December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Oregon License Plate Site in the News Tonight!
by Joel McNamara 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Not all states (Washington and California, for example) will sell their DMV lists. There is a gentleman that goes by the handle of Bootleg, that does sell CD-ROM versions of said listings (my guess where the Web site got the data from). Last heard, he had Oregon, Texas, and Florida. Oregon was the bargain around $220, Florida and Texas were about $500. Try 503-325-0861 for voice (don't know if that's still current). He may be on the Net, but I don't have an address. Joel At 05:57 AM 8/8/96 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Looks like we're a little late. However, we can still grab the tape from >Oregon's DMV for $220. It would be an interesting excercise to try to get >these tapes from each state with similar provisions and put them all >online. > >Anyone want to donate server space? > >-Declan > > >http://www.spiritone.com/cgi-bin/plates > > Service has been temporarily suspended. > Don't panic, I just want to think about the situation for a while. > Stay tuned. --Aaron > >--- > > There is a very real chance that it will be turned off. That's becuase > all of the people who hate it call the TV and Radio stations, the DMV, > and their elected representitives. All of the people who love it send > me email. As much as I appreciate hearing from all of you, sending me > email doesn't let anyone else know how you feel. If you want to keep > this service going, make your voices heard. > > > >On Wed, 7 Aug 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > >> >> Cypherpunks make the news again. >> >> I'm watching the LA NBC news channel, and they report that the Oregon "look >> up any license plate" Web site is causing a flap. Though apparently legal, >> the critics admit, the Governor wants the material removed. >> >> (Sounds like a good time to mirror it on some other sites, pronto!) >> >> --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." >> >> >> >> > > >// declan(a)eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan(a)well.com // > > > >

1 0

CryptoCD
by Remo Pini 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If your interested in the upcoming CryptoCD, check out: http://www.rpini.com/crypto/cryptocd.html If you'll get one, once it's finished, mail to: mailto:cryptocd@rpini.com <hr> see you, remo pini

