December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

algorithms for verifying U.S. IP address ...
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How does one verify that an IP address is coming from a U.S. site? How do most FTP site (e.g. those which carry crypto) determine the origins of a connection? It seems to me that if the NSA/DoS is serious about keeping crypto strong for U.S. internal use, then they would help establish a method for U.S.-only interchange of this sort of software. It is clear, however, that they do NOT have an interest in helping with this identification effort as it will thwart their own efforts at tapping U.S. (er ... oh gee ... they're NOT suppose to do that, right? okay, they must not be doing it then ...) Ern

2 1

Brain Tennis with Dorthy
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm following the Brain Tennis Match between Dorothy Denning and John Gilmore on encryption and the right to absolute privacy on Hot Wired (http://www.hotwired.com/braintennis/96/31/index0a.html) Were I a participant in this exercise, I would lob the following to Dorothy: I have to assume that Dorothy believes in absolute privacy (in some areas). I am assuming, for example, that she does not believe in torture as an interrogation technique. I assume, therefore, that she believes in absolute privacy in the individual brain. While she may support imprisonment (or the threat of imprisonment) as an interrogation technique (jailing for contempt), I think she would oppose bringing out the hot pokers. I have a wider point to make but please indulge me for a moment. The fact that many wiretapping advocates oppose torture raises a host of absolutely *fascinating* questions: 1) If it were technically possible to compel us (without pain) to disclose the contents of our mind, would Dorothy support the application of such techniques to suspects (under judicial warrants or other lawful authority)? That is, does the opposition to torture arise from squeamishness about pain or from some residual recognition of the right of personal autonomy. 2) Would those who support wiretapping but oppose torture waive their opposition to torture in certain cases. That is, if the continued existence of the United States or indeed Life on Earth were dependent on a bit of information stored in the brain of a single person, would those who countenance some invasions of privacy in the social interest allow torture in these (admittedly) rare cases? Back to the main thread: Dorothy, if you oppose torture then you have granted the validity of John's belief in absolute privacy. You are merely quibbling about where that zone of privacy ends. You might say that the zone of privacy ends at the brain but that is too narrow a range. Personal autonomy exists in the technical sense because only I command my thoughts. Only I can order my muscles to move. I can be chained and tortured and even hooked up to some sort of electrical apparatus to attempt to short circuit my muscular control and get my hand to jump but such coercion is pretty crude. If someone else wants me to dance a Waltz smoothly or write a paragraph of original material, they are going to need my cooperation (however secured). My zone of absolute privacy extends to those things I can directly control with my thoughts. This area also extends to communications. If I arrange things such that no one else can overhear me and whisper something to another person, then we both share knowledge that can only be secured by others through torture (and not always then) or through the decision of one of us to give it up. The same thought in two heads is still as much within the zone of privacy as that thought within one head. And so on multiplied by 1000. The zone of privacy arises from the inability of other people to directly command the mind of one person or a thousand persons. We have the control. Absent torture, you can't get it if we choose not to give it to you. Note that this zone already extends beyond the brain case. It travels down our nerves to the tips of our fingers and toes. We command those nerves and that wiring represents an extension of our brain. One of the things that we can do with those nerves is to use them to generate signals of various kinds. This signal generation is *also* an extension of our brain. It is under our control. If we like, we can arrange things so that no one else or only the intended recipient can know our thoughts. We have that power. We have used our zone of privacy to extend its scope. We have done (continue to do) it all from inside our brains. We have not left that sanctuary -- that fortress built by the rejection of torture by advanced societies. Therefore, if we develop the technical means to *extend* that zone of privacy beyond our heads, bodies, and those we can whisper to, you can only break the zone by the torture which you have already eschewed. The nature of the zone of privacy is not a grant from the State, it is the result of our nature as independent *actors* and our collective decision (in the West at least) to minimize the use of torture by governments. The Internet itself is an example of individual cooperation to extend communications channels from one person to many (it was built by its users). Those same users can, if they choose, use their autonomy to build in security features of their collective design. It belongs to them as their minds belong to them. It is an extension of those minds. Dorothy, you or I may not like the thoughts or communications of specific people but they have the same right to secure those thoughts and communications if they choose to. Now in reading all this, you may wonder what this has to do with key escrow and Gang of Seven (G7) crypto policy. Dorothy, as virtually the sole non-government employee who supports Clipper and SKE, I believe you to be unique in another way. I think that you can be "saved" from tyranny (which is always rough on the tyrants). Unlike the government employees on your side of the argument, you have generally not favored outlawing private use of strong crypto. We would like to separate you from them on this fundamental question of personal autonomy. The Century of Blood that the world has just lived through at the hands of its governments (160 million murdered) causes many of us to believe that some of your allies (who BTW currently include the Kingdom of the Saud and the People's Republic of China) would use torture and other very inhumane means to violate even our traditional zone of privacy. If you will merely grant to us the *morality* of our attempt to use the zone of privacy which you have granted to us to extend that zone of privacy, we will grant you an understanding of your fears of this new world (which many of us share). Please, separate yourself absolutely from the torturers. DCF

