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

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: We removed radikal 154 from xs4all :(
by pjb＠ny.ubs.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam, you know the german government did not win this one, and i know that they did not win, my point was, will they, and other governments take this as a win and be encourgaged to press their luck with someone else. -paul > From aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk Wed Sep 25 02:45:54 1996 > Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 17:21:16 +0100 > From: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> > To: pjb(a)ny.ubs.com > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: We removed radikal 154 from xs4all :( > Content-Length: 989 > > > Paul <pjb(a)ny.ubs.com> writes: > > i was under the impression that germany's goal was to stop the distribution > > of radikal 154 by xs4all, not by 50 mirror sites. they seem to have > > accomplished their goal. do you really think that they will let a little > > thing like reason stand in their way when claiming victory? > > They lost: it is still available. If they went after another mirror > the number of mirrors would double :-) > > Someone in the German press needs to rub their noses in the fact that > they lost, say by printing a list of URLS, or just mentioning the > number of mirrors, and the different countries they are located in. > > The need to translate the quote: > > `The internet sees censorship as damage, and routes around it' > > and put that in big letters. > > Any German net freelance journalists reading? > > Adam > -- > #!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj > $/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1 > lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/) >

3 2

Stop Spammers Today!
by PhneCards＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear cypherpunks; In the last few days I have received numerous email coming from you but with fake return addresses from messages posted on newsgroups. I must have been targeted because I am a bulk emailer. Letting you know now that I am a legitimate bulk emailer compiling my list with the permission of each account holder. If this barrage of email does not cease immediately, I will be forced to take legal and maybe not so legal actions to defend myself. If you would like to discuss this further, please call me at 407-438-8892. Tim =================================================== >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >Timothy C. May wrote: >> >> At 2:10 AM 9/24/96, hallam(a)vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote: >> >> >like Markof are somewhat more responsible. This is not going to stop me >> >from producing an op-ed piece linkiing the net libertarians to >assasination >> >politics unless I hear a few more repudiations of Bell's ideas. If you >> >don't very clearly reject his murderous ideas you are going to regret it >> >just as the left regreted having the USSR or the RAF associated with them. >> >> I for one don't respond well to extortion threats, so write your damned >article. > >Seconded. > >You know, the real problem with the average blackmailer is that they >rarely give you the offer as a legal document - if we fulfil our side of >the bargain, how can we be sure he fulfils his, and doesn't change his >mind next time someone half agrees with a pro >AP/Legal-blackmail/Tax-haven/Libertarian-state/freedom-of-speech/whatever >post? We obviously need some sort of legal contract to solve this >problem, but no, that's not possible in most countries, is it?. How >convenient. Till next time Phill ... > >Gary >-- >"Of course the US Constitution isn't perfect; but it's a lot better >than what we have now." -- Unknown. > >pub 1024/C001D00D 1996/01/22 Gary Howland <gary(a)systemics.com> >Key fingerprint = 0C FB 60 61 4D 3B 24 7D 1C 89 1D BE 1F EE 09 06 > > >----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Tue Sep 24 17:53:36 1996 >Return-Path: cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com >Received: from mailhub.MyMail.Com (mailhub.mymail.com [206.247.118.1]) by >emin27.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA29223 for ><phnecards(a)aol.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 17:53:34 -0400 >Received: from toad.com by mailhub.MyMail.Com (5.x/SMI-SVR4) > id AA24368; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 15:53:31 -0600 >Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id GAA13291 for >cypherpunks-outgoing; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 06:57:24 -0700 (PDT) >Received: from smokey.systemics.com (smokey.systemics.com [193.67.124.65]) by >toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA13281 for <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>; Tue, >24 Sep 1996 06:57:12 -0700 (PDT) >Received: from kampai.systemics.com >(fLjlj5tpYpTi4i0Poa58tvhk9K+M7mOF(a)internal-mail.systemics.com >[193.67.124.74]) by smokey.systemics.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id >PAA12601; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 15:57:08 +0200 >Message-Id: <3247E8DF.FF6D5DF(a)systemics.com> >Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 15:57:51 +0200 >From: Gary Howland <gary(a)systemics.com> >Organization: Systemics Ltd. >X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.1.0-RELEASE i386) >Mime-Version: 1.0 >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Subject: Re: Hallam-Baker demands more repudiations or he'll write! >References: <ae6ca7190a021004d21c(a)[207.167.93.63]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Precedence: bulk

2 1

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

unsubscibe
by cmefford＠avwashington.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsubscibe

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

PEA_nut
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

9-25-96. WaJo reports on yesterday's suit challenging Georgia's crackerdown on the Internet, including its prohibition of anonymity. Ms. Dyson avidly supports anon, it lies. --------- http://jya.com/peanut.txt PEA_nut

1 0

Re: Hallam-Baker demands more repudiations or he'll write!
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 25 Sep 96 at 5:59, Brian Davis wrote: > I disagree that that will be the response, but you should be willing > to allow one group of people to fight fire with fire. But generally, it has been found a much better solution to fight fire with water, and this is why I am not convinced of the ideological effectiveness of AP, although I don't doubt it's operationnal effectiveness at all. I will take that sentence only slightly out-of-(specific)-context and make a still pertinent remark about it: This is *exactly* what Jim Bell, because of his opinions, envision to do with the AP system. I find that absolutely hilarious! jfa Please reply by e-mail since I am not on Cypherpunks anymore.

4 3

Re: reputation, e.g. www.ffly.com (was: Not reputation again! (Was: The Nature ofthe Cypherpunks List) )
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As Bryce addressed this to me as the primary recipient, I have to assume he's ascribing these ideas to me. At 12:19 PM 9/25/96, bryce(a)digicash.com wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >It's silly to conflate ratings of people with ratings of >people's opinions with ratings of people's ratings of etc. > > >Some of the people I work with have awful opinions on politics, >other people, music, movies, books, and food, but great opinions >on computer hardware, algorithms and programming languages. ... I never said there is going to be a simple scalar rating. In my last major post on this, several weeks ago, I even elaborated, saying that even Alice's rating of Bob, for example, would have multiple components, such as her rating of his taste in movies, his taste in restaurants, his political beliefs, his technical expertise, etc. This area is complicated enough to talk about with oversimplifying-and-then-critiqueing. These are usually called "straw man" arguments. --Tim 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."

1 0