December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Key Exchange Request
by Michael T. Babcock 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Type Bits/KeyID Date User ID pub 1280/FA4C5DB1 1996/06/13 Michael T. Babcock <mbabcock(a)tyenet.com> Michael T. Babcock <mbabcock(a)cyberbeach.net> - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.3i Comment: http://www.cyberbeach.net/~mbabcock/PGP/ mQCtAzHAhC8AAAEFAMG+C+yN8q7KDT5TUSdyQNZlDDlTGuF4vUzPEq52lrqx7NAA YwJuj0dtOnnU2GAAonNutYF7nbbsS5yjWWgENioKOzIdjgDpq+YBZDkX4kFTD/+5 PM5EZhS1kT54zDpbjlZHtu9ViL3xUD/vp5zmp7Mlxqdd5SbkM0bpIBlBIqfpij59 hOVgc837YtAMmAbuRzwzy06/5ne221MLA/pMXbEABRG0KE1pY2hhZWwgVC4gQmFi Y29jayA8bWJhYmNvY2tAdHllbmV0LmNvbT6JALUCBRAyG4B8iNNjBTZRc5UBAQgN BQCUEtqBZp6AHxuzl8ul5YdrgSmVzL5KZ+h5ZSsahq3Z880Z2+iL2nHlQxE/Kx+A +sBALnqjcZ1jFVd//kdUW3Z6MR805txMXhxSm8350uxv9SVgR9fFatuBphyMY3+H JCJABOD8W/78l+ryKzrDIkTRcZZ/ZfAIFx8CuQbHAHREbd5WxUvwYD1RmYN0roEm lX08htgUVpM5KrsdO1QFZXJciQCVAwUQMdnXD03i+M8vT7SzAQGdPgP/U/LYSAdj Fv9F9B+B0zzUOUyZVzP+esMRLVja69FXpLvpSbzHZuibwgx6iHzQvJU7FgoNR6Le xMjVobVz6dvQNn4Cyv/IVSYhQ7OeQpVpPROMd7oNpi2REond6iTulNwJ582yNWbg HpXF+rcyQGLSZW1M97dstKVJaA1M+1I+KBiJAJUDBRAxwISNpWTgrlDImaUBAXK9 BACT9ZVN4CQonU8MhzZXNepMm2k3xAkM/01e1vjqjnHR95g9xysVJCeSh0aky+Jk v7Yok5hRLhZ8CWmt+n/vAEZI6thIJlF++CLX6XHaZVN0sXtOKJuzsu1za4Kllqbf nRKkEKjixFQk37sDUHJPehiy7tYWVF364A5KQU9K7JenDIkAtQMFEDHAhDDbUwsD +kxdsQEBo9wE/1TDLucmWU8nIQ3izH8bDLHv8UNfyKItlMwKQXcokOxFV1lhxtKu RhsBjIiLD3iBXG7xd/Q8EgV9gbAXJ0IfdMBEXUbAqNgZBu0sPT5OWtdxQ4l7/uXl A0bHNGe8/O+L76bq81dWn7i/iyggIDpcSYYp4pCqm0fPQFS8eMUc5fwQMhODgVH2 WTSKbIZrSXYUjv9Nu1hAHeo1xB7tyJCJePi0LE1pY2hhZWwgVC4gQmFiY29jayA8 bWJhYmNvY2tAY3liZXJiZWFjaC5uZXQ+iQCVAwUQMcCKaqVk4K5QyJmlAQF56gP9 F/kU8pMxVJdCDFVXyXm9STzEwZauLzMAHbIqWE7RzzDX1jX6e4bFDkpOP79SM19K RMrB70IQ/0OerNDGA3foMTFde79CZwSN+sE4CBIziEzClCkoZR8lsURgrNCpgrfD SfefCMERK2wsPRCHTm1/SQoc107xgPdZKV2MTsKa+l6JALUDBRAxwIo/21MLA/pM XbEBAbXOBPsFGBbIKo04YVMaQRQXUXNJNaFys21ZforSlLXX6jh9XVnPfTzJHbba lYtzBNMSzTn1S2INJUTsmakfMWSi3yghi6BVlBPJDhaC/lbmUPzbs1UtGwKzTJPP oIW0ogvNiBUnEJBXLyEpLg4DDsmg74jT23m9kDIY5IT9tDQy2l+bVlDUl341DCSw qd98jWjPf38BgLOldtanlYiYfSBcVIdO =N34I - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- This message was sent by Pronto Secure Mail. Above is my public key. Please send your public key by return mail. - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMiPPNCoZzwIn1bdtAQHwiAGA25takabrZ8cinCavjJ4DMhYclePThtCz 2Wy+KH/pT42RVsMDtPvmwKeF8MEffw1N =QuAh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Scoring Politicians on Digital Liberty Issues (Re: Net Politics)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(I have no idea where the virtual nexus of this debate is taking place...I see these addresses copied on the message to which I'm replying: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu, cypherpunks(a)toad.com, brock(a)well.com, telstar(a)wired.com, shabbir(a)vtw.org, jseiger(a)cdt.org (Jonah Seiger), Declan McCullagh <declan(a)eff.org>. I despise such massive cross-contamination of lists and duplication of messages, so I will delete all but the list I am part of, and Jonah Seiger, out of courtesy, as it his message I am replying to.) At 2:23 PM 8/27/96, Jonah Seiger wrote: >"One more round of 'work within the system' vs 'up against the wall!'," he >said. > >This is an important debate that unfortunately seems to be dividing the >net.community when we most need to be united. All of us working on >net-policy issues share a common vision and goals - promoting the free flow >of information, preserving and enhancing First Amendment values and >protecting individual privacy. There are, for better or worse, many >different views on the best way to accomplish those objectives, and the >debate over who has the right tactics seems to frequently escalate in to >religious war. > >Meanwhile, our