December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

What are the Feds looking at now :)
by anon-remailer＠utopia.hacktic.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This message was observed to flow to firewalls mailing today... could this mean mean something is going on?? anon >Return-Path: firewalls-owner(a)GreatCircle.COM >Received: from miles.greatcircle.com by relay2.UU.NET with ESMTP > (peer crosschecked as: miles.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.34]) > id QQaodh13554; Fri, 3 May 1996 15:23:00 -0400 (EDT) >Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA12439 for firewalls-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 1996 11:25:42 -0700 (PDT) >Received: from justice.usdoj.gov (justice.usdoj.gov [149.101.1.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id LAA12425 for <Firewalls(a)GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 3 May 1996 11:25:37 -0700 (PDT) >Received: by justice.usdoj.gov id aa17656; 3 May 96 14:07 EDT >From: <casey(a)justice.usdoj.gov> >To: Firewalls(a)GreatCircle.COM >Subject: Firewalls-Digest V5 #289 >X-Mailer: SCO Portfolio 2.0 >Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 14:03:09 -0400 (EDT) >Message-ID: <9605031403.aa16958(a)justice.usdoj.gov> >Sender: firewalls-owner(a)GreatCircle.COM >Precedence: bulk > >I am looking for a list of all the Internet >Service Providers world-wide. Can anyone point me >in the right direction? > >Thanks in advance, > >Mary L. Casey, Program Analyst >Information Management & > Security Staff >Information Resources Management >Justice Management Division >U.S. Dept of Justice

2 1

Why Leahy is No Friend of Ours
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:34 AM 5/3/96, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Thu, 2 May 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: >> I'd say it's 99.95% likely that the PGP key was generated by a staffer--the >> resident e-mail geek--and that only staffers know how to use PGP. (In fact, >> probably only the one staffer who generated the key and knows the >> passphrase....) > >While I believe this correct, it's worth noting that Leahy is fairly >"into" the technology. He finds it entertaining and "fun." All of this >mostly thanks to his one time counsel John Podesta. Thanks Mr. Podesta! > >He's one of the more interested congress critters. > >> So, what is accomplished except "feel good" thoughts? > >Admittedly, not much. I'm at least pleased he has a decently on the ball >staff however who can tell him what the issues are. "Decently on the ball"? I hope you are being ironic. Leahy is no friend of ours. Recall that he chaired the hearings on the FBI's "Digital Telephony" massive wiretap proposal, and co-sponsored the legislation (with former FBI agent Don Edwards). This "sleeping giant" of legislation is still out there, and has not been consigned to the junk heap. It becomes operative--that is, the $10,000 per day penalties for noncompliance with the law mandating telecom systems be DT-compliant--in October 1997. (There is ongoing discussion of whether the $500 million to be paid to the phone companies is going to be allocated, and whether those companies (such as "Tim's Cheap Internet Phone Company") which fail to get some of this lucre as it is handed out are then exempt....the consensus seems to be that some of the $500 million will be allocated as a sop to the phone companies, but that large numbers of smaller companies will still be expected to be compliant when a wiretap order is presented to them. This even if they never got a dime. The implications for the Internet and for increasingly popular "Internet phone" systems are interesting. As I understand the DT language, such systems would have to be made compliant with wiretap requests, or face the $10K/day penalties. This could force many ISPs, in the U.S. of course, to take steps to immediately restrict certain programs, or even [speculatively] force them to become compliant by some form of key escrow, where they would keep a copy of a key for presentation to law enforcement. [More speculation by me: the combination of the Wiretap Act, the Anti-Terrorism Act, and the still-ongoing work on key escrow (TIS is still pushing their system, Lotus hasn't backed down, Denning still says it's needed, etc.) could mean that ISPs move to restrict use of crypto in various ways, possibly mandating escrowed encryption. Several of us (Black Unicorn, Duncan Frissell, me, etc.) may point out the practical difficulties involved in such enforcement, and the longterm dim prospects for success. But the fact is that ISPs are a kind of "choke point" for halting certain things. I have a feeling I know what my ISP will say if he gets a court order and a $10,000 per day penalty faces him. Those who access the Net directly, through their own companies and/or by having boxes hanging directly on the Net, will be less vulnerable to this kind of pressure. But the Netcoms, PSI, Earthlinks, AOLs, and such will likely run into trouble the first time a court order is presented to make certain Internet phone conversations tappable.... (I have long argued for this view that certain "choke points" will be identified. These are the points of leverage--often companies--which law enforcement can lean on. Whit Diffie made similar points a few years ago, that drug laws were "enforced" inside companies (who previously didn't care whether employees smoked dope on their time off, so long as they did the job), with urine tests, threats of civil forfeiture of company assets if even small amounts of drugs were found in the possession of employees, etc. The "War on Drugs" effectively pressed companies into service as soldiers.) Sure, a few services will decide to fight such penalties in court and seek to have Digital Telephony thrown out in court. Deep pockets will be required. Maybe they'll prevail. Maybe the Burns Bill will collide with Digital Telephony. Unclear at this time. But no Congressman who co-sponsors such legislation as the "National Wiretap Initiative," with its "1% of the engineering capacity" requirements and other such Big Brother Surveillance State clauses, is a friend of ours. --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

