December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From hfinney(a)shell.portal.com Mon May 20 22:32:43 1996 > Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 20:33:33 -0700 > From: Hal <hfinney(a)shell.portal.com> > Message-Id: <199605210333.UAA04650(a)jobe.shell.portal.com> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com, ravage(a)ssz.com > Subject: Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns (fwd) > > I think Jim is right about the knowledge requirement, which although not > stated explicitly in the statute, has been held by the courts to be an > essential element. My point in quoting is more to show an example of the > kinds of clearly illegal postings which operators have to deal with. > The point I was trying to make was that if this position is the official position of the FBI then they are guilty of the crime because they posted the Unabomber Manifesto in toto on their webpage which is accessible inter-state.

1 0

Re: SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FAS
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 20 May 96 at 9:53, jamesd(a)echeque.com wrote: > The Australian law is (or was) based on the idea that if you charged > someone $2500 for eating the flesh of christ, it then becomes > legitimate for the government to check out whether or not the > customer was getting actual flesh of Christ. Well, although it makes for an expensive steak, it is still quite cheap considering that in the days of JC, they did not have refregirators. Must have gone to great pains to preserve the stuff! Or did I misunderstood a few things? JFA Le mur est jaune, la banane est jaune, donc la banane est mure!

1 0

Re: AP
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 20 May 96 at 14:51, Jim Ray wrote: > [He IS L.D., nobody else would say "anti-psuedospoofing."] Since I hit C'punks around 6 months ago, I have no idea who this mythical figure is, alhought I see the name pop-up occasionnally. Is there a Detweiller FAQ somewhere? > Why be Jimbellish just before an election. If AP is inevitable, OK, > but why emphasis on murder when the press hates the 'Net? The people > will support it because jimbell comes off as a LOON, and people > dislike loons, and vote against them. Interesting. Has AP ever popped-up in the conventional medias? Then, again, I know an awfull lot of people who would applaude Bell. But most of them are not computer litterate. They are from another generation, not brainwashed by "Don't ask what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country"... > I'm 35, and I may actually die before I do. I hope not. [Black humor] any AP proponents with an eye (or a buck) on you? :) > >You'll note that the psycho-epistemology necessary to > >commit murder is quite close to the one necessary to coerce poeples > >to pay taxes. > > This kind of thinking might authorize a massive Cherokee > massacre if it spread, IMO. Please, do point out the similarities and the differences... I think that the context is very different. > We must reach the "quit stealing" > phase beore nuts can fantasize about a revenge phase which > likely will never be. Are you talking of an open war a la Bosnia? > We must either leave some wrongs in the > past or be cursed with them forever. This is what I was talking about taking things out of context. Since you agree on that, the Cherokee thing is ruled out. But govt action are a matter of the present and future. Some peoples see it as legitimate self-defense. Among the peoples who do not object to be coerced to pay taxex for services are two groups the one that: a) figure out that they get more than they pay and b) want to pay, even if they realize they get less than they pay for. the a) group is much bigger than b). At least by an order of magnitude. Now, in a world where the govt would not use coercion on economical and fiscal matters, b) would keep giving. But what a) would do? What they've already done since a hundred years: push for legislation that favor them. > 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. I am not bugging you simply to do so. For example, do you think that, for ethical reasons, you are not only justified but actually *obligated* to use physical violence in certain contexts? I guess not. But many peoples think they have to... I think that you simply try to evade the necessity of defining for yourself what exactly is what the govt is doing. Personnally, I did not reach any conclusions yet. > We must, as > Libertarians, face the fact that taxation we object to is not seen > by many people as coercive. General opinion is not what define truth nor reality. If I refuse to pay my taxes, they'll use physical violence to get what they want. You might object that I enjoyed the benefits of the spending of taxes, but I am yet to see any contract that I entered with "society". > Even then, I prefer the judicial process to the oligarchy > this scheme would entail This scheme is *not* an oligarchy. Pay a visit to any good dictionary near you. Words have precise meaning and it is *much* better to stick to it... Actually, since it is ruled by money, it might be a "buckarchy", but again, everybody can spare a few bucks, so it might be a democracy too if you insist on twisting the meaning of words. > and I think I'd be an easy target for > wealthy statists, who could also use the system. At first look, of course. But operationnally, you have to consider the mind of the statist to figure out the likeliness of their using the system? I do not deny that it is very likely that a few statists will use the system. But most won't because they don't like to slain their milk cows. Remember, we are idea-processing machines. > If Bell could post > fewer times, he'd be more convincing. He is in many killfiles. JMR Many peoples cannot stand to see any opinions that differs from theirs. But why care at all be read by such peoples? DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee; Limoges porcelain, silverware and crystal JFA Technologies, R&D consultants; physists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 Unsollicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at US165 $/h Any sender of such material will be considered as to have ac- cepted the above mentionned terms.

