was that PGP has the secret key in its public key! Found out that not only does this algorithm use 22 characters. The characters are the ones only found on the keyboard. SafeMail uses a proprietary Russian algorithm. Not only is this company misquoting it's making up as it goes along. :)

1 0

Re: Micropayments, Anarchy, It's All The Same... ;P
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:02 PM 6/18/96 -0700, Stephan Vladimir Bugaj wrote: >How the market diverges from the polit is clear. The market is only concerned >with consumers, and this leaves out the poor, who are undeniably part of the >polity. The poor are consumers and indeed can regularly outbid the middle class and rich for resources (if they couldn't, poor neighborhoods would never grow in size but they do all the time.) DCF

1 0

Re: SafE Mail Corporation
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 18 Jun 1996, M.Wagoner (1) wrote: > Thanks for responding. You're lucky I even bothered to take the two minutes it required to do that. > >> We would like someone to be able or should I say try and crack our > >> encryption. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. > > > >With the above you have saved me the trouble of even trying. > > > I can understand your reaction but this is a brand new approach to > crypotrography that no one else has thought about doing. Any approach to "cryotrography" [sic] which includes absolute statements about unbreakability (like your quote above) betrays such ignorance about the nature of the science as to render it a literal glowing neon brand on your forehead reading :DO NOT PURCHASE CRYPTO FROM THIS MAN: and accompanied by a loud speaker repeating same at 100dB. Using cow feces to encrypt messages is also a brand new approach which no one else has thought about doing. That hardly means it is worth more than the feces itself. > >Your appraoch to cryptography betrays such ignorance that nothing which > >your "corporation" produces could be of the slightest redeeming value. > > > >(Bloody snake oil venders) > > > >Now go away. > I really wish I knew what you meant by this. If I made you upset, I apoligize. It means I consider your product dirt. Cryptography is about economics. I'm not going to spend time teaching you the tenants of the science itself though it is clear you need such a lecture. Try reading "Applied Cryptography" for starters. Calling a given cypher "uncrackable" is simple fiction or ignorance. I might add that I am an attorney licensed to practice in the District of Columbia, among other jurisdictions. Having looked at your web page and the comparisons you make to PGP I can tell you without much qualification at all that it is at worst defamation and fraud. I would not at all be surprised to find that each sale of product you make constitutes a count of wire fraud (18 U.S.C.A. sections 1341, 1343) and a count of mail fraud if the product is shipped via the mails. I also believe that ViaCrypt and whoever else may have claim to the rights to market PGP commercially has a clear action of defamation, tortious interference with contract and depending on the state, unlawful sales interference. The fraud element would activate punative damages provisions. Should any of these parties come to me asking for advice I would direct them immediately to the nearest courthouse. Tell me, is your "corporation" licensed to do business in any state? Is it licensed as a corporation? Limited Liabiltiy? Many states impose sanctions, including administrative disolution and fines, for the use of misleading corporate forms or names while conducting interstate commerce (which you are clearly doing). > >> Our Web site is http://www.sfmc.com Phone number is 1-800-252-9938. > >Clearly a waste of good storage space. > > > Again thanks for your comments. Mr. Estridge, were I your attorney, and I thank my lucky stars that I am not, I would suggest that you post a retraction immediately, and forward a very polite letter of apology to ViaCrypt and perhaps Mr. Zimmerman. Maybe they are too busy to sue you, report you to the better business bureau, the FTC, or the state attorney general and the postmaster. > >> Randy Estridge > >> SafE Mail Corporation --- 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

2 1

Re: Snake_Oil_punks was Re: SafE Mail Corporation
by David E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Snake oil alert!] > PGP has the secret key in its public key! > > Found out that not only does this algorithm use 22 characters. > The characters are the ones only found on the keyboard. > > SafeMail uses a proprietary Russian algorithm. > > Not only is this company misquoting it's making up as it goes along. :) > > Okay, then I hereby claim the secret key 1234567890qwertyuiop+- as my public key. Now, by running that through the SafeMail Russian algorithm, I get "Nyet!" Would somebody please give these chums a clue or two, or mailbomb their sorry asses, or something? dave ----- David E. Smith, dsmith(a)prairienet.org PO Box 324 Cape Girardeau MO USA 63702-0324 http://www.prairienet.org/~dsmith/dave.html "fighting ultimate cosmic evil... ... one bean burrito at a time."