Re: Conrad_Burns@burns.senate.gov: Open Letter to Internet Community From Senator Burns
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:45 PM 5/3/96 -0500, John Deters <jad(a)dsddhc.com> wrote: [snip] >I agree that this could be the single most important piece of legislation to >affect the cypherpunks ever -- firmly defining the legal status of >encryption (and in our favor, no less!) [snip] I sent email today to Senators Burns and Leahy thanking them for their work on this issue, and I'm asking others who support their efforts to do the same. They've got some hard work ahead of them to get this bill through, I think, and I wanted to let them know their efforts are appreciated. I also pointed out to Senator Leahy, politely but firmly, my concern over this provision in the ECPA (which he mentioned in his letter, so I'm assuming he considers it still on the table): "Whoever willfully endeavors by means of encryption to obstruct, impede, or prevent the communication of information in furtherance to a felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, to an investigative or law enforcement officer shall- "(1) in the case of a first conviction, be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 5 years, fined under this title, or both; or "(2) in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 10 years, fined under this title, or both." >] (2) Miniaturization, disturbed computing, and > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >] reduced transmission costs make communication via >] electronic networks a reality. > >I think "disturbed computing" pretty much sums up this list, if not the >entire net! :-) :) Rich ______________________________________________________________________ Rich Burroughs richieb(a)teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause

1 0

Re: Why I dislike Java. (was Re: "Scruffies" vs. "Neats")
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"perry(a)piermont.com" 3-MAY-1996 16:14:04.28 >Money is not a problem, but space is. There is never any room on a >trading floor. Space is at an amazing premium. Would switchable monitors, mice, and keyboards be a possible solution (with placement of the CPUs in another location), or are your users too permanently technically incompetent? I would hope the latter would not be the case given the technological nature of the modern trading field. -Allen

2 1

Re:
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:02 PM 5/3/96, nmunro(a)technews.com wrote: >subsribe neil >munro OK, I will "subsribe" you. On the off chance that you meant "subscribe", instructions follow at the end of this message. The Cypherpunks list is handled with the "Majordomo" automated list handler. All commands must be addressed to majordomo(a)toad.com, not to the readers of the Cypherpunks list. How to subscribe to the Cypherpunks mailing list: send a message to "majordomo(a)toad.com" with the body message "subscribe cypherpunks". To unsubscribe, send the message "unsubscribe cypherpunks" to the same address. For help, send "help cypherpunks". Don't send these requests to the Cypherpunks list itself. And be aware that the list generates between 40 and 100 messages a day.

1 0

[RANT]Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:05 AM 5/3/96 -0400, Michael Loomis wrote: >No tax system will ever been perfect, but income taxation is a good >system of taxation. Income taxation inevitably requires some accounting >costs, but these costs should be going down with advances in computing >technology and other technology... My principle objection to the income tax is not the money, but the bookkeeping. When I am earning the money to pay my taxes, at least I am working at jobs that maximize my enjoyment and earnings. When I do the bookkeeping, I am doing a job I hate. (I'd rather be digging out septic tanks.) I have no choice but to do that job. Fortunately, I have a wonderful wife who does the bookkeeping. However, come tax time, she spends far too many evenings and weekends glued to the bookkeeping. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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

1 0

Re: Conrad_Burns@burns.senate.gov: Open Letter to Internet Community From Senator Burns
by John Deters 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:22 PM 5/2/96 -0400, Perry Metzger forwarded the following to the list: [deleted] > In the meantime, I need your help in supporting the effort to repeal > cryptography export controls. You can find out more by visiting my > web page http://www.senate.gov/~burns/. There you will find a > collection of encryption education resources that my Webmaster has > assembled. I trust that the entire Internet community, from the > old-timers to those just starting to learn about encryption, will find > this information useful. [deleted] > Conrad Burns > United States Senator I agree that this could be the single most important piece of legislation to affect the cypherpunks ever -- firmly defining the legal status of encryption (and in our favor, no less!) However, did anyone actually read it (it's at http://www.cdt.org/crypto/pro_CODE_bill.html )? Here's a nice bit of section 2: ]SEC.2.FINDING;PURPOSE ] ] (a) FINDINGS. - The Congress finds the following: ] ] (1) The ability to digitize information makes ] carrying out tremendous amounts of commerce and ] personal communication electronically possible. ] (2) Miniaturization, disturbed computing, and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ] reduced transmission costs make communication via ] electronic networks a reality. I think "disturbed computing" pretty much sums up this list, if not the entire net! :-) -j -- J. Deters >From our _1996_Conflict_of_Interest_Statement_, re: our No Gift policy: "If you receive any alcoholic beverages, for example, a bottle of wine, you must give the gift to your location Human Resources Manager." This memo is from the Senior V.P. of Human Resources. +---------------------------------------------------------+ | NET: jad(a)dsddhc.com (work) jad(a)pclink.com (home) | | PSTN: 1 612 375 3116 (work) 1 612 894 8507 (home) | | ICBM: 44^58'33"N by 93^16'42"W Elev. ~=290m (work) | | PGP Key ID: 768 / 15FFA875 | +---------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