2 1

An alternative to remailer shutdowns
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Several remailers have shut down recently. This may be in part a byproduct of the ongoing struggle between dissidents and adherents of the Church of Scientology. Also, levels of abuse seem to be increasing in general as more people come on the net and learn to use the remailers. Since by their very nature remailers prevent accountability, there is nothing to stop one or more persons from sending illegal material which will cause the remailers to be threatened by legal actions. I was contacted by the FBI on Friday due to some threatening mail which was apparently sent through my remailer. According to 18 USC 875(c), "Whoever transmits in interstate commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." I may not be able to continue operating either of my remailers (alumni.caltech.edu and shell.portal.com) for much longer due to this kind of abuse. Shutting down remailers not only reduces the number available for general use, it also causes problems for people who are using the remailers to manage pseudonyms. If their reply chains used a remailer which shuts down they have to reconstruct the chains, which is at least a nuisance. There was also a posting recently to comp.org.eff.talk by Jonathon Cline, jcline(a)trumpet.aix.calpoly.edu, about efforts to set up fully anonymous nym based mailing lists. He mentioned that the decrease in the number of remailers is causing problems with their plans. An alternative I am considering would reduce the utility of the remailer while still allowing these "consensual" uses to continue. Presently the remailers deal with abuse via "block lists", sets of addresses that mail can't be sent to. Generally these are created when someone complains about some mail they have received. By setting up blocking, at least they will not get harrassing anonymous mail once they have complained. But in some cases, as in the case that is causing me headaches now, even one message is too much. My thought is to turn the block list concept on its head, and make it a "permit list". Simply, the remailer will only send mail to people who have voluntarily indicated their willingness to receive it. Someone who has not sent in a message granting this permission will not be sent mail. For larger forums such as newsgroups and mailing lists, permission may be granted by some consensus mechanism. Most would be blocked, but a few like alt.anonymous.messages and the cypherpunks list would be permitted, and others could be added if they wished. This should hopefully essentially eliminate complaints about abuse, much more effectively than the current method of block lists. People who want to test the remailer by sending mail to themselves, as most people do when they are learning, can simply register themselves on the permit list. People who want to receive anonymous mail, or participate in anonymous mailing lists, can register themselves. People who want to use nyms can register themselves. People who run other remailers can register. It's all voluntary, and if someone does get some objectionable message at least they will know that they granted permission. They can always ask to be taken off the list. Feedback welcome - Hal Finney -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQBVAwUBMaDr2BnMLJtOy9MBAQHWBAIAlh2uIanxTnI+GBqZ1zWcBE/AgF2TtQA/ TztTYczW7FI8ktAa3WVtsUkJeIOYxUDfC2jLvhHuGMXhEPs+jVijJg== =QajL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Is Chaum's System Traceable or Untraceable?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:10 AM 5/20/96 -0700, Ian Goldberg wrote: >>So are there any flaws with above procedure? > >Yup; with the current protocols, there's no way to do change. For the shop >to pay you change, besides suddenly losing your anonymity as a payee, you >would have to go online immediately to clear the coins, which assumedly >is infeasable. > >However, if you use the "fully anonymous" protocol, change becomes trivial. >You don't have to go online; the payer (the shop) does, which it assumedly >already is. Another benefit is that coins received in this way as change >are immediately spendable by you, without having to go online in between. > >The "fully anonymous" protocol turns out to be _exactly_ what is needed >for situations like this. Wouldn't it be interesting if someday, somebody paying for something with digital cash asked the shopkeeper "Why can't you give me change for my purchase?" and the answer was, "If we could give you change, you could overthrow all the governments in the world." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Assassination politics
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

