December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: SAY WHAT? [Assassination NOISE]
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An earlier generation of Assassination Politics set the public's stereotype view of "anarchists" for the next hundred years. Do we really want to do it again? Perhaps the public will realize that we're not lefty-anarchists, we're the Totally Unified Cypherpunk Anarcho-Capitalist Movement... Someone, probably Simon Spero <ses(a)tipper.oit.unc.edu> said: >= .Assasination politics is impossible to defend from a classical >= .Liberal/Libertarian position. Bell advocates arbitrary applications >= .of violence and coercion without restriction. There is no way to >= .justify the initiation of force without abandoning any pretence of >= .being a Libertarian (which, to be fair, Bell doesn't claim to be). Bell, like X, is proposing mechanism without built-in policy, as well as suggesting some potential policy implementations. If you use the mechanism to sponsor assassination of people who have initiated force against you, you're only using retaliatory force, not initiating it. On the other hand, the mechanism also can be used against people who haven't initiated force against the sponsor - even against politicians who have refused to get the country into misguided but popular wars or judges who have refused to convict innocent but wrong-colored defendants. Like democracy, it's a really terrible system, and like democracy, there are some alternatives that aren't worse :-) Maybe even democracy. It's at least as appalling an idea as government. If it does catch on, and I suspect that the technology will certainly make it possible, I hope that most of the public will have enough sense and decency not to pay for murdering people who don't deserve it, so assassins will find more of a market for killing people who do, and that the lower-paid assassins who kill undeserving people will be less competent and get caught like most stupid bank robbers do. But there are enough Drug-War-Loving Americans that I doubt it. And there's enough intersection between the morality-challenged and the financially-challenged fellow Americans down on their luck that some of them will take a break from robbing liquor stores for drug money to make bigger bucks serving the desires of the public that the high-tech lynch mobs will have people they can hire. Not everybody needs Mario Greymist to get some basic "work" done. Glory of the market, matching up supply and demand. And attila replied > all very true. but I will defend Jim Bell's rights to propose > them, even if Bell is more than a few cards short of a full deck. Sure, he's got the right to, and if I run a remailer again he's welcome to use it to discuss AP (though not to propose assassinations....) Doesn't mean I want to encourage this sort of thing, though. Remailers can damn well afford to be choosy, and I'll bet 5 zorkmids that the first person to use my remailer for assassination doesn't last a month. (Oh, wait...) # 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: WHO IS MAKING A MOCKERY OF WHOM?
by Marc J. Wohler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:55 PM 9/24/96 -0400, you wrote: >At 06:15 AM 9/24/96 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > >>C'punks, >>Time for another informal poll. >> >>On Mon, 23 Sep 1996, John Anonymous MacDonald wrote: >>> What a joy to make a public mockery of Tim Mayo! >> >>Do list members think Anonymous' posts make a public mockery of >>Tim May or Anonymous? Let me know whose reputation you think >>is enhanced or tarnished by these posts. I'll post a summary to >>the list in a week or two. > I vote for Anonymous. Also, it seems evident that some non-anonymous posters aka KTOM seem to understand how to *abuse* our American freedom's but don't understand about *responsible* use. Is this a deliberate attempt to damage this list or is it that some folk just can't handle freedom? M. J. Wohler

2 1

Re: Taking crypto out of the U.S.
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 24 Sep 1996 07:01:51 -0700, Dale Thorn wrote: >> Soon I am going to be going overseas to Japan, and I want to take >> my notebook with me so I can keep up with everything, however, I have >> encrypted my hard drive and usually encrypt my mail. Is this in >> violation of the ITAR to keep everything the same when I go over? >Bad enough now that many places require you to put your laptop computer >through the big gray x-ray machine (no exceptions in some places, >especially federal buildings in the U.S.), but if they start requiring >you to list individual files (?????). Very high potential for abuse here! <g> Under HPFS (OS/2's file system) each file takes a minimum of 512 bytes. On your average $200 2GB drive, that'd be around 4194304 files. I wonder if they have that much printer paper? (Particularly to handle those fully qualified filenames...) <g> Now, if you were some sort of evil-cypherpunk-hacker, you might have a hacked copy of Linux that has some really "creative" file systems (The fractal file system - 5 trillion files and counting) and puts that to shame. Even better, have something equivelent to a source-code shrouder that would go through and create a bunch of random looking file names (Was PGP 0e3ahjw2.exe or 052a6v62.obj?) In other words, I have a feeling this would fly about as far as a V-22.