L. Detweiler is a CyberAngel
by Richard Charles Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ROTFL. From http://snyside.sunnyside.com/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/Announcements/Cy… Special mention must go to an ongoing debate about anonymous remailers, which was an area where we were less informed. Thanks to an154280(a)anon.penet.fi for lots of very helpful suggestions. For those of you interested in the debate about anonymity we have two suggestions: firstly we have a HUGE FAQ on "Identity, Privacy and Anonymity on the InterNet", written by L.Detweiler, and if any of you want it, please write to us and ask for it (WARNING it is 138k!) Secondly you can write to help(a)anon.penet.fi for their FAQ on their anonymous service, which is also very educational.

1 0

Re: L. Detweiler is a CyberAngel
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"llurch(a)networking.stanford.edu" "Richard Charles Graves" 3-MAY-1996 17:30:30.47 >Subject: L. Detweiler is a CyberAngel >ROTFL. From >http://snyside.sunnyside.com/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/Announcements/Cy… >Special mention must go to an ongoing debate about anonymous remailers, which >was an area where we were less informed. Thanks to an154280(a)anon.penet.fi >for lots of very helpful suggestions. For those of you interested in the >debate about anonymity we have two suggestions: firstly we have a HUGE FAQ >on "Identity, Privacy and Anonymity on the InterNet", written by L.Detweiler, >and if any of you want it, please write to us and ask for it (WARNING it is >138k!) Secondly you can write to help(a)anon.penet.fi for their FAQ on their >anonymous service, which is also very educational. I had noticed that earlier, yes... see why I think they know less about the Net than even _I_ do? -Allen

1 0

Re: CryptoAnarchy: Late Comments.
by mkj＠october.segno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm amazed at the long thread my naive "CypherAnarchy" question generated -- not to mention the astonishing range of perspectives, spanning from the unusual to the bizarre. (Yes, that was a joke.) I haven't joined in much up to now, simply because it has taken me some time to digest it all. But now that the thread seems to be winding down, I have extracted a couple of interesting points for additional comments. "Snow" discusses nations without borders, then asks: > Are these the deep waters you refer to? In part, yes. But I think the possible definitions of "nation" and "government" are diffusing even more broadly than you suggest. A paragraph which I edited from my original message went something like: "Suppose a large multinational company finds a way to increase profits by cutting labor costs. To what extent does this resemble a global 'tax increase' on the world population?" A line of thought which (skipping over a lot of boring intermediate stuff) led me eventually to the questions, "What are taxes?" and "What is wealth?" Clearly, when the government exacts payment of taxes from us, it is more than just a screwy method of recycling used currency! Taxation, to oversimplify quite a bit, is essentially compelled labor. But it is even more than that. Taxes must be paid in dollars, and the U.S. government maintains tight and detailed controls over what types of labor and value can be converted into dollars, by whom, and how. Therefore taxation is also compelled *behavior*. It keeps us locked into roles which government has significant power to shape. In fact, due in part to tax policies, important traditional American lifestyle values such as "being independent" and "living off the land" have become damn near impossible today (while "normal" forms of employment frequently entail the waiver of important Constitutional rights). Once taxation is seen as compelled behavior, it is natural to ask how many other legal controls on behavior might have the effect, at least in part, of a sort of hidden tax. The military draft? Seizures of property in criminal cases? Obviously. But what about regulations on industry? Suppose Congress passes a bill which consolidates some segment of the military industry. Or suppose a government reserves to itself some of the most profitable lines of business, such as drugs and gambling. To what extent do these actions resemble taxes? My point being, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and clearly more than one way to increase government wealth. Cryptography may be able to hide value transactions when they take the symbolic form of money, but can crypto hide value in all its phases? If not, then crypto will change only the forms, not the essence, of taxation. It cannot shield us, for example, from outright forced labor (such as compulsory military service) or increased criminal penalties, etc. A final thought: Just as TV is in the business of selling eyes and ears to advertisers, the U.S. government has long been involved in some activities which might, to the cynical eye (such as my own), resemble the selling of "exploitation rights" over its population to the highest bidders. Note that such a strategy could do a complete end-run around any tax collection problems caused by cryptography! "Snow" also wrote: > Fine. So change the tactics. Instead of "Rising Up", simply use an > ages old an respected solution. Take out the leaders. Note, I am > _not_ suggesting Mr. Bells assination politics, rather, given a > violent revolution, or the beginings of one, shorten it by taking > those who make the policies you disagree with. But who the hell ARE the real leaders, and how are we supposed to find them? Hint: I don't think they're the people on TV! Politicians today aren't leaders, they are the heads of an unseen Gorgon: If you cut one politician down, two identical copies will spring forth in that same place! --- mkj

1 0