opponents are well organized, determined, and do a much >better job of keeping their internal strategic differences to themselves. >Perhaps this is part of the reason they keep kicking our butts all over >town. I think it laudable that CDT has chosen to remain in D.C. to "work within the system." Personally, I could never stomach doing this. Nor do I think the Cypherpunks group per se should do it; technological monkeywrenching of the best-laid plans of Leahy, Swinestein, and all the other "mice and men" is so much more effective and satisfying. Yes, as far as legislation goes, the politicians are constantly on the offensive, proposing new and more draconian legislation on a continuing basis. Maybe they hope to wear us out, to create battle fatigue (some say it worked with EFF, but I've heard various reasons given as to why EFF left D.C.). But technology also is winning, in its own way. Web proxies defeat national governments in their plans to limit access. Remailers have transformed the Net. Digital pseudonyms have restored anonymous commentaries to their once-honored place. And the sheer growth of the Net, the Web, and the vast number of connections has made Leahy- and Exon-style control essentially hopeless to enforce. On the specific issue of whether Sen. Leahy is or is not a "friend of the Net," to use him as an example here, I suggest a different approach. Instead of classifying Leahy as a friend or an enemy, or Burns as a friend or an enemy, etc., why not a *ratings system*? As with the "perfect 100%" liberal ratings that the ACLU or somesuch puts out... Thus, we can say "Conrad Burns has scored a 67% on Digital Liberty issues, Patrick Leahy has scored a 42% on these issues, and Dianne Feinstein scored 17%." Determination would have to be made on what the important issues, but this has been done successfully in the past, as with the liberal groups and union groups (and conservative/NRA/family values groups) who "score" candidates. A scoring system has the advantage of looking relatively impartial, and avoids the "friend/enemy" naming, at least in terms of personalities. Thus, one can say to Leahy, "Sorry, Senator, this is just how you score. If you want to score higher in the future, take careful note of what our community thinks is important and vote accordingly." The issues for a scorecard might be accumulated on the Net, with inputs from CDT, VTW, EFF, Cypherpunks, and other interested groups. It could be messy, but perhaps not. Even a *simple* set of principles, picked by almost any of these organizations, would likely be enough to get a reasonable scoring system...it's not as if we all don't know that Leahy's support for the Digital Telephony Bill was a major downcheck--whatever the realpolitik issues were--and that his support of Pro-Code is a major upcheck. The value of scoring is that it takes out the often-painful issues of classifying politicians as "friends" or "enemies." Objective scoring means never having to say you're sorry. --Tim may -- [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the U.S. Communications Decency Act of 1996] And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why don't you boys just come on in and fuck them right here in my house - I'll just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said: "Dad's getting old. I say we should fuck him before he's too old to fuck." So the two daughters got him drunk and screwed him all that night. Sure enough, Dad got them pregnant, and had an incestuous bastard son....Onan really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant while his brother got all the credit, so he pulled out before he came....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals, unless of course God tells you to. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular Translation, TCM, 1996]

