December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Limbaugh and "Soul Train"
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:20 PM 7/25/96, Paul S. Penrod wrote: >On Wed, 24 Jul 1996 hallam(a)Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote: >> And why did the networks put Rush on so late? Could it be that >> he did not pull in the viewers? > >Syndicated shows are scheduled by the local broadcasters. They decide >when and if to run them. It only makes sense that if you have control >over your material but are at the mercy of the broadcaster, that is not a >sound business position to remain in. As an interesting point of comparison, the program "Soul Train," featuring predominantly black music, has been in syndication for more than 25 years. And it usually aired late at night. (I learned this by watching a "Best of 'Soul Train'" program on VH1. The show's creator and director pointed out that being on at 11 p.m. or 1 a.m. made it tough for many of the show's fans to watch it.) My point? Controversial material is often shoved to the end of a programming schedule. This makes room for the "Wheel of Fortune" and "Adam-12" shows in prime time. I'm obviously not arguing for regulatory intervention in scheduling, for either Limbaugh or "Soul Train," merely noting that shows with strong-but-limited appeal often find themselves playing second fiddle to "The Dating Game." Yes, I think Limbaugh has "limited" appeal. I watched him a few times. Sometimes funny, often controversial. But mostly for "dittoheads." --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."

2 1

RE: Schelling Points, Rights, and Game Theory--Part II
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If crypto is going to become widespread, at some point it will need to enter the mainstream consciousness. We have already discussed the issue of "getting the word out" about GAK in comparison to video cameras in every home. "If people understood the issue, they would never accept GAK..." The stats on the average internet user are usually something like 85% male, US$50K average income, 30-35 years old, Univeristy education. It may come as no suprise then that Internet users as a group could have life experiences significantly different than a majority of the population. Similarily, their views may also be in the minority. On the other hand, they do hold a majority of the technological power. Revenge of the Nerds is one phrase that I have heard. tcmay(a)got.net wrote: >Even meant humorously (">;-)"), many of us would dispute the notion that >a voluntarily-taken job is a "McJob." Frankly, working at a fast-food place >is usually not a lifetime career, but is instead a [stepping stone] And what or who guarantees that this later, better job exists. Much of what I read today suggests that McJobs may become the norm for many. >>jbugden(a)alis.com >>As soon as those with power are not able to see a situation where they >>could become like those without power, there will cease to be motivation >>to maintain a "safety net" of rights or economic means to protect the >>"losers" of our society. >What are "those without power"? Can you image working at a low paying job for your entire life. I personally can't. I work hard and am doing well for myself. Like most of those here, crypto would be a benefit for me. On the other hand, unlike most of the population, I could join Mensa if I applied. My point: I'm not average and I suspect that neither are you or most of those here. How do you make the cypherpunks agenda (on the days that there is one ;-) of widespread concern to the average citizen? >The best way to help the "losers" of our economy is to allow voluntary >economic relationships to be formed. I always thought that feudalism was a voluntary economic arrangement. The vassals pledged allegiance and offered their labour while the feudal lord pledged protection. Here is where Phil could give better examples. If we are not prepared to maintain some lowest common denominator (a.k.a. safety net), what will keep our individual freedoms intact if the concerns of the "average" citizen drift unchecked towards simple survival? I'm having a hell of a time getting my e-mail read because I'm too busy shooting at the food scavengers. They killed my dog! James

