December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

More proposals for European censorship
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fortunately, the European Parliament really doesn't have much power. I'd point out to those squeamish about child pornography that - aside from that it's the production that's the problem, not the transmission & duplication - what can be used to censor it can be used to censor everything else. Incidentally, what nonsense is meant by "social rights"? -Allen > _________________________________________________________________ > webslingerZ > _________________________________________________________________ > EU PARLIAMENT DEMANDS ACTION ON CHILD SEX > __________________________________________________________________________ > Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net > Copyright &copy 1996 Reuter Information Service > STRASBOURG, France (Sep 19, 1996 11:24 a.m. EDT) - The European > Parliament pressed the European Union on Thursday to act to curb child > sex and trafficking rings, saying the fight against sexual abuse of > children must be an "absolute priority." [...] > Euro-MPs also called for action to stop criminals using the Internet > to disseminate pornography and to deal in women and children. They > urged the European Commission to look into technical and legal > measures, at European and global level, to combat the use of the > information superhighway for criminal purposes. > They said a strong regulatory framework for controlling the networks > was needed to ensure that people's personal and social rights were > enhanced by the advent of the new technology. [...] > Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net

2 1

Stego inside encryption
by Mullen Patrick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My apologies if this shows up twice. I got an error message from my first posting. *************** I know a lot of times the idea behind steganography is to hide the fact that a secret message is in a seemingly normal file/mail/whatever. This is good for avoiding unwanted interest in your file. The benefit of not having people attempt to crack you code, added to the strength of the cryptosystem is wonderful. However, I propose this-- Don't hide that anything's encrypted! Rather than hide this fact, throw it in their face! I propose hiding an encrypted message inside another encrypted message. Set bits in specific places to data in the real message. The benefit is Oscar not only doesn't know what the crypto is, he attacks the wrong message. Hiding statistically random bits from the true message in statistically random bits from the masking message shouldn't be too hard. Granted, this scheme doesn't get you past measures designed to keep out all encrypted messages, and it surely wouldn't keep you message from generating interest, but it would be very hard to decrypt the message, especially when some algorithm is used which (seemingly) randomly selects which bits to use for the stego. Just a thought... My apologies if someone has already proposed this method. Patrick

1 0

CNET Digital Dispatch Vol. 2 No. 38
by Rick Osborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This week's c|net digital dispatch had the following top ten list. For number 8, did they mean DES or is the EDS something I'm not aware of. I figure it has to be because what does DES have to do with chat rooms? >9. TOP TEN REASONS WHY THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES WON'T TAKE >PLACE ON THE WEB > >10. Kemp would fight with Dole over who gets to > "quarterback" the keyboard. >9. Oops: Gore plugged information superhighway cable > into White House central vacuum system. >8. Perot's crack team of EDS hackers would get him > in somehow. >7. Hotwired editors say presidential candidates not > hip enough. >6. Hillary doesn't let the President in ANY chat rooms. >5. Debate commission insists: event must be on Prodigy. >4. Bill Gates owns the rights to online debates. >3. Dole's Selectric won't connect to the Net. >2. Chelsea is using the White House PC to write a > book report. >1. In cyberspace, no one can feel your pain. ____________________________________________________________ Rick Osborne osborne(a)gateway.grumman.com "The universe doesn't give you any points for doing things that are easy."

2 1

Comments on Emoney regulation
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

JYA has the complete version of this, but I wanted to make a comment that this allegedly pro-consumer group is wanting mandatory receipts - decidedly anti-privacy. Typical; Consumer Reports keeps calling for limits on what can be made available instead of making the information available and letting people decide on their own. There is also the problems associated with welfare-on-a-card - namely limits on what can be purchased, a requirement for full identity disclosures, etcetera. I'd call this effort by government also a form of the pressure-by-economics we saw with the initial Clipper proposal (leaving aside the actual agenda), namely using government purchasing to distort the market (away from anonymous digital cash, in this case). The last statement also brings up the question of why shouldn't banks move out of high-crime areas? I'd appreciate lower bank fees, and so would most people. -Allen > _________________________________________________________________ > Centura > _________________________________________________________________ > REGULATORS TURN SPOTLIGHT ON CYBERMONEY > __________________________________________________________________________ > Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net > Copyright &copy 1996 N.Y. Times News Service > (Sep 19, 1996 00:41 a.m. EDT) -- As concerns grow about electronic > money-laundering, cybercounterfeiting and bank runs on the Internet, > regulators in the United States and around the world are scurrying to > catch up with the rapid development of electronic money. [...] > Moreover, there is now no requirement that a company that issues > stored-value cards must be a bank or be regulated in any other way. > That raises the question whether these cards, if they become popular, > will become as unruly as the market for prepaid telephone cards, in > which a number of card vendors have failed to deliver the calls that > were promised. [...] > To prevent such problems, a number of other countries have decided to > require that stored-value cards be issued only by banks. > The Federal Reserve has issued proposals on whether the consumer > protections guaranteed for other electronic-funds transfers -- like > direct deposits and debit cards -- will apply to stored-value card > purchases. These protections include the requirement of receipts with > every purchase and a limit on liability if a card is lost or stolen. > The Fed has proposed that card systems that cannot hold more than $100 > and those that have no central records of how much money is on each > card be exempt from the strict consumer-protection rules. > "The Fed proposal is destroying consumer protection," said Janice > Shields, the consumer-research director for the U.S. Public Interest > Research Group in Washington. "They don't want to disclose > error-resolution procedures, and they want unlimited consumer losses." [...] > One force pushing the development of the technology, however, is the > government itself, which has mandated that by 1999 all payments to or > from government accounts must be made electronically. This may have > the most significant effect on the recipients of various welfare > programs, many of whom now do not have bank accounts that could > receive an electronic money transfer. > To deal with this, various groups of state governments are developing > special cards on which benefits payments will be stored. Recipients > will be able to use the cards to withdraw cash at automated teller > machines and to make purchases. > One of the thorniest issues is whether holders of these welfare cards > get the same protections as holders of credit and debit cards issued > by banks. State and local governments do not want to absorb the cost > of issuing refunds, for example, though some readings of the > electronic funds transfer act would require that they do. > Some are also concerned that as banks move more toward offering their > services electronically, they will have more reason to close branches > in inner-city areas. [...] > Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net

1 0