1 0

Re: Sen. Leahy's "impeccable cyberspace credentials"
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

While I, on the other hand, am surprised by your over-optimistic tone. Bills in Congress are, technically, ALWAYS up for public comment. And yes, they are almost always subject to amendment. But the REALITY (remember reality?!?) is that once a bill has been officially introduced in Congress, it is substantially more difficult to add a good part, or remove a bad part, than if the bill remained on a word-processor or was simply put on the 'net for comments. The status-quo system might have made sense in the pre-Internet era, when the public familiarity of issues and/or legislation was less, or communication costs to the public were higher, etc. But today, when it's easy and cheap to put the text of a proposed bill on the Internet, it simply no longer makes sense to not accept public comment BEFORE the "high-hysteresis" environment of Congress has been entered. Here's what is REALLY going on. Congress wants to maintain the illusion that the public actually has some input into the way bills are drafted. But in reality, they want essentially total control. One of the many biases inserted into the system to ensure this control is maintained is to disguise the extent to which special interests (and Congress, itself, is a "special interest") get to dictate how law reads. Consider the alternative, and in particular the Leahy crypto bill, and even more particularly the portion of that bill criminalizing the use of encryption in a way which thwarts an investigation. Suppose the pieces of entire bill, before actual filing, had been publicly posted on the Internet, and there had been either a vote or at least a collection of comments about the individual proposed sections. What would have happened? That portion of the bill would have gotten flamed and rejected, with a large majority opposing it. Moreover, we would all have KNOWN that it had been rejected. At that point, if Leahy still insisted on including it, it would be tantamount to giving the 'net his middle finger, and we would have rightly lambasted Leahy, as he deserved. Moreover, we would have known that someone was pushing that part of the bill, and could reasonably insist that he is identified. But the way Leahy actually proposed it, in a package that had been put together in secret, it isn't clear how much Leahy detests our opinions, and he might actually have gotten away with foisting this on us. See the difference? An open system holds legislators to a much higher standard, which is why they don't like it and is why we should insist on it. An open system reveals to the public if their interests are being followed. An open system will allow more people to become aware of being screwed by politicians, maybe even before it happens, and it will allow them to reject legislative proposals which contain undesirable portions, particularly portions which are written into a bill despite opposition. _THAT_ could, hypothetically, become the "legislative process" someday. In fact, it SHOULD BE the legislative process. I consider the current system illegitimate to the extent (at least!) that it is biased against public participation. At 08:51 AM 8/27/96 -0400, John Raffetto wrote: >Jim -- I'm surprised by your message. Members of Congress rarely introduce >bills and say take it or leave it. Rather, by introducing a bill, they're >offering it up for public comment. After introduction, the bill is referred >to a committee, and perhaps a subcommittee, where there are hearings and the >like. The lobbyists swarm in, constituent letters roll in. Then the bill >is marked up in committee, and emerges in a revised form. > >If you want to vet a proposed piece of legislation on the Internet, then >copy the text off of THOMAS and post it... then participate in the >legislative process. > >John Raffetto > > >> >>I believe that it is particularly suspicious that these bills come into >>existance without even cursory "vetting" on the Internet. Both the Leahy >>bill and even the Burns crypto bill popped into public view without any >>indication of how they were written, or any public