December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Los Angeles Times article on Helsingius and anon.penet.fi
by Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Gilmore wrote: > PS: I would counsel against the kind of false anonymity provided by > the Finnish server, though. Providing information under the promise > that it will "never be revealed or misused" is a lot more dangerous > than never providing it at all. E.g. "Anonymous cash" that is really > based on dossiers or account-numbers isn't anonymous at all. Even > physical cash is getting easier to trace; the British government has > been tracking money by serial numbers for years, with custom machines > in the banks, to de-anonymize Irish freedom-fighters (oops, I mean > terrorists). Anonymity is another area, like privacy, where changes > from technology can make big social differences. There is a massive difference between anonymous speech and anonymous transactions. Anonymous speech can create problems (defamation etc.) but in the main these are not problems the courts are particularly good at dealing with. In the UK the libel laws are not so much a redress for legitimate grievance than a way for a senior Tory to obtain a nice lump sum towards his pension if he should happen to be filmed handing over 5000 quid in a breifcase to a prostitute he'd never met. The "problems" encountered by the Church of Scientology demonstrate that the court process itself can be imeasurably more harmfull than any imagined grievance. Should society have laws to protect trades secrets? Probably , but not to protect the likes of the CoS. If the Internet makes such laws difficult to enforce then we should return to the original concerns that prompted society to create the laws in the first place and see if the Internet provides better was of achieving the same result. Anonymous transactions are a rather different matter. It is more difficult to argue for anonymity. The extreeme examples of Chaumian cash create considerable difficulties such as making a perfect conduit for ransom proceeds and the profits of drug trafficing. Simply ignoring these problems will result in the proponents of anonymity simply being ignored. The principle fear of the authorities appears to be terrorist rather than normal criminal activities. Terrorism is no longer limited to far off irredentist struggles that ex-patriates can harbour romantic thoughts about. The reality the the IRA is an organisation that murders children by placing a bomb in a rubbish bin outside a MacDonalds has been brought home to the suporters of Noraid through the bombings of the World Trade Center, Oaklahoma and Atlanta. If one lives in a country where there is little terrorism it is easy to imagine that people driven to extreeme actions are driven by a extreeme situation. If one is faced with the reality of terrorism one soon reaches the conclusion that its perpetrators are simply ordinary psychopaths. Having stated that terrorism is an important concern for the state it is necessary to ask whether it is necessary to restrict freedom to combat terrorism. In answering one must bear in mind that a central part of most terrorist strategies is to force the state to respond with disproportionate measures (here recent events in Chetchnya indicate that Trotsky was not widely read in the USSR). Absolutely anonymous cash may create problems, but what if it were possible to generate small quantities of "marked bills" within an otherwise anonymous system. If the circumstances under which the marked bills could be distributed were limited to a small set of tightly controlled circumstances the legitimate need of the government to oppose terrorism and organised crime could be met without imposing a Singapore style system with total monitoring. In effect what is taking place is a negotiation between two groups, the government and civil rights activists. If one side refuses to consider the needs of the other they will be marginalised. Absolutism in politics is usually a bad thing. Politics usually works through compromises. The art being to ensure that one compromises the inessential terms in order to defend the key items. In the present Presidential race the one policy area in which Clinton is potentially vulnerable is privacy. Its the one area which the Republicans could raise and claim it as their own (whether justifiable or not). The Clinton camp could not move from their current position without dropping Freeh overboard, since Freeh has run the FBI without any Ruby ridge or Waco style cockups on his watch I don't think that is likely to happen. If privacy is raised as a policy concern in this election it will reoccur in the next and both parties will have to justify their policies in terms of personal privacy as well as everything else. Just because the election is practically settled does not mean that the campaign will not affect what happens during the administration. Clinton clearly wants Gore to be his successor and is going to want to make it as easy as possible for him to win. Clinton is the kind of politician I can trust - give him an issue and I trust him to look at the opinion polls. If Dole makes any kind of headway in '96 with a privacy plank then Gore will have to have one in 2000. Phill