4 3

ISPs' information on users
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Sender: rodney(a)pop3.pn.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 08:57:01 -0400 To: dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu From: Rodney Thayer <rodney(a)sabletech.com> Subject: ISPs' information on users Sender: bounce-dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Rodney Thayer <rodney(a)sabletech.com> Something to think about before any of us start selling Ketchup on-line via E-cash... >Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 23:53:02 -0400 >From: darius(a)world.std.com (Darius Thabit) >Subject: ISPs' information on users >Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 01:18:59 -0700 (PDT) >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: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 19:16:19 +0200 >From: steve(a)isys.hu (Steven Carlson) >To: hungary-online-announce(a)hungary.yak.net >Subject: (HOL-A) It's a Brave Old World > > ------------------------------ > Brave Old World: > Reflections on Europe in the Digital Age > by Steven Carlson; 20 Sep 1996 > ------------------------------ > > ** So Much Fuss About A Bottle Of Ketchup > > Hungarian police recently sent a fax around to the local Internet > service providers (ISPs) asking them to provide lists of their users > in Esztergom, a small town outside of Budapest. It seems somebody > had planted a bomb in a bottle of ketchup. Since everyone knows you > can download bomb-making instructions from the Internet, the police > figured they should investigate the local users. No, I'm not making > this up. > > What's more, nearly every local ISP gave the police this information. > Fortunately my company has no users in Esztergom and so that's what we > told the police. We got off lucky. Believe me, as much as might want > to make a stand for privacy of information my company is NOT eager to > do battle with the Hungarian authorities. > > But that's what it might take. Because if the Hungarian police really > understood the Internet they could have asked for even more. For > example, it would only take a few keystrokes to forward a users' mail > to the authorities. The police might also have asked for old email, > since many ISPs back this up routinely. > > But that's not all. Some ISPs run caching servers, machines that store > frequently-viewed webpages so that users access them locally rather > than across the net. An ISP's caching server could give the police a > profile of what web pages the users have been browsing. > > I'm not trying to scare anyone. My point is that sharing information > on the Internet is a two-way street. Computers keep extensive records. > Using the Internet often means you leave a trail behind you. This is > part of life in the digital age. > > This "electronic trail" is not unique to the Internet. Every time you > use a credit card you create a record in several computers. Other > computers may be storing information about you such as your medical > history, driving record, tax filings and so on. The more we rely on > computers to manage our affairs, the more information that may be "out > there." This means citizens in the digital age should know their > rights. > > Many governments already have laws to protect private information. For > example, the US has many laws restricting access to sensitive > information such as medical and credit records. You might be surprised > to know Hungary passed a law in 1991 to prevent misuse of information > associated with the national identity card. > > Yet the growth of new technologies is outpacing legislation. For > example, Holland and other countries are experimenting with "smart > road" systems that can identify the licence number of a moving car for > purposes of toll collection. Cellular phones and satellite navigation > systems can report the locations of their users. It's not difficult to > imagine how these and other technologies could be abused. > > Of course, now you know that even your local Internet provider has > access to some rather sensitive information about you. This leads me > to ask: what sort of service is your Internet provider actually > offering? > > When it comes down to it, your ISP is like your doctor, your lawyer, > your accountant or your psychiatrist. Each of these professionals > deals with your data; each profession is governed by a code of ethics, > written or implicit. Moreover these limits are codified in law. If > your accountant allowed your competitors to read the company books, > you could take him to court. > > Similarly, your Internet provider has an implicit duty to protect the > privacy of your communication. Most professionals in my industry > recognize this. I know most of the people working in Hungarian > Internet and I doubt very much that they are reading your mail or > mine. But they don't know where they stand in the eyes of the law. > > Internet professionals should certainly assist the police in a > legitimate investigation. But should every Internet user in Esztergom > be investigated just because they could (theoretically) find > bomb-making information on the Internet? > > To hammer that point home a local Internet-based magazine has > published, in Hungarian, complete bomb-making instructions: > <http://www.idg.hu/internetto/cyber/special/dinamit.htm>. In other > words, if you've read this far you may be the subject of a future > investigation. Have a nice day! > > > > ** Further Links: > > The Electronic Frontier Foundation > <http://www.eff.org> > The International Electronic Rights Server > <http://www.privacy.org> > The Electronic Privacy Information Center > <http://www.epic.org> > > ---------------------------------------------------- > Copyright (c) 1996. Permission granted to redistribute this article in > electronic form for non-profit purposes only. My byline and this message > must remain intact. Contact me <steve(a)isys.hu> for reprint rights. >----------------------------------------------------- > > > > > --- from Rodney Thayer <rodney(a)sabletech.com> +1 617 332 7292 --- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this list, send a letter to: Majordomo(a)ai.mit.edu In the body of the message, write: unsubscribe dcsb Or, to subscribe, write: subscribe dcsb If you have questions, write to me at Owner-DCSB(a)ai.mit.edu --- 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/