1 0

Re: FPGAs and Heat (Re: Paranoid Musings)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:39 AM 8/1/96, Scott Schryvers wrote: >This was about a year and a half ago. >I can't remember the name of it, but this chip fab industry mag was >talking about how the NSA was obtaining out side help in fabricating what >was at the time a type of ram that did processing off chip in parrallel. This was a company in Bowie, Maryland, closely linked with the NSA and with the "supercomputer centers." The idea of "processing in memory" has been explored by various companies. By the way, on the subject of using FPGAs for computers, here's a URL I found that's interesting: http://www.io.com/~guccione/HW_list.html >Side note: Wired just recently talked about IRAM or Intelligent ram, and >how it seems to be the future of high speed computation. Side side note: I worked on Intel's "iRAM," standing for "intelligent RAM," in 1980-81. It found little market success. The idea of changing the architecture of RAM bubbles up every few years, but has not yet succeeded (except in some video-specific applications). Cautionary Note: Bubble memories, laser pantography, integrated injection logic, e-beam addressed memory, neural nets, Josephson junctions.... When you've watched the industry for enough years you'll learn to cast a jaundiced eye on pronouncements that a technology is the Next Big Thing. The above list--which covers only chips, not similar Next Big Things in software--is a list of some of the things "Wired" would've hyped, had it been published back then. Most such announcements come out public relations departments at major public labs, or from over-enthusiastic VCs. Or from claims made in papers presented at the International Solid State Circuits Conference and similar conferences. Reporters seeking stories then push the story. The usual form of the press release goes something like this: "The discovery of foobartronic switches may mean chips that are ten times faster and one hundred times denser. Researchers say the foobartronic revolution could reshape the entire industry..." Few of the advances reported in "Wired" will ever see the light of day.... Some will, of course, but it's useful to remember that most of it is hype. --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."

4 4

Re: fbi, crypto, and defcon
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:13 PM 7/31/96 -0700, Cerridwyn Llewyellyn wrote: >A more cynical view is that they are there to protect some of the biggest >institutions of "organized crime" (ie: Congress, At&t, Microsoft, etc) who >are ripping people off on a daily basis from the other organizations who >refuse to play by their rules. Speaking of AT+T, as I recall one of the incidents which preceded the introduction of Clipper was the news that AT+T was going to introduce an encrypted telephone using DES as the encryption algorithm. According to the story, AT+T was "bought off" by the US government. I haven't looked into that for a couple of years, but if we're looking for co-conspirators that would be a good place to start. Also: Clipper was fabbed by VLSI Technology. A few pointed inquiries might work wonders here. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Internal Passports
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:30 AM 8/1/96, Lucky Green wrote: >At 11:12 7/31/96, Duncan Frissell wrote: >>Most Central European countries have both privacy commissioners and legal >>requirements that everyone register their addresses with the police. I'll >>do without the former if I can also avoid the latter. > >I remember a time when Privacy Commissioners were a new thing. Their >primary purpose seemed to be to sanction government access to (and keeping >of) large databases on the activities of the population. Their secondary >purpose was to prevent the private sector competition from doing the same. >Eliminating access to such data by the individual in the process. I'm with Duncan and Lucky on this one. Nations with a "Privacy Ombudsman" are almost always nations with extensive files on individuals, their habits, and their political activities. Having a "Privacy Ombudsman" is a bone thrown to the proles. I suspect a police state like Singapore has such a person. And related to the "photo I.D." discussion, most of these nations demand that passports be left at hotel desks when checking in. (At least they did when I spent 6 weeks travelling through Europe in 1983.) Perhaps the theory is that this stops people from running out on their bills, though credit cards do the same thing (*). However, the police reportedly inspect these passports and enter them into data bases to track movements. (* As the credit card companies increase their cooperation with law enforcement, a la the links between FinCEN and the Big Three credit reporters, the passports will no longer be necessary, and the process of tracking movements can be done just with the credit cards. Those without credit cards...well, they'll think of something.) Question (a la "Wired"): "When will the United States introduce an internal passport?" May: "2005, but they won't call it that." --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."