5 5

Snake-Oil FAQ
by wlkngowl＠unix.asb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Subject: Snake-Oil FAQ's New Maintainer From: Rob Rothenburg Walking-Owl <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> C. Matthew Curtin <cmcurtin(a)research.megasoft.com> will be taking-over the "Snake-Oil FAQ". I no longer have the time to finish (let alone maintain) it. - --Rob -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3b Charset: cp850 iQEVAwUBMjRWPATNlSxdPy6ZAQEnIwf+PXgXNNBZP7ylTfMhugeH8FuFDY/zybNb poSIWCRUhM7EEndYkuyzaTYC44aE0ltAkiN7HvaqXbExQEmEv34aYTa+u9ISabOK BOEQdgi8oCHJlQ3R6lBTMWKfpFELpORsjDJbsKt/Gcgef+uInMUG8RF7F3Va40dh CTar/Nr4Quj/EkkVaY6hkaXsMF0CvWq+cKZmo8KR0v4vPeWEKHskslfgXSpfPR9d uXYyUVD21HRSG5YTZmdm3PJn3GUvgXuQdz1pooQ+x+u8EXsOFRjAEiaFtMey2DYW imHub+XewnbS93JGZ+q+J93hHpL2OE8LMQFB8ViUe6K05uj7RBi06Q== =wMjQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Crypto Anachy MUD
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Did anyone make the point (I gave up on the thread) that we already have a great Crypto Anarchy MUD with lots of the coding already done. We call it the Internet. Digital cash, strong crypto, remailers, everything. I have never been able to figure out why anyone would want to play games on a computer in any case when the whole system is a game. Word processing, spreadsheets, telecoms -- it's all a game. And they pay you to play it. DCF

2 1

Anonymous FedEx, was: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>David Lesher wrote: >Try & mail an anonymous FedEx package. Not a problem. You merely use the FedEx number of local company. Get FedEx forms from an unmanned FedEx pick-up point, fill one in (using an impact printer, if desired, to simulate the appearance of the pre-addressed forms given to their regular customers), attach to parcel and drop it in the box (no finger prints please). Works like a charm. PGP Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Snoop Daty Data | Internet: azur(a)netcom.com Grinder | Voice: 1-702-655-2877 Sacred Cow Meat Co. | Fax: 1-702-658-2673 7075 W. Gowan Road, #2148 | Las Vegas, NV 89129 | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Just say NO to perscription DRUGS.

2 1

Re: Anonymous phone calls (was: What is the EFF doing exactly?)
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:03 PM 9/7/96 CST, roy(a)scytale.com wrote: >In Minneapolis, USWest has Telecard phones everywhere, and vending >machines with bill accepters. The calls are also flat rate at $0.25. ... >Can Telecards be audited for usage? If a TLA black-bags my $25 Telecard >from my wallet, can they reconstruct what calls I made with it? Easily. They get the card number off the card, and then check their long distance records for calls made with that card number. With some cards, you can recharge the card instead of getting new ones, if for some reason you want to increase the audit trail substantially. # 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

2 1

TWA flight 800, surface to air missles, conspiracypunks
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 11:26:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Brock N. Meeks <brock(a)well.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)eff.org> Surface to air missles do not need to make contact to explode. They have a proximity system that explodes the missle if it gets within range. Of course, sometimes the missle does hit; there is a famous story -- documented -- of an SA-2 (an old Soviet SAM) hitting an RF-4 during Viet Nam. The missle didn't explode but stuck in the plane like a dart; the pilot flew the plane back to the airfield and was told to ditch the plane when the air traffic control noticed it stuck in his plane. -- Brock