1 0

Babble about universal service
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I wish that people (like Phil Agre, who claims to be in favor of democracy on the Net) might get it through their heads that many - probably most - of those already on the Net have no desire to see every redneck on the planet on here, much less pay for the privilege of their being able to send inane messages to us. -Allen From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 17-JUL-1996 23:08:46.62 From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: 2 Jul 1996 17:03:29 GMT From: rh120(a)columbia.edu (Ronda Hauben) Organization: Columbia University Report 1 I just returned from a fascinating week in Montreal, Canada where I attended the INET '96 conference held by the Internet Society. I will try to write some reports about what happened at the Conference in the next week or two as it would be good to have the online community discuss some of the issues that were raised at the Conference. What became clear at the conference was that this is an important time in the development of the Internet. People from around the world attended the conference and most expressed the desire that the Internet be made available in their countries for education and scientific and other uses. Some of the focus of the conference was on business uses of the Internet, but it seemed that there was a great concern among the people I spoke to that the Internet be available for educational and scientific and government and community purposes, not just for business uses. I want to start this report however, with the last talk that was given at the conference. The final talk was to be given by Reed Hunt of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. He didn't attend however, and instead the talk was given by Blair Levin, Chief of Staff at the FCC instea. A version of the talk is available at the FCC www site. The talk was a surprise as it seemed uninformed both about the history and importance of the Internet and of the important public policy considerations that need to be taken into account when making any rules for regulating the Internet. At the beginning of the talk, there was the statement that Reed Hunt was the first FCC Chairman to have a computer on his desk, but that he asked his staff to explain how the Internet works. So instead of a commitment to learn about how the Internet developed and the significant impact it is having on the world, the speech presented us with the glib "the Internet gives us the opportunity to change all our communications policies." The problem with this is that the FCC is therefore starting from scratch, throwing out all the lessons that have helped the Internet to grow and develop, and instead, creating its own models. In his talk Blair Levin listed five principles. They were: 1) How can public policy promote expansion of band width? 2) What rules can we get rid of or have? 3) The concern with pricing. 4) How to make sure it reaches everyone, especially kids in schools. 5) How to make sure it reaches across the globe. The problem with this was that it took universal service as the 4th point, and then basically substituted access by kids in schools for the principle of universal service. During the talk Blair described how the NTIA (the National Telecommunications Information Administration) had submitted an important paper to the FCC on the issue of voice over the Internet. This made clear that the NTIA has not submitted any paper to the FCC on the issue of universal service, despite the fact that they held an online hearing on several issues, including universal service and the Internet, in November 1994 and the NTIA has done nothing to act on the broad expression of sentiment for universal service that was expressed during that online public meeting. When asked about that online meeting, Blair said that the FCC knew of the meeting. However, it seems to have had no effect on their deliberations, or on the request of people that the FCC open up their decision making process so that the people who are being affected by their decisions have a means of providing input into those decisions. In response to a question about the need for universal service Blair responded that that was the obligation of other branches of the U.S. government like the Department of Education. He said this despite the fact that at the current moment the FCC is supposedly making rules to provide for the universal service provisions of the Telecommunications Act passed by the U.S. Congress in Feb. 1996. Also, he claimed to welcome submissions into their process, but when told that it would cost over $50 to pay postage costs for a submission since there were over 35 people who had to be served (and postage on a minimal submission was $1.45), he said to see Kevin Werbach a lawyer at the FCC, who had come with him. Kevin Werbach offered no means of dealing with the high cost of making a submission. Many people at the Internet Society Conference applauded in response to the question about the lack of concern by the FCC for the principle of universal service to the Internet. At the Internet Society conference many people spoke up about the need in their countries, whether that be Canada, or Norway, or Ghana, etc. for the Net to be more widespread and available to the public for educational and community purposes. Many were concerned about the lack of ability of the so called "market forces" to provide networking access to other than corporate or well to do users. Yet here was a talk being given in the name of the Chairman of the regulatory body in the U.S. charged with making the rules to provide for universal service, and the talk was unconcerned with the important issues and problems that issue of providing universal service to the Internet raises. It is unfortunate that Reed Hunt didn't come to the conference and take the challenge to learn what the real concerns of people around the world are with regard to access to the Internet. Isolated in Washington, with no access to him possible for most people (though someone from one company told me that he was told to send him email whenever he had a concern), it seems difficult for the rules process to be able to produce any helpful outcome. There need to be open meetings and sessions where people who are concerned with these issues are invited to be heard and to discuss these issues with the FCC. Instead the process is going on behind the same closed doors that the crafting of the Telecommunications Act was created by the U.S. Congress. It is a tribute to the Internet Society that they did make an effort to invite government officials like Reed Hunt to the conference. The FCC will be setting an example for the rest of the world by the telecommunications policy rules it creates. Will the policy be one that recognizes that the so called "market" cannot provide the free or low cost access to the Internet that is necessary to make such universal service a reality? Will the rules created be based on looking back at how time sharing and the the ARPANET and the Internet developed so it can build on those lessons? To have those rules be based on firm lessons from the past and firm principles that can make them fruitful, it is necessary that the FCC process creating those rules be much more open than it is at present. If the FCC could learn from the experience of the Internet and set up newsgroups and real email access to the officials involved that would demonstrate a commitment to a more equitable access to the Internet and to the fcc rulemaking that is needed to make the Internet available to all. But from the recent talk by the FCC official presented at INET '96, there seems little indication that the need for an open process and a many to many means of communication is recognized among those at the FCC and thus there is even less evidence that the FCC is capable of making rules to apply the principle of universal service to make Internet access available to all. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hauben Teachers College Dept. of Communication Amateur Computerist Newsletter http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/acn/ WWW Music Index http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/music/ Netizens Netbook http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ Netizens Cyberstop