1 0

Freeh Testimony 7/25/96
by Dave Banisar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is the written testimony of FBI Director Freeh before the Senate Commerce Committee on S 1726, the Pro-Code legislation. Freeh called for the adoption of an universal key escrow system that would facilitate law enforcement access.Several Senators were critical of Freeh's testimony and asked why he and the other panelists believed that savy criminals would use escrowed encryption. Others questioned the possibility to any kind of world wide agreement could be reached. Director Freeh admitted in responding to one Senator that he would seek legislation to ban non-escrow cryptography if it were not widely adopted. He said, "we are not at the point yet that volutary is not vialble. At that point, we would look at mandatory controls." He also stated that he would also ask for import controls to be imposed "if the country was flooded with foreign robust encryption." A html version of this document is available at http://www.epic.org/crypto/export_controls/freeh.html ------------ U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Office of the Director Washington, D.C 20535 STATEMENT OF LOUIS J. FREEH DIRECTOR FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ON JULY 25, 1996 BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE REGARDING IMPACT OF ENCRYPTION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for providing me with this opportunity to discuss with you an issue of extreme importance and of great concern to all of law enforcement, both domestically and abroad -- the serious threat to public safety posed by the proliferation and use of robust encryption products that do not allow for timely law enforcement access and decryption. First and foremost, the law enforcement community fully supports a balanced encryption policy that satisfies both the commercial needs of industry and law abiding individuals for robust encryption products while at the same time satisfying law enforcement's public safety needs. On the one hand, encryption is extremely beneficial when used legitimately to protect commercially sensitive information and communications. On the other, the potential use of such robust encryption products by a vast array of criminals and terrorists to conceal their criminal communications and information poses an extremely serious and, in my view, unacceptable threat to public safety. Recently, the President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police sent a letter to President Clinton expressing support for a balanced encryption policy that addresses the public safety concerns of law enforcement. Additionally, the National Sheriff's Association enacted a resolution last month also expressing their support for a balanced encryption policy and opposing any legislative efforts that would undercut the adoption of such a balanced policy. Since 1992, when AT&T announced its plan to sell a small, portable telephone device that would provide users with low-cost but robust voice encryption, public policy issues concerning encryption have increasingly has been debated in the United States. Since then, people concerned about privacy, commerce, computer security, law enforcement, national security, and public safety have participated in the dialogue regarding cryptography. On the international front, this past December, the multi-national Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) meeting in Paris, France, convened an Experts Group to draft global cryptography principles, thus reflecting an increased global interest in and concern about the use and availability of encryption that can be used to endanger a nation's public safety and national security. In addition, several Members of Congress have also joined this public discussion by introducing legislation which essentially would remove existing export controls on encryption and which would promote the widespread availability and use of any type of encryption product regardless of the impact on public safety and national security. However, the impact of these bills, should they be enacted, has not been lost on other Members of Congress as reflected in the letters to the sponsors of both Senate encryption bills by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Senators Specter and Kerrey indicated in their letters that they had concerns regarding these bills and expressed the opinion, which I fully endorse, that there is a "... need to balance U.S. economic competitiveness with the need to safeguard national security interests." To that balance, I would also add public safety and effective law enforcement. Without question, the use of strong cryptography is important if the Global Information Infrastructure (GII) is to fulfill its promise. Data must be protected -- both in transit and in storage -- if the GII is to be used for personal communications, financial transactions, medical care, the development of new intellectual property, and a virtually limitless number of other applications. Our support for robust encryption stems from a commitment to protecting privacy and commerce. But we are also mindful of our principal mission responsibilities: protecting America's public safety and national security in the myriad of criminal, terrorist, and espionage cases that confront us every day. Notwithstanding the accepted benefits of encryption, we have long argued that the proliferation of unbreakable encryption -- because of its ability to completely prevent our Nation's law enforcement agencies from understanding seized computer files and intercepted criminal communications which have been encrypted and then being able to promptly act to combat dangerous criminal, terrorist, and espionage activities as well as successfully prosecute them -- would seriously and fundamentally threaten these critical and central public safety interests. The only acceptable answer that serves all of our societal interests is to foster the use of "socially-responsible" encryption products, products that provide robust encryption, but which also permit timely law enforcement and national security access and decryption pursuant to court order or as otherwise authorized by law. Law enforcement is already beginning to encounter the harmful effects of conventional encryption in some of our most important investigations: - In the Aldrich Ames spy case, where Ames was told by his Soviet handlers to encrypt computer file information to them. - In a child pornography case, where one of the subjects used encryption in transmitting obscene and pornographic images of children over the Internet. - In a major drug-trafficking case, where one of the subjects of one of the court-ordered wiretaps used a telephone encryption device which frustrated the surveillance. - Some of the anti-Government Militia groups are now advocating the use of encryption as a means of preventing law enforcement from properly investigating them. It is important to understand, as one can see from the cases I have cited, that conventional encryption not only can prevent electronic surveillance efforts, which in terms of numbers are conducted sparingly, but it also can prevent police officers on a daily basis from conducting basic searches and seizures of computers and files. Without an ability to promptly decrypt encrypted criminal or terrorist communications and computer files, we in the law enforcement community will not be able to effectively investigate or prosecute society's most dangerous felons or, importantly, save lives in kidnappings and in numerous other life and death cases. We