3 2

Welcome Back
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:51 AM 8/1/96 -0400, Brian Davis wrote: >Uh oh. The hell with the FAA. What about the Disney people? Michael >Eisner may sent Goofy to lean on you! > >EBD >No longer a federal prosecutor! Welcome back. I missed your posts. Do you have an honest job or are you still taking the King's Shilling? DCF

2 1

Re: A Libertine Question
by Vinnie Moscaritolo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think Bob Dole understands the needs for privacy rights for animals.. the following verbatim account of a segment of a Bob Dole appearance a week or so ago at a cotton cooperative in Bakersfield, California "My wife was here six days last week, and she'll be back next week, and she does an outstanding job. And when I'm elected, she will not be in charge of health care. Don't worry about it. Or in charge of anything else. (Muffled crowd gasp.) I didn't say that. It did sort of go through my mind. But she may have a little blood bank in the White House. But that's all right. We need it. It doesn't cost you anything. These days, it's not all you give at the White House - your blood. You have to give your file. I keep wondering if mine's down there. Or my dog. I got a dog named Leader. I'm not certain they've got a file on Leader. He's a schnauzer. I think he's been cleaned. We've had him checked by the vet but not by the FBI or the White House. He may be suspect, but in any event, we'll get into that later. Animal rights or something of that kind. But this is a very serious election." Vinnie Moscaritolo "Law - Samoan Style" http://www.vmeng.com/vinnie/ Fingerprint: 4FA3298150E404F2782501876EA2146A

1 0

IPSEC for Linux
by ichudov＠galaxy.galstar.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, Is there an implementation of IPSEC for Linux? Thanks, - Igor.

