December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: The Esther Dyson Flap
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:40 PM 9/3/96, Duncan Frissell wrote: >Everyone please take a deep breath. Slow down. Reread Esther's comments. >Count to 10. Notice that nowhere does she call for state action to outlaw >anonymity. She explicitly predicted a place for anonymity in her CFP'95 >talk (is it on the Net anywhere?). We may disagree with her predictions of >the future scope of anonymity or with her concerns about the risks of the >practice but she has never called for State action. She is discussing the >problems she perceives with it. That's all. I certainly read her words, and don't need to be told to reread them just because I take them to mean she supports anonymity less than many of us would like. As I said in my message to Chuck Thompson, I held off in criticizing her "L.A. Times" words until I could get a better clarification of what she said, precisely, what was taken out of context, and what she really meant to say. When she spoke up and the result was just as ambivalent about anonymity rights, this is when I wrote my first criticism of her views. And I saw her CFP '95 talk. I've also read various of her other comments on the Net, freedom, responsibility, and anonymity. Some of her comments: * "Esther Dyson, President EDventure Holdings, Inc. said her work with the Electronic Frontier Foundation was based on the assumptions that the Internet will have a beneficial effect on society. "The longer I have been at this, the more questions I have about these assumptions," she said." (Perhaps Esther is finding the goals of the EFF--or at least the views of the other board members--are not her goals.) * "The second way to create friction is to create accountability, identity and personality. "I would like to see a world where anonymity is not illegal, but is discouraged," Dyson said. "It has its place in life, but people should have persistent identities."" (Couple with other comments about possibly requiring traceability (albeit with some legal protections), it sure does sound like her form of "discouraged" would imply a role for government.) * "This raises the issue of privacy. "I am looking at a notion of privacy for the consumer, but less privacy for companies and public office holders and others in positions of responsibility," she said." (Is this the direction the EFF is being taken in? Granted, these are her comments, but surely the views of the Chairman of the EFF affect the personality and direction of the organization.) These quotes from: http://seicenter.wharton.upenn.edu/SEIcenter/panel3.html. By the way, the Scientologists have also noted her views: "Esther Dyson, member of the board of directors of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and member of the National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council, spoke on the anonymity issue at the fifth Computers, Freedom & Privacy (CFP) conference in San Francisco. "I have a concern about the spread of bad behavior on the Net," said Dyson. "Anonymity figures into this, and I feel that it has proven to not be a positive factor. It breaks down the community which we are seeking to build, and could turn the 'big cities' of the information infrastructure into a big cesspool." "Remailers who facilitate anonymous postings are part of the problem. They can act as conduits for those who seek anonymity as a way to act illegally without getting caught; yet remailers are able to shield themselves from responsibility or liability. "Computer experts stress that anonymous users should at least be trackable by the remailers -- and that ones who act unlawfully can easily put the remailers at risk. Dyson noted that in self-regulatory schemes for almost any part of the Internet, "visibility, not anonymity, would have a strong place."" (end quote, from "Freedom," at http://www.theta.com/goodman/hijack.htm) >Remember she is from the soft left. She is not a macho-flash radical >libertarian like many of us. Save the 155 MM howitzers for the armed >opposition not for our allies. I don't know what "macho-flash" means, but I reject the label. And please spare us the "save the howitzers" comment. We talk about what concerns us. As it happens, our political opponents don't read our words, whereas a bunch of EFF board members apparently do, and so our criticisms here may cause EFF to actually confront the issue of anonymity and decide where they actually stand. --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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:53 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Stanton McCandlish wrote: > EFF in generally does not issue extremist position > statements, but is careful to examine the risks as well as the benefits, > and look for pro-liberty solutions to those risks. If the right to speak anonymously is an "extremist" position in the eyes of the EFF, then they are no friends of liberty. It is hardly an "extremist" position outside of such countries as Cuba, Iran, or China. It is the overwhelmingly mainstream position, not just among netizens, but when last heard, amongst supreme court judges and ordinary people in the street. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1

Re: [NOISE] The Doors
by Medea 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vipul wrote: > >The Doors was not only about freedom and love, but about crypto too! >Notice these lines from the song "Five to One" > >Old [cipher] gets old and young get stronger >May take a week baby, may take longer [to crack] >they've [clinton] got the guns and we've got the numbers >gonna win we will take 'em over, com'on. What?! I think you need to stop ingesting those controlled substances.... Medea ======================================== I wonder whatever happened to Jason....