simply will not be able to effectively fulfill our mission of protecting the American public. In a very fundamental way, conventional encryption has the effect of upsetting the delicate legal balance of the Fourth Amendment, since when a judge issues a search warrant it will be of no practical value when this type of encryption is encountered. Constitutionally-effective search and seizure law assumes, and the American public fully expects, that with warrant in hand law enforcement officers will be able to quickly act upon seized materials to solve and prevent crimes, and that prosecutors will be able to put understandable evidence before a jury. Conventional encryption virtually destroys this centuries old legal principle. There is now an emerging opinion throughout much of the world that there is only one solution to this national and international public safety threat posed by conventional encryption -- that is, key escrow encryption. Key escrow encryption is not just the only solution; it is, in fact, a very good solution because it effectively balances fundamental societal concerns involving privacy, information security, electronic commerce, public safety, and national security. On the one hand, it permits very strong, unbreakable encryption algorithms to be used, which is essential for the growth of commerce over the GII and for privacy and information security domestically and internationally. On the other hand, it permits law enforcement and national security agencies to protect the American public from the tyranny of crime and terrorism. We believe, as do many others throughout the world, that technology should serve society, not rule it: and that technology should be designed to promote public safety, not defeat it. Key escrow encryption is that beneficial and balanced technological solution. American manufacturers that employ encryption in their hardware and software products are undoubtedly the technology leaders in the world. American industry has the capability of meeting all of society's basic needs, including public safety and national security, and we, as responsible government leaders, should be sending a clear signal to industry encouraging them to do so. Key escrow encryption is "win-win" technology for societies worldwide. I know you agree that it would be irresponsible for the United States, as the world's technology leader, to move towards the adoption of a national policy that would knowingly and consciously unleash on a widespread basis unbreakable, non-key escrow encryption products that put citizens in the U.S. and worldwide at risk. Unfortunately, in recent months, the nearly exclusive focus of the public discussion concerning the encryption issue has been on its commercial aspects, particularly with regard to removing export controls. This narrow focus ignores the very real threat that conventional, non-key escrow encryption poses both domestically and internationally to public safety. We continue actively to seek industry's cooperation, assistance, and great expertise in producing key escrow encryption products as a critical part of an overall, balanced, and comprehensive encryption policy that would logically include an appropriate relaxation of export controls for key escrow products. As for export controls, we have had ongoing discussions with industry, and industry has articulated the view that export controls needlessly hurt U.S. competitiveness overseas. But once again we need to carefully consider the facts and balance a number of competing interests. Although some strong encryption products can be found overseas, they are simply not ubiquitous, and, as of yet, they have not become embedded in the basic operating systems and applications found overseas. Importantly, when the U.S. recently let it be known that it was considering allowing the export of encryption stronger than that now permitted, several of our close allies expressed strong concerns that we would be flooding the global market with unbreakable cryptography, increasing the likelihood of its use by criminal organizations and terrorists throughout Europe and the world, and thereby imperiling the public safety in their countries. Ironically, the relaxation of export controls in the U.S. may well lead to the imposition of import controls overseas. The international implications and likely reactions of foreign governments to the U.S. unilaterally lifting such export controls must be fully considered. Given the fact that the use and availability of robust encryption is an issue of concern internationally, it is important to understand what steps other countries are taking to address these concerns. Recently, France, Russia and Israel have established domestic restrictions on the import, manufacturer, sale and use of encryption products, as not to endanger their public safety and national security. The European Union is moving towards the adoption of a key recovery-based key management infrastructure similar to that proposed for use within the United States. This plan, based upon the concept of using a "Trusted Third Party," allows for encryption keys to be escrowed with an independent but non-governmental party, thus allowing for lawful government access to such escrowed key pursuant to proper legal authority. Lastly, we have heard the oft-repeated argument that the "genie is out of the bottle," and that attempts to influence the future use of cryptography are futile. This is simply not true; and we strongly disagree. If strong, key escrow encryption products proliferates both overseas and domestically which will not interoperate (at least in the long-term) with non-key escrow products, then escrowed encryption products will become the worldwide standard and will be used by almost everyone, including the criminal elements, in countries participating in the GII. It is worth noting that we have never contended that a key escrow regime, whether voluntarily or mandatorily implemented, would prevent all criminals from obtaining non-key escrowed encryption products. But even criminals need to communicate with others nationally and internationally, including not just their criminal confederates but also legitimate organizations such as banks. Accessible, key escrow encryption products clearly will be used by most if widely available, inexpensive, easy to use, and interoperable worldwide. In closing, if one considers the broad range of public safety responsibilities that fall upon the law enforcement community, there is only one responsible course of action that we as government leaders must embark upon -- to promote socially#031#responsible encryption products, products that contain robust cryptography but which also provide for timely law enforcement access and decryption -- that is, key escrow encryption. The entire law enforcement community believes not only that the removal of export controls for encryption products that are non#031#law enforcement accessible is unwise, but that such an action would jeopardize our national security and the interests and safety of law-abiding citizens worldwide. We look forward to working with you and your staff on this difficult issue and would be pleased to answer any questions you might have. _________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Freeh Testimony 7/25/96 _________________________________________________________________________ David Banisar (Banisar(a)epic.org) * 202-544-9240 (tel) Electronic Privacy Information Center * 202-547-5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 * HTTP://www.epic.org Washington, DC 20003 * ftp/gopher/wais cpsr.org