1 0

Re: CDT Policy Post 2.29 - Administration, Congress Propose Sweeping Anti-Terrorism Initiatives
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:03 AM 8/1/96 -0400, Bob Palacios wrote: > The Center for Democracy and Technology /____/ Volume 2, Number 29 > CDT POLICY POST Volume 2, Number 29 August 1, 1996 >I. NEW THREATS TO ENCRYPTION, OPPOSITION TO THE PRO-CODE BILL >The Administration's outline contains the following statement on encryption: > "* Encryption -- We will seek legislation to strengthen our ability to > prevent terrorists from coming into the possession of the technology > to encrypt their communications and data so that they are beyond the > reach of law enforcement. We oppose legislation that would eliminate > current export barriers and encouraging the proliferation of encryption > which blocks appropriate access to protect public safety and the > national security." > >While no specific legislative language has yet been proposed, this >represents the first statement by the Administration that they will seek >legislation to further restrict encryption. Even more troubling, the >Administration is clearly attempting to use the recent suspected terrorist >incidents to push for a new and more restrictive encryption policy. Even though it may be obvious to the crypto-savvy people in CP, since this press release is directed at a somewhat wider audience it would be useful to point out that none of these recent terrorist incidents involved encryption at all. >The Administration's attempt to leverage >the public's concern about terrorism to block passage of the Pro-CODE bill >is disturbing, and poses a significant threat to privacy and security on the >Internet. Same point. Unless you mention that encryption wasn't a factor at all, you risk leaving the (unsophisticated) reader with the implication that there was, indeed, some crypto angle to these incidents. Like it or not, that's the way public discourse seems to be done these days: Unless a point is specifically challenged, implicitly it is deemed ceded to the claimant. Sure, Clinton did not actually claim that encryption was a factor, but it was there by implication, and the average citizen seeing his proposals would come to that conclusion. Denying this specifically, you'd be "points ahead" and would be in a better position to shut down those trying to restrict encryption. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Blurring the Chains of Causation
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An unusual thread name, "Blurring the Chains of Causation." What I mean is this: - the U.S. legal system has been blurring, or confusing, the chain of cause-and-effect in crimes - Example: allowing suits by insurance companies and states against tobacco companies. A smoker gets cancer by his actions, and it used to be that this was his action, his responsibility. Now, we hold tobacco companies liable, and perhaps will someday hold executives of these companies criminally liable. (This for a product which is not illegal, mind you.) (There are a bunch of related examples. "Civil liability" is a major way this blurring is happening. Gun manufacturers being sued for crimes committed with their guns, ladder makers sued by the families of criminals who leaned ladders up against electrified fences, and so on. How long before a bookstore is sued for "allowing" a book to be bought by someone who later is "inspired" to commit a crime--actually, John Grisham ("The Firm") is involved in a lawsuit against Oliver Stone for his film, "Natural Born Killers," which Grisham claims "inspired" a murder. This has got to stop, in my opinion.) - "They made me do it" defenses. Hostess Twinkies are implicated in the brutal murder of San Francisco's mayor and a city councilman. Childhood abuse is exculpatory in other cases. Psychobabblers blather about what caused people to behave as they did. A mass murderer says pornography made him kill 25 women. A lawyer claims his client's son committed suicide after listening to heavy metal music. And so it goes. This blurring has links to cryptography, bomb-making instructions on the Net, availability of porn on the Net, and many other things. To cut to the chase: - a librarian who "allows" a person to check out "The Anarchist Cookbook" is *not* causing a crime, though much of the rhetoric one hears is otherwise. - the _author_ of that book (Powell, allegedly) is *also* not causing a crime. - the _publishers_ of that book (Lyle Stuart, as I recall--my copy is not handy) also have not committed any crime To make things clear, some of the language being proposed in the rush-to-law about anti-terrorism, wiretapping, anti-encryption, etc. As Sen. Feinstein puts it, "We hope we can wrap up the repeal of the Bill of Rights and have it on President Clinton's desk before the close of the Olympics on Sunday." :-( - if I _advocate_ strong crytography, avoidance of taxes, undermining of government power, crypto anarchy, etc., I have not committed any crime (Caveat: advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government apparently is a crime, as are certain forms of conspiracy, a la RICO, tax evasion, etc.) - if I _use_ strong cryptography, I have not committed any crime, ipso facto, nor am I necessarily conspiring to commit any crime And so on. Many of the proposed restrictions seek to further blur this chain of causation, by making someone who provides access to materials which _may_ later be used in a crime, or which may "inspire" someone to crime, a kind of criminal. The trend picked up steam with the "deep pockets" precedents in the 70s (*), was fed by the blame-passing psychobabble of the same decade, and has now reached its present state by a willingness of the courts to hear such cases. People who actually commit real crimes are the criminals, not those who sold them Hostess Twinkies without first checking their blood sugar level. Not those who let a library patron look at a "dangerous" book. And not those who provided strong cryptographic tools which _might_ be used by terrorists, pedophiles, and money launderers. --Tim May (* "deep pockets" -- If there are N parties in a lawsuit, and one of them shares only 5% of the (putative) blame but has 95% of the overall assets, go after the party with the "deepest pockets." This forced Cessna and Piper, the leading light aircraft firms at one time, to stop selling light aircraft. The example with Oliver Stone being sued is a clear case of this.) 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