So, how would I go about betting that a certain AIDS patient in Seattle area won't have his legs broken? :-) --- Dr. Dimitri Vulis Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns (fwd)
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> > > From: Hal <hfinney(a)shell.portal.com> > > "Whoever transmits in interstate commerce any communication containing > > any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of > > another, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more > > than five years, or both." > > There should be a section in there dealing with 'knowingly'. If not then we > should immediately bring charges against any and all newspapers who have > ever printer a ransom letter, or perhaps even the Unibomber Manifesto since > there is clear evidence of 'threat to injure the person of another'. I think Jim is right about the knowledge requirement, which although not stated explicitly in the statute, has been held by the courts to be an essential element. My point in quoting is more to show an example of the kinds of clearly illegal postings which operators have to deal with. Hal

1 0

Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns (fwd)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:33 AM 5/21/96, Hal wrote: >From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> >> There should be a section in there dealing with 'knowingly'. If not then we >> should immediately bring charges against any and all newspapers who have >> ever printer a ransom letter, or perhaps even the Unibomber Manifesto since >> there is clear evidence of 'threat to injure the person of another'. > >I think Jim is right about the knowledge requirement, which although not >stated explicitly in the statute, has been held by the courts to be an >essential element. My point in quoting is more to show an example of the >kinds of clearly illegal postings which operators have to deal with. "Scienter" is the legal term for having knowledge. This is one reason we often talk about the dangers of remailers looking at what flows through their systems. Not so much to establish "common carrier" status, especially as that kind of status is just not something one sets out to establish!, but because the protection of being ignorant gets tossed out as soon as one admits to screening, or editing. This is not perfectly accurate in all situations. A bookstore owner is generally not held liable for the contents of the books in his store, even though he makes certain choices about what to carry and what not to carry. A magazine editor is more often held liable for content of articles (e.g., infringing materials, libel, etc.). We discussed this many times when I was on the Cyberia list. As best I could figure things out, the bookstore owner is excused from liability because we can't expect he'll have actually read the books in his store, even if chooses which ones to carry, but we expect that the editor of "The New Republic" has personally looked at all of the articles, or had a staff of underlings do so. BTW, I think that remailer operators don't fit either the publishing or bookstore models. While it is tempting to compare them to telephones, I think a better comparison is to *package delivery services* like the U.S. Postal Service, UPS, Federal Express, Airborne, etc. As we have discussed *so many* times (:-}), these package delivery services cooperate in various ways with law enforcement investigations, e.g., shipping of drugs by FedEx, but they are not held liable for illegal materials delivered or for crimes committed with the aid of their services. (And these delivery services DO NOT always insist on valid return addresses, in case anyone brings this up. Letters can be dropped in mailboxes, obviously, and pre-paid mailers are available. When I've used FedEx, I don't recall any checks of my identity.) --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: Remailers & what they get out of it...
by loki＠infonex.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:17 PM 5/19/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >From: IN%"ravage(a)ssz.com" "Jim Choate" 18-MAY-1996 09:43:06.96 >>To me the biggest problem with the crypto work right now is that not enough >>professionals are involved. If more remailers and such were initiated as >>a business there would be legal avenues to explore. Also, in this vain is >>the apparent lack of support for commercial ventures by developers of such >>apps as MixMaster (whose license explicity prohibits commercial use). > > It prohibits commercial use? That's silly. Is it a >holdover from when the idea was to turn Mixmaster into a company? > Mixmaster is licensed under the GNU copyleft. -Lance ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki(a)obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. Mixmaster, the next generation remailer, is now available! http://www.obscura.com/~loki/Welcome.html or FTP to obscura.com "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ----------------------------------------------------------

1 0

DOS/WINDOWS Mixmaster Client
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone know if there is a DOS or Windows version of the mixmaster client?

1 0