December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

"Messer im Kopf"
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Messer im Kopf" is a German film made in 1978 which I highly recommend. Roughly translated its title is "Knife in the Head". It has relevance to many of the issues we have been discussing. In the late 1970s Germany was in a limited state of turmoil due to fears of "terrorist" (1) groups, particularly the Baader-Meinhoff gang. Around this time a curious incident occurred. The German government had had some success in apprehending some gang leaders. In response, the others hijacked a Lufthansa jet and demanded that the government release their friends. Four of the leaders of the gang then died in prison. The government declared these deaths to be suicides, but considerable doubt surrounds this claim. The government certainly wanted to discourage further hijacking experiments. The elimination of the gang leaders would certainly have sent a strong message. The logic is compelling. On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that the deaths were suicides intended to discredit the government. The Baader-Meinhoff gang popped up again in the late 1980s when they were suspected of having murdered the banker Alfred Herrhausen. (At that time their name had changed, but I do not remember what it was.) Their size was estimated to be about 20 active members with perhaps 3000 financial supporters. (2) Many other European trouble-making groups of the 1970s were successfully penetrated and virtually eliminated. The Baader-Meinhoff gang stands out as one which apparently solved this problem. (It is interesting that infiltration is the usual means of dealing with troublesome organizations.) The motivations of the group are unclear to me. It is widely assumed in the media that they were (or are) communists, but I have seen it suggested repeatedly that they were in fact sympathetic to the far right. (I haven't researched this. I do not know how open this question is.) "Terrorist" groups are interesting in that they generally do not have a known membership or location. Certainly, this is germane to many Cypherpunk discussions. In the late 1970s the German government considerably extended its surveillance and monitoring activities and was generally in a state of alarm regarding terrorists. Great effort was made to identify everybody. I can't say how much success they had in their stated goals, but I would love to know as it relates to some of the ideas we have been discussing. I assume the "security" infrastructure is still in place, which does not bode well for future German history. The film is set in the late 1970s and addresses many of the issues faced by Germans at that time. The main character is a scientist who is having marital troubles. His life becomes more complicated when he gets caught up in a scuffle the police are having with "suspected terrorists". He is shot - not knifed - in the head. After a long rehabilitation, he has no memory of what occurred. Every other person in the film attempts to use his ignorance for their own political or personal ends. More specifics would lessen your appreciation of the movie. More generally, you will see a portrayal of a society which is disentegrating. I found the police particularly alarming. It is not clear whether our own society is not on the same path. Some will find this heightens their interest. The grimness of institutionalized behavior comes through very strongly. Nearly every character in the film is employed directly or indirectly by the government. The film itself was funded by the German government. Yet, it is surprisingly skeptical of the government's role. It should be noted that there are no real terrorists in the film. The police and the "suspected terrorists" are playing a game of "cops and robbers" with the police holding the live ammunition. Don't think both sides don't both enjoy it! This is perhaps the most worthwhile aspect of the film. While everybody else is playing games, the main character is maimed, but the game goes on regardless. Many of has have had long discussions involving the implications of various technologies and how to effect the our kind of political change in the world. It is helpful to remember that real people are involved. The readers of this list are by no means the people who would benefit most from this lesson. "To win without fighting is best." -- Sun Tzu(?) That said, the film also gives a feeling for what it might be like to operate in a hostile domestic environment. The film is hard to get in the United States. Last I heard, you could rent it from a company in Chicago. If there is sufficient interest, it might be a good film for Cypherpunk Movie Night. An invited speaker who understands the film better than I do would be a possibility. Footnotes: (1) These groups committed acts which are typically described as "terrorist". It is unclear what the term means. When similar actions are committed by established groups, the term "terrorism" is not applied. The term originated at the time of the French revolution when some philosopher kings seized control of the government and executed a number of VIPs. The Economist published this excellent article: http://www.economist.com/issue/02-03-96/sf1.html (2) The IRA is said to have about 200 active members, which is an indication of just how much trouble a small group of people can make if they set their minds to it. Disclaimer: Some of the facts above may be slightly wrong as I am relying on memory. The gist of the text should be correct. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

5 5

Georgia Internet Law
by camcc＠abraxis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>X-Sender: rcostner(a)intergate.net >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 02:07:00 -0500 >Reply-To: Electronic Frontiers Ga Action Mailing List <ACTION(a)efga.org> >From: "Robert A. Costner" <pooh(a)efga.org> >Subject: Georgia Internet Law > >Here's some info on the HB1630 issue... > >>Return-Path: <jfaber(a)A.crl.com> >>Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 19:32:13 -0800 >>From: Joe Faber <jfaber(a)A.crl.com> >>Reply-To: joefaber(a)dwt.com >>Organization: Davis Wright Tremaine >>I have published an article on your case against the law in my firm's >>First Amendment Law Letter, if you would like to link to it. The >>article can be found at >>http://www.dwt.com/News/firstamendnews/regulation.html. >> >>Joe Faber FYI--Internet law issues Cordially, Alec PGP Fingerprint: pub 1024/41207EE5 1996/04/08 Alec McCrackin <camcc(a)abraxis.com> Key fingerprint = 09 13 E1 CB B3 0C 88 D9 D7 D4 10 F0 06 7D DF 31

2 1

Re: two bogus messages to this list
by Ryan Russell/SYBASE 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