1 0

Re: talker
by pjb＠ny.ubs.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

sure sounds like it. is it possible that there could be two such as this? -paul > From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Sun Sep 8 03:04:36 1996 > X-Authentication-Warning: jekyll.piermont.com: Host perry@localhost didn't use HELO protocol > To: doom13(a)juno.com (Floyd W Odom) > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: talker > Reply-To: perry(a)piermont.com > X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission > Date: Sat, 07 Sep 1996 23:40:18 -0400 > From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com> > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Content-Length: 255 > > > Floyd W Odom writes: > > I am doom13. If there is anyone out there who is a hacker or > > would like to be one you can talk to me and find out stuff like cracking. > > Just drop a message at doom13(a)juno.com. > > Are you the same jerk who was posting a week ago? >

3 2

Re: [WAS xs4all.nl] Terrorists
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:35 AM 9/9/96 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: >Stephan Schmidt wrote: > >| One thought : How many of you would support terrorist >| web server (say Oklahoma, TWA, Iran, Lybia, RAF, IRA, ...) ? > >I've given support to at least two terrorist organization, probably >closer to five in the last year. I can't see supporting one more >would do any more harm. > >Adam And I support a terrorist organization (the US Government) every year whether I want to or not. The US was convicted of a major violation of international law (akin to terrorism) in the International Court of Justice back in the '80s for air sowing mines in Nicaragua's main harbor. DCF

2 1

CATO terrorism conference -- tomorrow @ 8:30 am, free
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

More info on tomorrow's terrorism conference at CATO is at: http://www.cato.org/events/calendar.html This is especially timely given the report that the Aviation Safety and Security Commission (chaired by Gore) sent to Clinton with 20 recommendations. One is to enact "automated passenger profiling" of all domestic travellers, which would include airline access to FBI/CIA databases. This $10 million project bans anonymous air travel and, needless to say, raises significant privacy questions. -Declan >Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 12:23:13 -0400 >Mime-Version: 1.0 >To: declan(a)well.com (Declan McCullagh) >From: Solveig Bernstein <sberns(a)cato.org> >Subject: Terrorism Conference > >Cato's Conference, *Combatting Terrorism, Preserving Freedom," scheduled for >Tuesday, September 10, 1996 is now > > >* FREEEEE* > >That's right, the registration fee of $50 has been WAIVED!!! > >Come listen to Nadine Strossen, Dorothy Denning, David Kopel, and many >others discuss terrorism, foreign policy, civil liberties, and the >telecommunications infrastructure. > >Please redistribute freely. > >Conference begins at 8:30 at 1000 Mass. Ave. > > >- Solveig >********************************************************************** >Solveig Bernstein, Esq. >(202) 789-5274 >(202) 842-3490 (fax) > >Assistant Director of Telecommunications & Technology Studies >Cato Institute >1000 Mass. Ave. NW >Washington, DC 20001 >

1 0

Re: Kiddie porn on the Internet
by Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn wrote: > > "News" stories are now circulating on radio about child pornography on > the Internet, and how an organization called "Save The Children" is > working very hard to identify the trafficers and their accomplii. > > Save The Children is complaining that they can't find all of the dirty > dealers of kid-porn, since much of the traffic is encrypted! > > So who is Save The Children? First, since they're an international > organization raising funds in the U.S., they obviously operate at the > pleasure of the State Department. Ho hum. Remember the incidents at the > Denny's restaurant chain where Denny's was sued for discrimination > against minorities? Did it seem a little bizarre for the 1990's? I'm trying to work out just what sort of confused idea is going on here. Save the Children is an international charity that is based in the UK. It is ultra respectable, Princess Ann being its president and very active in that role (ie not merely titular). Its also a-political which it has to be for tax reasons and because otherwise the royals couldn't have anything to do with it. Their main mission is sending food to Ethiopia and other famine areas, development work etc. It is ultra-worthy stuff. I think that a more rational explanation of the Dennys case is that being weasels the Dennys management decided they needed some good PR before the judgement brought them bad PR. >*** The recievers of the porn should not be punished for the photographers >action, the same as if I would complain that someone burglarized my home becuase >i left the door open. It was their ignorance that caused their loss. Its the consumers who create a market. If someone burgals your house and I knowingly buy the stolen goods its a crime. Phill

1 0