December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

ecash representation
by Perry E. Metzger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In my last article, I slightly screwed up. A signed 32 bit fixed point number, with two places of precision (less than you need when calculating things like interest and what have you, but lets be generous) has a maximum representation of even less than I off the cuffed -- a mere 21,474,836.48. This is hardly sufficient for accounting. However, floating point is even less useful. .pm

2 2

Re: Children's Privacy Act
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:45 AM 5/24/96, Rich Graves wrote: >I recognize that criminalizing the free flow of information is like trying >to stick your finger in a dike, but every little bit has an effect. In >this case, I'd call it a positive effect. > >I was certainly disappointed to hear a couple of cypherpunks the other day >discussing for-profit offshore data havens full of personal information >that is illegal to collect in the US as a business opportunity *they* were >interested in pursuing. I just can't see myself doing that, for anybody. >Gubmint or private, doesn't matter. These off-shore data havens, possibly in Anguilla, possibly elsewhere, have long been a motivation for crypto anarchy. "Illegal to collect in the U.S." is the operative phrase. (P.S. Cf. the sections in my Cyphernomicon for a discussion of how the main U.S. credit-collecting agencies (TRW Credit, Transunion, and Equifax) have various cozy relationships with the U.S. government and intelligence agencies. Many of the laws about collection of data are ignored when needed. Ask the credit agencies why and how they willingly participate in the falsification of credit histories, and even the creation of credit histories out of thin air.) --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."

3 2

COMMUNITY CONNEXION ANNOUNCES WORLDWIDE BETA-TEST OF THE ANONYMIZER
by sameer＠c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For Immediate Release - May 24, 1996 Contact: Sameer Parekh 510-601-9777x3 COMMUNITY CONNEXION ANNOUNCES WORLDWIDE BETA-TEST OF THE ANONYMIZER BERKELEY, CA - Community ConneXion, Inc., The Internet Privacy Provider, announced today the worldwide Beta release of the "Anonymizer" service for the World-Wide-Web. The Anonymizer allows people browsing the web to be completely anonymous when making web transactions. It protects people from having the sites they visit discover their email address, hostname, type of computer, and other potentially sensitive information. "The Anonymizer finally brings Caller-ID-Block to the Internet," said Justin Boyan, who designed and implemented the system. "If you don't want records of your activities being kept by every web site you visit, you should definitely be using this service." Community ConneXion ("C2") is glad to be able to provide such a service to the Internet community free of charge. C2's President, Sameer Parekh, commented on the availability of this service, "We feel that people's privacy is too important to make people pay directly for basic privacy services. Therefore, we've built The Anonymizer with a model that will allow people on the Internet to use the basic level of service at no charge." Future enhancements to the system include support for Netscape's Secure Sockets Layer, which will provide web surfers with the ability not only to hide their identity from the remote site, but to hide the identity of the sites they are browsing from their employer, university, or ISP. The threat of a university clamping down on the ability of its students to browse the web freely is very strong, and C2 plans to make this service available in order to protect against such threats. The Anonymizer can be accessed at http://www.anonymizer.com/. Users need only click on "BEGIN SURFING ANONYMOUSLY" and then choose a site to visit anonymously. All their web transactions from that point on are anonymized. As the service is only in Beta phase at this point, users may experience slow connections or downtime. As the service moves to Production release, these problems will be eliminated. Community ConneXion is the leading provider of privacy on the Internet. They provide anonymous and pseudonymous internet access and web pages in addition to powerful web service, virtual hosts, and web design consultation. Information is available from their web pages at http://www.c2.net/.

1 0

Re: Runtime info flow in Java
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 20:06 5/23/96, Norman Hardy wrote: >I am interested in your paper because you define the problem as we do. >There are some who think that capability architectures are the solution. >There is little information on how to solve these problems with >capabilities. I am trying to find time to address some of these issues. I walked away from your presentation of KeyKOS with the impression that a capability system to be secure it would have to be implemented at the OS level. Can you build a such a system on top of an insecure OS, as Java would have to do? TIA, Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not those of my employer. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