5 5

Re: Twenty Bank Robbers -- Game theory:)
by eli+＠gs160.sp.cs.cmu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hal Finney writes: >I think the best way to approach this problem is to first try to solve >it assuming there are only two robbers rather than 20. Right. Of course, you're implicitly assuming not only that this bunch of bank robbers is rational, but that they're familiar with mathematical induction. :-> -- Eli Brandt eli+(a)cs.cmu.edu

2 1

Re: Produce 7 Hertz Frequency
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Jerome Tan wrote: > Does anyone know how to produce a 7 hertz frequency? No, but hum a few bars and we'll fake it. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

5 4

www.anonymizer.com
by mpd＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I had occasion to try www.anonymizer.com recently, and noticed that it does not make SSL connections to other Web servers, nor does it seem to accept them from the user. Is there some technical reason for this? If I wish to grep the Web without my browsing habits becoming known to someone monitoring my Net connection, https://www.anonymizer.com with 128 bit encryption would probably be a good thing to connect to. I realize that the anonymizer does perform its stated function quite nicely, namely that of preventing Web sites from collecting information on people who visit them. It just seems that this additional functionality would be useful and not particularly difficult to implement. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

1 0

INTERESTING ADS
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Today while thumbing through POLICE CHIEF magazine, I saw some ads that have at least peripheral Cypherpunk interest. Two were for mobile communications software/hardware. One even had a Web page (though when I browsed it with lynx, there wasn't anything to see). Both give direct access to NCIC, NLETS, motor vehicle records, local police databases, etc. They both make a point of saying they offer encrypted links. In the words of one, "And unlike conventional radio communications, all transmissions are totally secure and unavailable to eavesdropping perpetrators AND INQUIRING REPORTERS." (My emphasis added.) Cerulean http://www.cerulean.com 508-460-4000 Premier MDT 800-966-7722 for brochure and free demo disk. ^^^^^^^^^ The other ad was for computerized polygraph equipment. It looks like a laptop with input units for respiration, galvanic skin response and blood pressure. It uses something called the "Johns Hopkins Polyscore Analysis Algorithm. US$5,700. Axciton Systems 800-460-2645 S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: Anonymous Web Services Inc.
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Assuming your excerpt is accurate, it's either a bad joke, a scam on dumb users (possibly by equally dumb operators) or a sting. My $.02 worth. (Hey, imagine a day when eca$h for two cents is posted with a comment like that?) Rob On 26 Jul 96 at 0:17, J. Kent Hastings wrote: > Cpunx, ecashers, and others: > > Oh joy, these guys are good publicity for our side. :^( > Arghh!!! > > http://www.angelfire.com/pg1/digicrime/index.html > > Anonymous Web Services Inc. --- No-frills sig. Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help" Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com (root@magneto) AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.