input on their intent and >>scope. Perhaps this "take it or leave it" practice is old hat to >>politicians, but frankly I'm disgusted at politicians' presumption that they >>can prepare a law with no identifiable input from the public. >> >>I am similarly disgusted at any organization (even if, ostensibly, acting in >>support of "net freedom") that assisted in the development of the Leahy >>crypto bill (and to some extent, even the Burns bill) because they clearly >>failed to solicit the kind of public input that such bills should >>automatically get. >> >>And in a sense, "the Net" doesn't NEED "strong supporters": what we need are >>politicians who are willing to LEAVE US ALONE! It should come as no >>surprise that the call you frequently see among net-freedom- supporters for >>new legislation is that which repeals existing restrictive laws, such as >>ITAR and censorship laws. >> >>Jim Bell >>jimbell(a)pacifier.com >> >> > > > > Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Hayek (was: Cato Institute conference on Net-regulation)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:26 AM 8/28/96, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >Senile tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) rants: >> Indeed, Hayek has had a _lot_ to do with the Cypherpunks! From "The Road to >> Serfdom" to "Law, Legislation, and Liberty," his works have exerted a >> profound influence on me, and on many others. > >But he's fucking unreadable. I plan to teach economic this semester and >make every student read Hazlitt (economics in 1 lesson). I can't force them >to read hayek (or Rothbard) because they're fucking unreadable. Shit. Well, to one who inserts "(spit)" after nearly every name he cites, and critiques Hayek as "fucking unreadable. Shit.," I suppose Hayek must indeed seem unreadable. Shit. After all, Hayek rarely writes things like: "The senile Von Mises (spit) and his Sovok Cabal plotters...." As to "forcing" your students to read Hayek, just who is in charge? If you're the instructor, they can choose to read what you tell them to read, or be unprepared on the exams you give and possibly flunk the class. What part of "Required Reading" do you or your students not understand? --Tim (spit) May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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: A daily warning regarding Timothy C. May
by DMiskell＠envirolink.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Daniel Christopher Miskell wrote: >> Timothy C. May is a lying sack of shit. >> Right. And you had to insult him through use of anonymous mail. Boy, >> you're real brave, shedding the light to the rest of the cypherworld >> in such a manner. >> Apologies for the spam, but there was no address, obviously. >> If in fact we are the only intelligent life on this planet, why the >> fuck are we in this goddamn mess? > >A. There's probably no intelligent life in the (this) universe, and the > Uncertainty Principle is probably wrong, too (i.e., there is really > no Free Will, so there are no valid answers either), -and- > >B. If you were truly intelligent, would you want to come here? I find the lack of seperators between what anon wrote, what I wrote, and what my sig said amusing. Well, I get the feeling that I am intelligent. I tested for acceptance into Mensa, and after finding out my IQ was 156, I felt I had better things to do than include myself with the 'intelligence elite'. This list is a cool spot. I find out a lot of things I didn't know about, and hear a lot of things that the media isn't going to cover, things called 'rumor' because they don't want them to be true. Who knows, maybe we are all dumb. Either way, it does no good to lament wether or not we have sufficient intelligence to be referred to as 'itelligent life.' Personally, I find that it is far more fun to keep on trucking with life, rather than debate a moot point that we have no control over. -- If in fact we are the only intelligent life on this planet, why the fuck are we in this goddamn mess? -- Find my public key on the World Wide Web -- point your browser at: http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html