1 0

Re: Cyber-Anarchy
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:14 PM 5/23/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >My point is actually not so much one of claiming credit for something I've >been involved with since 1988, as being somewhat critical of the >all-too-common tendency I see of _renaming_ something without adding any >new content. > >Jim Bell calls his set of ideas "cyber-anarchy," and certain journalists >have picked up on this (as with the Australian article). > >But with the exception of the one variant of anonymous markets, namely, >"assassination politics," most or all of the other ideas of his >"cyber-anarchy" seem to be encompassed by the already-existing term. I don't tend to carefully distinguish between "crypto-anarchy" and "cyber-anarchy" although the former is a subset of the latter. Also, one big influence on society has nothing to do with encryption at all: The fact that people are beginning to get their news and information from other ordinary people (as opposed to newspapers and TV networks) is not dependant on encryption, at least in a country that's supposed to be blessed with the 1st amendment. The deathgrip the politicians have on the public as a whole will at least start to be weakened by non-crypto "cyberanarchy" effects like this, although perhaps it would be better named "cyber-minarchy." I think we can attribute the difficulty the establishment is having passing a Clipper-type law to the portion of cyberminarchy that has nothing to do with encryption. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: [SCARE]: "If you only knew what we know..."
by minow＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Simon Spero writes: >If I were planning such a briefing I'd probably concentrate on real cases >that were cracked due to NSA SIGINT - especially terrorist groups >operating with only limited state sponsorship > You might find hints at "the briefing" in some of the recent terrorist-porno novels by Tom Clancey (for example). Also, "Spike" by Arnaud de Bouchgrave (apologies for possible misspelling) is an interesting book to read between the lines The briefing might go something like this: "Remember the terrorist bombing of the Libian Embassy? Well, "they" were planning to bomb the <??> embassy, but we intercepted their messages and prevented the attack. Martin Minow minow(a)apple.com

2 1

PILATE SAYETH UNTO HIM... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hiya Sandy, Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 07:43:06 -0700 (PDT) > From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> > Subject: PILATE SAYETH UNTO HIM... > > It isn't obvious that we DON"T agree. It was still a question. If there was an absolute Truth as you postulate the results would be many and varied. For instance, 1. If the Truth were absolute everyone would have to accept it as such even if they disagreed or said it wasn't the Truth, In essence it would at the same time create the ultimate Lie. This leads to a logic inconsistancy, something can't be the ultimate Truth and at the same be the ultimate Lie AND and claim no relativity applies. If you allow relativity into your argument then it is clear that the subject of study is not an ultimate anything. 2. What is the litmus test for ultimate Truth? How do you tell it from regular truth? How do you tell it from a lie? From the Lie? 3. If there were a ultimate Truth then this implies that it is possible to have a system which can fully describe itself. Godel's Incompletenes Theorem would be found invalid, which by extension would have some wide spread ramifications for the rest of our knowledge base. 4. An ultimate Truth would philosphicaly be inseperable from God. Being a pantheist, you are going to have a hard time floating that boat in my pond. 5. An ultimate truth would imply that all existance conformed or was aware of the ultimate Truth. In essence you are claiming that truth and falsity (good/bad) exist as a absolute and not a consequence of human psychology. I would be very interested in your reasoning regarding how a rock on the other side of the Magellanic Clouds could be effected by a ultimate Truth. 6. I suspect that any ultimate Truth would have to be so trival it would be useless. Tautologies are worthless for proving anything. 7. On the issue of postulates (ie unprovable assumptions necessary for the creation of a logical framework - Godel rears its ugly head again) the implication is that we can now prove Euclids 5 postulates absolutely. I am shure many mathematicians would be interested in this. > Actually, I rather fancied Bell and May's responses. To the > extent we do disagree reflects in no way on the Truth, only in > our abilities to determine what Truth is. Again, think of it > as an archetype or reality not as a popularity contest. Which reality? Yourse, mine, a photons? To a photon the entire universe is the photon. Would your Truth be true for it? It is obvious that its truth's are not valid for us (unless you are claiming we are all everywhere at once). If there is no one absolute Reality how can there be a absolute Truth? > Nope, not me. Hell, I don't even claim *partial* omnipotence. > You really have to pay attention to those details. Why are you > having so much trouble understanding the question mark? I understand it quite well. Why are you having so hard a time giving me a straight answer? > > Nice tactical ploy, an ad hominem buried in a straw man argument. > > Thanks, but you got it wrong again. Yes, there was an indirect > (and apparently valid) ad hominem, but apparently you do not know > what a straw man is. For your edification, your out-of-left-field > suggestion that my discussion of Truth represents some claim of > omnipotence on my part is clearly a straw man (and an implied ad > hominem, for good measure). If you admit fallibility then how can one claim to recognize a ultimate anything, let along Truth? Hardly a left field question as you claim. It doesn't qualify as ad hominem because it was not directed at a personality but rather at your basic theoretical assumptions. It is completely valid (and necessary I might) to both question basic postulates (otherwise non-Euclidian geometry would not have existed) as well as to clearly elucidate what those postulates are. You did not do that, I simply asked for clarification. I have never made a attack on personality as a basis for any of my discussion on this list. I have made some comments to folks about the way they treated others, but this is clearly different than a discourse on a technical issue. At no point have I implied covertly or otherwise any statement about anybody on this lists intelligence or ability to reason being a reflection of their basic worth as a human being. I accept you each as being basicly worthy of respect for no other reason than you simply exist. Whether a particular individual was right, wrong, or simply holds a radicly different view than myself is not sufficient reason for me or anyone else to judge anothers worth. An ad hominem is the embodyment of measuring a persons intrinsic worth by their ability to argue or hold an opinion (or spell). To my way of thinking, if the only bitch you have about a argument is whether it was spelled correctly each time, you don't have much to say worth listening to. My responce does not qualify as a straw man argument because I am discussing your original claims, not drawing an analogy and claiming equivalence. You were drawing an analogy and claiming equivalence. I have asked several times if you would accept or believe other situations to be similar, hardly the same as a straw man since you did not ask if others thought they were equivalent but simply stated it as such. To the point, I don't care where the theory came from (ever), I simply want to know if it works. If I had my way the discussion on this list would never have a personality attached to it, complete anonymity.