2 1

Lexis and Privacy - Bill approaches.
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Pressure from the FTC Which fielded hundreds of complaints about Lexis and the social security number scrap) has prompted members of the Banking Committee to add provisions to the most recent spending bills which protect personal information (including social security numbers, phone numbers, addresses, and so forth) under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This limits access to this information to credit agencies and otherwise authorized entities. (Of which I assume Lexis is not one). It's not great protection, but it's something. I urge everyone to take their own measures to protect personal data regardless of what some piece of paper on a library shelf says is protected. The only real protection is not to allow release of the data in the first place. -- I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist unicorn(a)schloss.li

2 1

An idle thought on CBC and block lengths
by Rick Osborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

So I was sitting bored at home and thinking to myself: CBC is cool. Without the key, you're screwed because a single bit error propagates throughout the entire message. But then I was thinking, yeah, but you can still eventually get the ONE key. So I began to wonder what the difference in security is between encrypting an entire M with just one K in CBC, or encrypting M with permutations of K over specific block lengths. On the one hand you've got just one key, which makes it that much harder to find in the keyspace. On the other hand, If evil interloper Eve gets her hands it, she has to find all of the keys to get all of M. (Assuming she is using brute force and can't necessarily find the master K to permute into the subkeys.) The downsides are of course that on the one side you've got just one key, and once you get it, you get M. But on the other hand, you can get any one part of the message with less difficulty because of the higher number of keys. And, of course, if your master K is easy to brute force, then it's actually worse than the first option. Does anyone have opinions / knowledge of which is better? ____________________________________________________________ Rick Osborne osborne(a)gateway.grumman.com "The universe doesn't give you any points for doing things that are easy."