1 0

Re: DL in exchange for fingerprint
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:23 PM 9/19/96, Jeff Barber wrote: >Oh joy. You no longer need to be arrested to get fingerprinted >in Georgia. On the front page of Wednesday's Atlanta Journal, under >the headline "Now you can get driver's license in minutes": ... >Just what I would have called it: a great idea. Is it true that 31 >other states take your fingerprint as part of the license application? >I feel sick. California has it, so that's what about 20 million drivers have to put up with. I'd expect all the states to have this within a few years. (Yes, I disliked being thumb-printed, but I could see no viable alternative. I'm sure Duncan has some scheme to declare himself a Botswanan exchange student, but I decided being thumb-printed was the lesser hassle.) By the way, the next rev of the California driver's license will reportedly have one's *Social Security Number* printed on the card! So much for the statement clearly printed on my card: "For social security and tax purposes -- not for identification." Paraphrasing that famous quote, just which part of "not for identification" don't they understand? (Indeed, I am asked for my SSN in many places. A few times I've refused to give it. Once the clerk just said, "Fine, I have it here on my computer anyway." Refusing to give it is probably no longer meaningful, due to massively cross-linked data bases.) Again, we desperately need an infrastructure of "credentials without identity." --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

5 4

Clickshare launches Internet's first multi-site micropaymentsservice
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 12:16:39 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: "mpay list (MIT)" <micropay(a)ai.mit.edu> From: felixk(a)panix.com (Felix Kramer) Subject: Clickshare launches Internet's first multi-site micropayments service Sender: owner-micropay(a)ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: micropay(a)ai.mit.edu Here are the first paragraphs of a press release, the rest of which can be found at: http://www.clickshare.com/pubpack/releases.html Clickshare launches Internet's first multi-site micropayments service "Internet Information Utility" delivers commerce a la carte WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass., Sept. 16 -- Clickshare Corporation's pioneering multi-site, single-ID, Internet micropayment system went live on Friday as users began clicking on -- and paying for -- information online. Purchases from Friday to Sunday by over a dozen first registrants totaled $62.60. "We're the web's first working multi-site distributed user-management and micropayment service," said Bill Densmore, Clickshare's chairman. "Now publishers can charge for valuable information on the Internet, rather than giving it away." "Now that 'The Internet's Information Utility' (sm) is up and running," said Felix Kramer, Clickshare marketing director, "we'll finally see whether people will buy information by the click." -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Felix Kramer, Marketing Director CLICKSHARE CORP. felix(a)clickshare.com Direct: 212/866-4864 www.clickshare.com Corporate: 413/458-8001 www.nlightning.com (personal) fax: 212/866-5527 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "'Bart Bucks' are not legal tender." -- Punishment, 100 times on a chalkboard, for Bart Simpson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

1 0

Re: DL in exchange for fingerprint
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> "We keep a memory bank that matches your fingerprints with your > license," [DoPS spokesman] said. "In other words, if you went to > get a new license with a false birth certificate and your > fingerprint didn't match the name, you wouldn't get a license. Totally bogus - _my_ birth certificate didn't have my fingerprints on it :-) Now, it may help stop people from getting duplicate licenses, assuming they use the same finger each time and don't have the sense to put rubber cement or ridge filler or something on their fingers first (and assuming, of course, that the system actually _checks_ the fingerprint in real time, rather than just recording it.) >Just what I would have called it: a great idea. Is it true that 31 >other states take your fingerprint as part of the license application? >I feel sick. Wouldn't be surprising; you didn't think you lived in America, did you? # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # You can get PGP software outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto

1 0

Re: Workers Paradise. /Political rant.
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"jbugden(a)smtplink.alis.ca" 17-SEP-1996 01:09:37.71 Mind trying to do 72-column or so formatting, BTW? >Canada has a single payer system and we spend about two thirds as much as t= >he >U.S. on health care as a percentage of G.N.P. We manage to insure all Canad= >ians >while about 35% of people in the U.S. have *no* health insurance. Canada also has less smoking, teenage pregnancy, and various other factors which are known to raise health insurance costs. I've seen some studies in which these _entirely_ account for the differences... and keep in mind the rate of health care inflation of the two countries (depending on the study, either the same or higher for Canada.) -Allen

1 0

Re: Judge Kozinski Responds
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"liberty(a)gate.net" "Jim Ray" 17-SEP-1996 02:14:28.24 To: IN%"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" CC: Subj: Judge Kozinski Responds >The statement about anonymous remailers was largely >accurate. I'm not sure that the fact that you (or some of >your associates) are willing to block people from getting >anonymous mail is a sufficient safeguard. Some may not be, >and it only takes one or two who do not adhere to the code >to make life miserable for the rest of us. > >We agree about the need for privacy, but I'm not at all sure >why the right to send messages anonymously trumps the >recipient's right to know who's addressing him. Getting an >anonymous message--even one that is not harassing or >threatening--is an invasion of my privacy. As for The essential problem with this viewpoint is that the right the receiver has is to ignore the message. If he doesn't want to receive anonymous messages, he should set up a mail filtration program that will do a good enough job of filtering them out. Spammed messages can be countered with Internet charging (neccessary anyway for the long-term health of the Net), as can mailbombing. That leaves individual messages that may be offensive (including, apparantly in his case, offensive by virtue of being anonymous), but if offensiveness meant someone should have the right to stop the emission of speech, that would mean the Christian Coalition would have the right to stop speech on evolution, the PC types would have the right to stop speech on genetic differences in intelligence (see Stephen Jay Gould for them on this issue - even leaving aside racial questions which are separate from the individual ones), etcetera. -Allen

1 0