1 0

RE: The Anti-Briefing...
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Peter Wayner [......]The fact is that government enforced weak crypto is a tradeoff. We pay for the ease of the police surveillance because we make life simpler for crooks who make their living eavesdropping and circumventing security systems. The big question is whether the tradeoff is worth it. ............................................................... "Government enforced weakness": They try to do good for the benefit of all by reducing the individual's personal efficacy, until the nation is transformed into a mass of whining weanies. Like sitting ducks, everyone is then in the position of being totally vulnerable to corrupt government administrators. I wouldn't think that being of no practical use to oneself would be a valuable tradeoff, given such a (frequently recurring) potentiality. If they really wanted the nation to be strong and secure, they would actively take up the task of providing "government assisted strength", advising us on how to protect ourselves, our property, our email....perhaps evern receiving "The Briefing", so that we could all be prepared to resist (or assist in resisting) threats from pervs and terrorists, et al. (this "Briefing" reminds me of Atlas Shrugged, but in the opposite direction - where instead of the targets becoming enlightened, their minds become closed.) .. Blanc

1 0

Re: The Anti-Briefing...
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:12 PM 5/24/96, Peter Wayner wrote: >I'm sure the "Briefing" is quite impressive and it includes >several strong arguments for government surveillance. There are >bound to be more than a few kids that are alive today thanks to >eavesdropping and the quick thinking of folks in FBI, NSA et al. I expect The Briefing contains unreleased material about FBI stings and apprehensions, such as the apprehension of the group planning to shoot down several airliners in the U.S., the plans to kill Clinton in Manila, etc. No doubt it cites the killing of Pablo Escobar (the real one, not VZNuri) because he was using a typically-insecure cellphone. (Though I doubt they will mention the U.S. involvement in using a cellphone to pinpoint The Bomber, in Palestine.) And almost certainly a few juicy tidbits about "pedophile rings using PGP" (which is almost certainly the case, of course). The Briefing may also contain hints of intelligence ops which caught nuclear material smugglers, which prevented CBW attacks such as the Sarin gas attack in Tokyo, and so on. (Some of this stuff is "CLASSIFIED," and this probably increases the sex appeal to the burrowcrats who get The Briefing. A darkened room, a succession of G-Man accounts of bad guys caught, a glimpse into the world of SIGINT, some nice dramatic music by Lalo Schifrin, and dire warnings about What Will Happen When the Bad Guys Get Crypto.) And so on. As Peter notes, there are undeniably cases where a Surveillance State can in fact capture terrorists, murderers, abortionists, smokers, carnivores, and other criminals and thoughtcriminals. >That being said, I'm sure that there is also an "anti-Briefing" >that can be given that illustrates that the huge cost of >redesigning the phone system and forcing businesses and people >to operate without protection. Here are some examples from the >recent press that I think are good arguments for why strong >crypto won't change the status quo. I agree that there are many examples that could be cited. Here are a few more: -- the spies and moles within the intelligence agencies, from the Walkers to Aldrich Ames. Here is an environment in which communications are ostensibly controlled, in which surveillance is ubiquitous, in which counterintel teams have wide lattitude to investigate, entrap, etc....and yet the crimes occurred. (Of course, we don't really know how much worse the spying would be without such surveillance. But the point is that even heavy surveillance still lets willing perps find ways.) -- drug rings have often operated right under the noses of cops, sometimes out of police stations. (The theme of any number of "Serpico"-type books, movies, and television shows.) -- and let us not forget the "Surveillance States" which already exist, or existed in recent memory. The PRC, implicated in various criminal activities, the leftist and rightist governments of the world involved in the drug trade, and so on. (The point being that even such Surveillance States have plenty of crime, and often the apparatus of the State is used for criminal purposes.) -- and so on... >Some might argue that if weak crypto can save one child's