3 2

Re: PGP Mailer for the masses ?
by David.K.Merriman＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com, provos(a)wserver.physnet.uni-hamburg.de Date: Thu Aug 08 12:20:42 1996 > Hi! > > Due to the possibility of governments prohibiting strong cryptography > the idea to provide an easy to use mailer with addressbook > and pgp functions arose on the german krypto mailinglist. The availabilty > of an easy to use product would greatly enhance the use of cryptography > on the internet and thus getting us nearer to the point of noreturn, > that > is the point where a prohibtion of cryptography is not any longer > possible. > I can testify to the integration and effectiveness of Pronto Secure (Windows version), which I've changed over to from Eudora Pro. As near as I can tell, PGP interface is seamless. Don't know if that's what you're looking for. Dave Merriman - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- PGP Email welcome, encouraged, and PREFERRED. Visit my web site at http://www.shellback.com/p/merriman for my PGP key and fingerprint "What is the sound of one hand clapping in a forest with no one there to hear it?" I use Pronto Secure (tm) PGP-fluent Email software for Windows -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMglrIsVrTvyYOzAZAQEXIgP/eGi+VScrDU4laIc9HHRjBTGG09Et8yHb tPpXzQrvNsmmLsKqDxstUYm8K5UrmBAO0yBARueVuees4wH8zd5gh42kDjbkWa7g owR5ivjX6BEzAw4m07XlFSrhkCG+Or+/By0AM36y5G6gkgTcHBv8wj1pN+IZLPxY INbU+SmIikA= =RMrj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: F2 hash?
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>| At Defcon this year they promised to tell about some security flaws in >| SecurID tokens, anyone know more about that? > > My understanding is that the guy who was going to give the >talk had nda difficulties. Vin? Did you make it out? The talk was >going to be on race conditions, denial of service attacks, and the >like. According to Mudge (who gave the talk), he *was* going to speak specifically on SecurID, but they were harassing him or something, and was afraid of a libel suit if he spoke on it. Instead, he chose to speak on S/Key flaws, many of which are the same as SecurID flaws. All of the attacks were on the stupidity of the implementations and protocols, not on the cryptographic algorithms. Some stuff can be found at http://www.l0pht.com/~mudge . //cerridwyn//

1 0

Re: Oregon License Plate Site in the News Tonight!
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:16 PM 8/7/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: > >Cypherpunks make the news again. > >I'm watching the LA NBC news channel, and they report that the Oregon "look >up any license plate" Web site is causing a flap. Though apparently legal, >the critics admit, the Governor wants the material removed. > >(Sounds like a good time to mirror it on some other sites, pronto!) > >--Tim May No rush, Tim. I've got the whole thing on CDROM. In fact, the person who put the thing on the net got the data from me...through a friend. I bought it from a person who's been selling CDROM's of this data for a couple of years. The most recent revision (and the one that's on the 'net) is about 4 months old. So far, what's been put on the net is merely the "license plate # to address" lookup. We also have the "name to address" data... Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: A Global Village, or the future of porn on the net
by Alex F 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> At 10:00 24/07/96 +0000, Alex F wrote: > Java classes for males and females corresponding to VRML > objects. The class methods might include kissing, hugging, > spanking, restraining... > > A female object might be initialized with Hillary Clinton's face, Evangelista's > body... The thing is that most people who are into this stuff would probably view VRML graphics as too primitive to hold their interest for the sake of "stimulation." I would suspect that the people who would end up getting involved in putting Hillary/Evangelista in, ummm, compromising positions would probably do it for the humor value (not that the censor mongers won't have a fit over this anyway). When your CPU becomes the bottleneck in net connections and not the actual bandwidth, *then* some people might decide to spend the time rendering such things. However, w/ the state of things today I have yet to see a totally realistic looking rendering. You can usually tell a photo from a rendering. > many pornographic stories on Usenet, it won't be long before > famous personalities > routinely get violated in cyberspace. Talk about copyright: do > you have the right > to prevent someone from doing this to you? > I suppose slander would be some recourse, or you could copyright your likeness and use copyright violations as well. Many TV/Movie stars do this. Alex F =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Alex F alexf(a)iss.net Marketing Specialist Internet Security Systems =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