1 0

Re: SafE Mail Corporation
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-06-18 02:34:54 EDT, sandfort(a)crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) writes: << C'punks, At 05:21 PM 6/17/96 -0400, M.Wagoner (1) wrote: > >We would like someone to be able or should I say try and >crack our encryption. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. >Our Web site is http://www.sfmc.com Phone number is >1-800-252-9938. So I pulled up the Web site to see what sort of reward they offered to the successful cracker. Under the heading "Attention `Hackers'" they said if you crack their unbreakable SafE Mail code, you get 5 free copies of ... SafE Mail! Oh, that's a really primo prize, broken software. Duh. Since cracking their encryption is IMPOSSIBLE, I suggest they make the stakes interesting--$100,000, or hell, a cool million. After all, it's unbreakable. It's not like they will have to pay up or anything. S a n d y >> Very good point. Hell I have a book that offers $1,000 to crack a little string. How much does everyone here actually talk about the techniques of decryption?? Is is something any of you are well versed at and would welcome any questions to? Thanks..... Adam

1 0

Recipients get the postage
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I was reading old threads on remailers, where various ideas were suggested to reduce abuse. One was to charge postage, in order to discourage spam and somewhat discourage nastygrams, as well as to compensate the remailer operator for his risks. A variant was to tell the recipient that he had anonymous mail waiting, and possibly charge him to receive it. I had a different idea, which has probably been suggested before: make the sender of the anonymous mail pay, but pass the money to the recipient. All my complaints come from people who have received mail, never from people who have sent it. So obviously the steps we take need to make recipients happier. Paying them is one way to do it. Of course there are lots of details: how much should be charged, will recipients really be so thrilled when a "fuck you" note has a nickel wrapped in it, how will they cash their checks, etc. If ecash were used this might be a motivation for people to open an account. Nym servers could be funded by the nym owners to pay for a certain number of messages. Since the nym owner ends up receiving the cash it doesn't actually cost him anything and he can easily afford to keep a pool of cash in the nym server to keep the messages coming through. Remailers which wanted to apply this rule would have to deposit the money and immediately withdraw the same amount to include in the outgoing mail. Users would basically have to trust the remailers to do this honestly. Maybe it only needs to be done when the mail goes to a non-remail end user destination, not for the intermediate links in the chain. Postings to newgroups and mailing lists would make the cash available to the first one who grabs it. It can be a fun game; we've done it here occasionally. This might also motivate people to sign up for ecash. Just a thought - Hal -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQBVAwUBMcdENBnMLJtOy9MBAQFbpAH+NCq3HMN4+ar6UVWBFxvhAQ2OCu+EehX7 CgnLButTRJEM4OdOEsBaLzYBdi5bk0acelSpE/Zqj1S46bD2UQt50w== =2NAN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Digital Cash application
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In 1996, the Libertarian Party will apparently qualify for Federal matching funds for its Presidential political campaign. That does not mean that it will _accept_ them, being stolen goods. However, a few years ago I heard of an idea that they should accept the money, and return it to the people, a small amount at a time, to whomever asks for it. Besides returning the stolen money to its rightful owners, that would produce substantial positive publicity for the Libertarian party, embarrassment for the Democrats and Republicans, while at the same time reducing the amount of money available for the D's and the R's. But there's been a practical question of how to actively do this, economically. Issuing checks and mailing them costs money, and they're traceable, etc. The advent of digital cash suggests an answer: Make the payments in the form of digital cash, payable on the Web. This will encourage the use of digital cash, and provide a sudden infusion that will promote other uses. There's another advantage, however. Since "Netizens" are somewhat biased towards libertarianism, this will have the effect of keeping more of this money "in the family" as it were, while at the same time being open, technically, to everyone who can get on the 'net. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Federal key registrat
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-=> Quoting In:jimbell@pacifier.com to Harka <=- > "Some of our >most important prosecutions have depended on wire taps." In> But is the average citizen substantially impacted by crimes that would In> be assisted by good encryption? Probably not. And how about: "Would not the average citizen be assisted by good encryption to NOT be impacted by (certain) crimes?" And from that perspective, shouldn't the protection of millions of "average" citizens have much more importance than the "unprotection" (i.e. Clipper) of a few godfathers, who _might_ use e-mail and who _might_ use crypto? >Reno told the group that effectively regulating electronic encryption will >depend on finding a balance between protecting privacy interests while >stopping criminals from cashing in on the new technology. In> I see no need for a "balance." I think that the advent of good In> encryption has the effect of increasing the security of individuals. Absolutely. As somebody a few days ago already mentioned in connection with the CDA, the gov.'s have enjoyed a lot of centralized power so far. A medium like the Net is the antithesis to that kind of centralization. Now all over the world gov.'s try to hold on to the "old" way, which _only_ works if things are regulated, censored, outlawed etc.. That is what ensures the survival of centralized and hierarchical structures. But they are failing to realize, that people's conciousness changes _away_ from such limiting ways towards more open and natural relationships. The Net is maybe the (currently) most important medium in that process and will be hopefully the last nail in the coffin of governments, as we know 'em. Harka ... "If cryptography is outlawed, no outlaw will use clipper" -:) ___ Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR]

1 0