5 5

Twenty Bank Robbers -- Game theory:)
by Steve Reid 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Twenty cypherpunks robbed a bank. They took 20 million bucks. Here's > how they plan to split the money: they stay in line, and the first guy > suggests how to split the money. Then they vote on his suggestion. If > 50% or more vote for his proposal, his suggestion is adopted. > Otherwise they kill the first robber and now it is the turn of guy #2 > to make another splitting proposal. Same voting rules apply. I don't know the final outcome, but I do have a couple of observations... - The person at the front of the line, making the suggestion, will always vote for his own proposal, if only to save his own life. This is obvious. - The second-to-last person is in an interesting position. If everyone before him is dead and he gets to the front of the line, he will decide that he gets _all_ of the money for himself. If there's only two people left, his own Yes vote for his own proposal makes 50% and he automatically gets all the money. This is the best possible deal for him. So, I think the second-to-last person will vote No to every proposal except his own, in an effort to force this situation. Now that I think about it, solving this 'game theory' scenario has some parallels to cryptanalysis (disclaimer: I am not a cryptanalyst). By pointing out the above properties, I've removed a couple of 'bits' from the 'search space'. ===================================================================== | Steve Reid - SysAdmin & Pres, EDM Web (http://www.edmweb.com/) | | Email: steve(a)edmweb.com Home Page: http://www.edmweb.com/steve/ | | PGP (2048/9F317269) Fingerprint: 11C89D1CD67287E68C09EC52443F8830 | | -- Disclaimer: JMHO, YMMV, TANSTAAFL, IANAL. -- | ===================================================================:)

1 0

Re: Twenty Bank Robbers -- CLARIFICATION
by David E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ichudov(a)algebra.com, cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Thu Jul 25 20:12:45 1996 > > I forgot to say what the GOALS are. The goals of every individual > cypherpunk are (in from highest to lowest priority): > > 1. Stay alive > 2. Get as much money as possible > 3. Keep as many cypherpunks alive as possible, all other things being > equal. Well, the existence of "3" changes the problem entirely, as does a system of prioritization. Under these rules, Robber 1 would propose an even split, eleven ways, and it would probably be accepted. That keeps a majority alive, and a majority get some money (~2M each). Without that, I'd tend to concur with the other answers (19 & 20 each get $10M). If we have to actually give a damn about each other... :) dave - ---- David E. Smith POB 324 Cape Girardeau MO USA 63702 dsmith(a)prairienet.org http://www.prairienet.org/~dsmith send mail of 'send pgp-key' subject for my PGP public key "I'm only a social smoker, just a few packs a day really" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Automagically signed with Pronto Secure for Windows. iQEVAwUBMfgbozVTwUKWHSsJAQE+jQf+OwCOcoyX9nyMO1ihLr/Jzzqr4c+FXDLl xWsAGKtr9Qr7afzCxeYRMjN5w5wGhSpXcNLa9oXgPlGRV0L2tH9vPvLifHWzzv7K nvOQIC8mBK6O7rbHY8koD6E32D1BQE6SiTRVo3b3L7HOceCIxeT40RvEQfhDKj7B RFaWehB4s1Aw1IdMh2rnIFpwY/vLDRx8/q8vXy6mAugOJmAvdoaeGQfbrKLIWSE0 D3X8F3O7fjQ3dda9oEE3xVhsJoRwuQ/Hcbk2eqrIomeLWSqeQO/OQl/vNHkNMAmX MrkdHNYlXZRhtwHS3mKfcli+iekFLKzXRpyhurUN8g3Ni14Q8I6BSQ== =eaX7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0