1 0

Re: SAY WHAT? [Hallam-Baker demands more repudiations or he'll write!]
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:23 AM 9/25/96 -0700, Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> wrote: [snip] >I understood the intent of AP was to take powers the government is >already exercising (unconstitutionally), and merely transfer some of >them to the people, as it were. [snip] I always thought that the intent of AP was to bore me to tears and fill up my mailbox with rubbish :) Rich ______________________________________________________________________ Rich Burroughs richieb(a)teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon U.S. State Censorship Page at - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/state New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause

1 0

Re: Hallam-Baker demands more repudiations or he'll write!
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:50 PM 9/24/96 -0400, Brian Davis wrote: >On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Rich Burroughs wrote: > >> <AP stuff> >> Anyone who mistakes the lack of "repudiations" for AP on the list for some >> kind of tacit approval is not getting the whole picture, IMHO. >> >> Is this how journalists do their research nowadays -- "give me some info or >> I'll write something really bad about you that you'll regret?" Cool. I >> guess I thought there might still be some kind of pursuit of the truth >> involved. >> >> I personally don't have the time or energy to contribute to the AP threads. >> That != approval for the idea. >> >> I hope you include your above quote in your piece. >> > >Amen to that. Add that at least one lawyer (and former prosecutor) on >the list is confident that successful prosecutions will ensue is AP ever >gets off the ground. I don't doubt that there will be harassment. (you can't deny that charges would be brought even if it is tacitly agreed that no crime has been committed; "the harassment-value" of such a prosecution would be desired even if there is ultimately an acquittal.) AP will resemble, more than anything, gambling. While gambling is illegal in some areas, it is quite legal in others and there is no reason to believe that locales can't be found in which an AP system could operate legally. Make American laws apply everywhere? That'll be hard to justify, unless you want to unleash a world where an all people can be subject simultaneously to the laws of EVERY country, should they choose to enforce them! Would you like to be arrested in Red China for something you said years earlier in America about their leadership? And are you ignoring the fact that the intentional isolation of one participant from the knowledge of the actions and even the identity of the others makes opportunities for prosecution on "conspiracy" charges mighty slim. And since AP can operate across traditional jurisdictional boundaries, you're going to have to explain how you can prosecute Person A in Country B for giving a donation to an organization in Country C, to be paid to a person D in country E for correctly predicting the death of person F in country G, particularly when none of the identities of these people or countries can be easily known given a well-crafted cryptographic and message-routing system. Further, as you probably know as well as any, in order (at least, supposedly!) to get a conviction you need to prove "mens rea," or "guilty mind," and I suggest that none of the more passive participants in the AP system have that. (The ones who DON'T pick up a gun, knife, bomb, poison, etc.) Sure, they are aware that somewhere, sometime, somebody _may_ commit a crime in order to collect a lottery, but they don't know who, what, when, where, or how this will occur, if at all. (either before or after the fact!) In fact, since it is possible for a target to collect the reward himself (to be directed toward his designee, obviously) by committing suicide and "predicting" it, it isn't certain to the other participants that there has even been any sort of crime committed! Based on the mens rea requirement, I propose that there is plenty of room for most of the participants to reasonably claim that they are guilty of no crime. They have carefully shielded themselves and others from any guilty knowledge, and presumably they are entitled to protect themselves in this way. Morally, you could argue that these people are countenancing something nasty, in the same sense that somebody could equally well argue that if you buy a cheap shirt in Walmart you're partly responsible for sweatshop labor in El Salvador. True, I suppose, but moral guilt does not always translate into legal guilt. > And yes, I've read Jim Bell's manifesto. The fact >that no lawyer has dissected it from a legal standpoint has been used by >Mr. Bell as support for the propostion that it is legal. I suggest that there is a greater likelihood that the "powers that be" will just abandon all pretense of legality, and attempt to strike at the participants if they can find them without benefit of any sort of trial. This is a more plausible conclusion, because it cuts through all of the legal difficulties which would hinder prosecution. In effect, a low-level undeclared war. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

unsubscibe
by cmefford＠avwashington.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsubscibe

1 0

Re: Where to write crypto?
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I believe Taiwan might be an excellent location to have 'clear room' crypto work done. Taiwan has a very large skilled software labor pool and isn't a member of COCOM. 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 prescription DRUGS. "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." -- C.S. Lewis "Surveillence is ultimately just another form of media, and thus, potential entertainment." -- G. Beato

2 1