1 0

Re: [NOISE] The Doors
by Jay Quinby 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:36 PM 9/3/96 +0000, you wrote: > >The Doors was not only about freedom and love, but about crypto too! >Notice these lines from the song "Five to One" > >Old [cipher] gets old and young get stronger >May take a week baby, may take longer [to crack] Actually, I think the line reads "They take our week, and make it longer." (There's a line a little later that goes "Trading your hours for a handful of dimes.") >they've [clinton] got the guns and we've got the numbers >gonna win we will take 'em over, com'on. Slightly left of topic, but it is a great song! :) Someone ought to compile a "Best of Crypto-references in pop culture" file. |--------------------------------------------------------------------------| |James R. Quinby, Atlanta, GA | PADI/153KHz-999MHz/HTML/EADBGE/Phl4:8-13 | |jquinby(a)fivepaces.com (work) | Own a 45 MPH couch potato: Adopt a | |jquinby(a)bellsouth.net (home) | greyhound today. Write for details. | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Standard disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine alone, not my employers. | |PGP Public Key fingerprint: 9ACC4C28478018E1372DC06A9452A477/MIT Keyserver| |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|

1 0

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by Jon Lebkowsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:22 AM 9/3/96 -0700, James A. Donald wrote: >At 12:53 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Stanton McCandlish wrote: >> EFF in generally does not issue extremist position >> statements, but is careful to examine the risks as well as the benefits, >> and look for pro-liberty solutions to those risks. > >If the right to speak anonymously is an "extremist" position in the eyes >of the EFF, then they are no friends of liberty. > >It is hardly an "extremist" position outside of such countries as Cuba, >Iran, or China. > >It is the overwhelmingly mainstream position, not just among netizens, >but when last heard, amongst supreme court judges and ordinary people >in the street. Not necessarily. The character of the anonymous speech is decisive. If you use anonymity to cloak harassment, for instance, the anonymity (which removes accountability) is a problem. The accountability issue is real and should be addressed, not evaded. -- Jon Lebkowsky http://www.well.com/~jonl jonl(a)hotwired.com