life >than it is worth it. This is a strong, sentimental argument, but >it really doesn't reflect the reality of the tradeoff. We could >spend a lot more money on airlines, trains and cars and save a >few kids lives, but the cost could be phenomenal. The fact is >that government enforced weak crypto is a tradeoff. We pay for >the ease of the police surveillance because we make life simpler >for crooks who make their living eavesdropping and circumventing >security systems. The big question is whether the tradeoff is >worth it. We can all think of repressive steps which undeniably will save the lives of some children, babies, old people, mothers, etc. Banning alcohol, banning smoking, banning sex outside of marriage.... (Some of these were tried, some are even now being tried by do-gooding statists....) Where the USA has gone off the beam is in legislating behaviors which are not directly harmful to others, presumably on the rationale of "the common good." But freedoms are being taken away daily in this rush to make the USA a "more pleasant" place. (The movie "Demolition Man" captured this trend nicely.) And beware the Law of Unintended Consequences. Mandatory airbags in cars, for example. They are having the effect that people are not using seat belts as often as they used to. And inflating airbags are killing children, probably more than are being saved by the airbags in the first place. Whoops. Better rethink that "we know what's good for you and we're going to force you to pay $500 more per car to have it." Meanwhile, the government pays farmers to grow tobacco.... Are things out of whack, or what? --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

Truth is equivalent to law?
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi blanc, Forwarded message: > From: blanc <blancw(a)accessone.com> > Subject: RE: Truth can sometimes be harmful...(talk.cpunks.truth) > Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 12:24:23 -0700 > I understood what you meant. I appreciate the general nature of truth, = > in spite of the possibilities for misinterpretations of or = > prevarications from it.=20 What is the 'general nature of truth'? > Jim, a quote for you: > > "We are able to act at all - that is to say, we have the power=20 > to order our conduct in such a way that the ends we desire=20 > can be attained - only because the phenomena of the world=20 > are governed not by arbitrariness, but by laws that we have=20 > the capacity to know something about. If it were otherwise,=20 > we should be completely at the mercy of forces that we should=20 > be unable to understand."=20 > ~ Human Action, Ludwig Von Mises > > Substitute the word "truth" for "laws" and it makes equal sense. We = > would be at the mercy of forces that we could not control, if our = > perceptions and interpretations could not correspond to the actual, the = > real, the truth. So in your mind truth is equivalent to law? In the sense of the above quote the 'laws' that are refered to are general observed regularities that we are capable of understanding. Being a pantheist and hence seeing the entire cosmos as all there is (and hence divine in toto), I can appreciate the original intent (being a physicist helps a little bit). If I accept your equivalency (which I do) then there is no such thing as Truth in the sense of the original discussion. The laws refered to in the quote have the implicit characteristic of being disproved. A characteristic not shared by Truth. I further believe the universe is understandable, just not in toto. It is a little simplistic to believe that every system in the cosmos uses all the regularities that we observe. When followed to its logical conclusion it implies that there may (are) systems which we won't be able to understand in toto (quantum effects come to mind) simply because the system that is our brain either is not complex enough or runs into the Godel paradox. In short, if we assume that we can understand the universe in toto then we have in effect demonstrated that Godel was incorrect. I have covered the ramifications of this previously. Crypto relevancy: many assumptions that we take for granted are based upon proof and 'laws' we ASSUME to be isotropic and homogeneous. If we don't have a clear and present understanding of the 'laws', the procedures used to obtain them, and the limitations of both our 'laws' and the procedures, then we are opening ourselves up for a large dose of security by obscurity. Always question authority, it is simply another human being who does not have your best interest at heart since they have their own agenda. Jim Choate

1 0