1 0

Re: TrustBucks
by TrustBuckFella 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "Robert A. Rosenberg" <hal9001(a)panix.com> writes: >I fail to see why/how the initial swap of TrustBucks(Alice) for >TrustBucks(Bob) followed by Alice returning the TrustBucks(Bob) [as >supposed payment] differs from her just paying with the TrustBucks(Alice) >in the first place [ie: He is willing to accept the TrustBucks(Alice) as >payment for the TrustBucks(Bob) that she will use to pay off her debt]. The >net result is the same - Bob has the same amount of TrustBucks(Bob) in > circulation and has an amount of TrustBucks(Alice) equal to Alice's payment > [the back and forth of the TrustBucks(Bob) is just playing "Right > Pocket/Left Pocket"]. I admit, my analysis is probably flawed and I appreciate you challenging me on it. But I think it's more complex than the net result of single transactions. The way I figure it, if Bob could accept / not accept any variety of TrustBucks, then he can manipulate what varieties he reports being able to give in order to escape debts or manipulate what varieties he reports being able to accept in order to keep debts unpaid (for interest, foreclosure, etc.) For instance, Alice is paying off her credit card, which pays Bob a big 17% interest. Bob would rather not let her off early. "Nope, we aren't accepting TrustBucks( Carol ) this week. TrustBucks( Dave )? Let me see.... hmm... nope, sorry ma'am." For instance, Alice has just eaten at Le Cafe Bob, and is about to leave. Presented with the cybercheck, she "discovers" that she hasn't got anything Bob is willing to accept. "Sorry 'bout that, Bob. Ooh, hafta run! Bye bye." So it seems to me that the simplest course is to allow payment in exactly one variety, the payee's own. Bob can't credibly claim to not trust himself. You might object that the same problem is incurred anyways in TrustBucks. If Bob refuses to trade TrustBucks( Bob ) for TrustBucks( Carol ), isn't it the same thing as refusing TrustBucks( Carol )? I think it's subtly different, though. If Bob can accept other people's currency, he need not issue any himself. He can credibly refuse early payment, since no TrustBucks( Bob ) even exist. If Bob can only accept TrustBucks( Bob ), then Alice, who reports having no TrustBucks( Bob ), can't "innocently" incur debts she finds she cannot pay. >If the value is obscured there is still no verification of how much they >have outstanding. So long as all of the TrustBucks are listed (with the >amounts listed correctly but obscured), there is no way to verify that the >claimed total is accurate unless you monitor their list before the swap and >after it and there is only one new TrustBuck listed (with the correct As I said, my mechanisms are probably suboptimal and possibly flawed. That's why initially I presented TrustBucks without extraneous mechanisms until that was objected to. However, in this case the information that is wanted is whether a certain note is outstanding or not. The sum of the list is not needed. Indeed, one could have multiple lists for multiple identities. Or so it seems to me. Come to think of it, including the value doesn't do much. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.1 iQCVAwUBMgkhuJi7GCxryNrZAQGD+wP/QuVPojsniRdqsiqSC/vnXqBp91cJIiEl p5cyd1dKfEvMcqW0BKB0sFq3dqFh7dEBsbDZeh17gfJnQ7oBvQgXRqhEHst0UOCd r3+tzE5jLr7OnW1fhxo1Q2529EcEJgDA23Rp/92j7WTjJEYkb1uu2v61Uo3x00j0 XpHdq2x9jhM= =6Onp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: PGP public key servers are NOT useful!
by Perry E. Metzger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Amnesia Anonymous Remailer writes: > The web of trust just certifies that the key belongs to someone. If > you'd read to the end of the message, you would have seen that I was > not complaining about the key certification process in PGP. At issue is > NOT whether a key can be trusted to belong to someone, but whether or > not random people should be able to tag others' PGP keys with crap. You still don't get it, do you? It doesn't matter what random idiots tag onto your key so long as there is no trust path between the user of the key and the idiot who tagged stuff on. If someone signs "grand wizard of the KKK" onto your key, what do you care if no one trusts the signator who attached the crap? > What I want to prevent is some person I dislike uploading his > signature on my key (particularly if he adds another ID to my key and > signs that). Why do you care? > How would you like it if I added a new ID to your key containing sort > of insult, certified that ID, and uploaded the new signature to the > key servers. I wouldn't give a flying rat's buttocks, because unless the signatures are widely trusted the information is noise. Perry

1 0

Re: Oregon License Plate Site in the News Tonight!
by Jim Byrd 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This appeared on AP today: ------- PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - A computer consultant who put a state list of motor vehicle records on the Internet suspended access to the site today after he was bombarded by complaints the service invaded people's privacy.

1 0