1 0

Reputations
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Something closely related to anonymity issues is _reputation_. As I keep saying, there have been dozens of articles on this and similar topics. Mostly in the early days, when we were exploring such things (well, some of us has started exploring them some years earlier...). Regrettably, the archive system is not very functional, especially not for older articles (there are rumors that L. Todd Masco took down the archive site due to pressure from the "Wall Street Journal" over their copyrighted articles in the archives...those Web spiders find all such copyright violations!). Here's another fragment of my Cyphernomicon, making some points about positive reputations. Briefly, think of "restaurants" when thinking about reputations. If one arrives in a new city, most restaurants may have the same baseline reputation, e.g. "none." A few may be known by name, for their "reputation," either good ("You have to eat at Louie's--the laser chicken is incredible") or bad ("Blecch!). Positive reputations and negative reputations are self-explanatory. And the reputations of others may affect the reputations of restaurants ("John Gilmore says he likes the Burma Burger on Castro Street."). Bad recommendations may affect the "reputation capital" of John, for example. (We speak of "reputation capital" because it can in some sense be "spent.") And so on. Many of the debates about anonymity seem to ignore reputations, filters, kill files. It is almost as if the critics of anonymous speech are saying "If there is not accountability for restaurant recommendations, we'll all be buried in garbage food." This ignores the _emergent order_ or _evolutionary_ nature of actors in the restaurant and restaurant evaluator market. Free speech is often messy. 98% of everything I read or hear is crap, to do Sturgeon one better. But I use judgement to decide what to read, who to listen to, and what to mostly ignore. I use _reputation_ to choose restaurants, books, movies, speakers to listen to, etc. Sometimes I listen to anonymous speech, but mostly I don't. Pseudonyms take a while to gather a "positive reputation," and some never do. This is the way speech works. "Accountability" is a red herring. Anyway, here's the promised excerpt: 15.5.5. reputations are what keep CA systems from degenerating into flamefests - digital pseudonyms mean a trail is left, kill files can be used, and people will take care about what they say - and the systems will not be truly anonymous: some people will see the same other people, allowing the development of histories and continued interactions (recall that in cases where no future interaction is exected, rudeness and flaming creeps in) + "Rumormonger" at Apple (and elsewhere) always degenerates into flames and crudities, says Johann Strandberg - but this is what reputations will partly offset 15.5.6. "brilliant pennies" scam 15.5.7. "reputation float" is how money can be pulled out of the future value of a reputation 15.5.8. Reputation-based systems and repeat business + reputations matter...this is the main basis of our economic system - repeat business....people stop doing business with those they don't trust, or who mistreat them, or those who just don't seem to be reputable - and even in centrally-controlled systems, reputations matter (can't force people to undertake some relations) - credit ratings (even for pseudonyms) matter - escrow agents, bonding, etc. - criminal systems still rely on reputations and even on honor - ironically, it is often in cases where there are restrictions on choice that the advantages of reputations are lost, as when the government bans discrimination, limits choice, or insists on determining who can do business with who + Repeat business is the most important aspect - granularity of transactions, cash flow, game-theoretic analysis of advantages of "defecting" - anytime a transaction has a value that is very large (compared to expected future profits from transactions, or on absolute basis), watch out - ideally, a series of smaller transactions are more conducive to fair trading...for example, if one gets a bad meal at a restaurant, one avoids that restaurant in the future, rather than suing (even though one can claim to have been "damaged") - issues of contract as well 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Secure anonymouse server protocol: comments please
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:24 PM 9/2/96 +0000, paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: >The following is a very sketchy plan for a secure protocol for an >anonymous server which allows replies without storing a recipient >database in the clear. Several people have talked about this sort of thing recently, inluding William Geiger, Doug Floyd, and myself. Lutz Donnerhacke's Jenaer Anonymous Service <anon(a)as-node.jena.thur.de> actually implements it (send it mail saying "help".) Rather than using a human-selected userid, it uses the PGP keyid to make IDs like anon-1a2b3c4d(a)as-node.jena.thur.de. >This system has 1 huge fault, we can encrypt a uses ID with the >servers public key to see what his ID in the encrypted database is >and therefore identify him, maybe we need two seperate server public >keys, and when IDs come in encrypted with key1 (the one it releases) >it decrypts with secretkey1 then encrypts with publickey2 (the one it >keeps secret) If you encrypt the id using raw RSA and constant padding, this is a risk. If you encrypt it using PGP, which uses a random session key, it's not. If you encrypt it using raw RSA and pad the id with a random nonce, it's also no risk. In the latter two cases, the encrypted material is different every time, so you can't compare with previous messages. The Jenaer nymserver avoids this by using a remailer approach - you send an encrypted message with a Reply-To: header telling where to send the accumulated mail (which may, of course, be another nymserver), and it delivers it using mixmaster. This frees you to send your pickup requests by anonymous remailer as well. It's still not risk-free, since if Bad Guys crack the remailer or force the operator to operate it while they monitor it, they can see pickup requests, but it's far more difficult to do that than to just steal the box, and there's no database on the box that's useful to steal. Lutz does recommend chaining your Reply-To: to another nymserver, but it's already very secure. I don't remember if he gets fancy and requires the pickup requests to be signed by the key of the owner or not; the only difficulty with this is the syntax of PGP, which is "fixed in 3.0". Hal Finney has also suggested a system that, instead of delivering anonymous email to the recipient, sends a message saying "You have anonymous mail, receipt #123456. Send back this ticket to pick it up." and you can extend the syntax to handle automatic blocking requests and automatic deliver-everything requests. This is fairly easy to extend for anonymous mailboxes and datahaven code. I've wavered between the delete-on-retrieval model, which is fine for email and not very useful for samizdat, or the delete-after-some-time-period-or-request model, which is useful for both but makes it easy for users to turn you into the local pirate-warez-and-child-pornography server. If you extend the model and charge digicash for storage, it becomes a much cleaner solution. # 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: their is a new mailing list
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > From: hack5(a)juno.com (patrick b cummings) > Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 16:14:40 EDT > their is a new mailing list for all you hackers just email your name or > handle and e-mail address and youll be subscribed > send information to hack5(a)juno.com > > Am I missing something here? Is this guy fucking crazy? =========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

2 1

No Subject
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

patrick b cummings <hack5(a)juno.com> wrote: > their is a new mailing list for all you > hackers > just email your name or handle and e-mail address and youll be subscribed > send information to hack5(a)juno.com k00l d00de.... c'mon Varney, we know its you.

1 0

No Subject
by Ben＠explorateur.quaternet.fr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

suscribe me

1 0