All computers have software which capture keystrokes in a central way....we call them "keyboard drivers." Any machine you have physical access to can be compromised. Ryan ---------- Previous Message ---------- To: wombat cc: attila, cypherpunks, ichudov From: teddygee @ visi.net (Ted Garrett) @ smtp Date: 11/11/96 11:08:59 PM Subject: Re: two bogus messages to this list On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Rabid Wombat wrote: >On Mon, 11 Nov 1996 attila(a)primenet.com wrote: > >> In <199611111238.GAA17346(a)manifold.algebra.com>, on 11/11/96 >> at 06:38 AM, ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) said: >> >> >.I did not write the two messages below. I did have a small party >> >.yesterday, probably some of my guests did that... >> just goes to proof it: Microslop and Intel boxes are secure >> only when most of their parts are stored under lock and key. > >Um, not to disagree with you re Intel/Micro$loth, but most UNIX systems >can be brought up in single-user mode and the root password changed by >anyone with physical access to the system. You could end up with even >more trouble than if someone messed with your M$ box. Microsloth has, at the heart of it's system, a call which traps ALL KEYSTROKES and EVENTS. This call exists from Win32s on, and can be placed inside of a DLL which most users would have no idea was loaded. Even under NT, this DLL can be made to remain resident and trapping Keystrokes, events, and window contents. Does this just BEG to be exploited? If you give me normal user access to ANY microsloth machine, I can have most of the system's security broken down to NOTHING within a week. And I'm not even a good MS programmer! <Are my prejudices showing?> At least under UNIX, you damned well know you have to secure your system. Microsloth attempts to sell itself as a secure platform. --- "Obviously, the US Constitution isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than what we have now." - Unknown PGP key id - 0xDEACDFD1 - Full key available from pgp-public-keys(a)pgp.mit.edu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQEVAwUBMof4ac1+l8EKBK5FAQHyHQf7BpV8GBB7EEazflFHoTjsUgBrayH9ibCb IBYWUqiftuviG7TdKMg/Sj3eh69O9iMqah5lZR0bvpKZqFbeNgbMRGHnytjGvk5z cmJUQaPgNYupZlLdg0bfbnaNyjJzUYTpNIuNX/fvwUwYQDKtXquTqcoMvWl0tFSI N0PaiZEj5gsRbNCiJ15Uuzpwxn+FtYhwq92bWCWmSqLkpgn1FbC0PwzmKoEcrHpW hYICm0LLS5Pp9y846SNEcANOP66/VfAL1pMsiBCL0tLxBa+K/UcB6xnutApQ4K0P DeMkhqw3Z6fQVBAnJFGsrVJaXOvvtPdH1Lbwo1eIutbqyAaFU2FVGQ== =dru/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Not. [Was Re: Federal Reserve Bank is ILLEGAL?]
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:57 PM 11/11/96 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: >On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Doug Renner wrote: > >> article nearly head-on. However is it true that what you are saying is >> that two fundamental premises in the article you refer to as "rabid" are >> incorrect? Namely: >> >> "ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION STATES THAT CONGRESS SHALL HAVE >> THE POWER TO COIN (CREATE) MONEY AND REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF. > >The above is a true statement. Note however that "congress" cannot >operate the mint. It must -- **MUST** -- delegate this duty to the >executive branch (or someone outside the legislative branch, cf. Chadha >v. U.S.) if it wants it done. Congress is free to select the type >of agent it wants to do this. Indeed, if Congress chose to license >private mints, that would, IMHO be legal. The point here is that the >states don't have the power to coin money. But, apparently, during the 1800's states (?) and individual banks did indeed print their own currency. The way I see it, a positive statement in the Constitution that the Feds have the power to coin money does not necessarily exclude other people/banks/states/foreign countries from doing likewise. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

How many people killed by there own governments (Was: Re: a retort + a comment + a question = [RANT])
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>With regard to b), governments--primarily through the use of >their militaries--have killed, by some counts 170,000,000, men, >women and children in this century alone. Hardly the guardians >of freedom, in my opinion. Do you have a breakdown of that number? I'm working on one of my thought experiments and am looking for the appropriate stats: o THUGS V. GOVS (during times of "modern" govts. 1800+) Deaths by Govts. on "own people" US Civil War x M US Native Americans Hitler: Jews 6 M Hitler: Others 6 M Stalin: 30 M China: Cult Rev x M France: Rev x M Deaths by Thugs Murders in whole world ^^^ See to be valid, I think I'd have to including thugs all over the world (since I use genocides all over the world) but if I had the death/person US figure, I could multiply that by the whole world and have a upper bound (conservative) since US has a partcularly large amount of murderes. _______________________ Regards, In every man's heart there is a secret nerve that answers to the vibrations of beauty. -Christopher Morley Joseph Reagle http://rpcp.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

3 2

Re: pgp3
by Gary Howland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Someone suggested to me that Derek posted a draft spec for PGP 3.0. > Anyone know of the whereabouts of this document. Yes. That document has evolved to RFC 1991: 1991 I D. Atkins, W. Stallings, P. Zimmermann, "PGP Message Exchange Formats", 08/16/1996. (Pages=21) (Format=.txt)

3 2

Re: Exon Countdown Clock and farewell messages
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:59 AM 11/8/96 -0800, Michael Page wrote and Rich Graves forwarded: ... >We would attempt to send it via a Email, but the respected Senator does not >have Email. (The Irony). ... There is no irony here, Mr. Exon tried to control the internet for the very reason that he didn't understand it and one of his granddaughters did. Perhaps if he did understand the internet then he wouldn't be a threat. Remember, people fear that which they don't understand.

3 2

BizWeek speaks on Crypto
by John Fricker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.businessweek.com/1996/47/b350287.htm --j ----------------------------------- | John Fricker (jfricker(a)vertexgroup.com) | -random notes- | My PGP public key is available by sending mail with subject "send pgp key". | www.Program.com is a good programmer web site. -----------------------------------

3 2

No Subject
by Igor Chudov ＠ home 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

manifold::~==>premail -t cypherpunks(a)toad.com Chain: haystack;jam Subject: I urgently need a lot of money. Please share your money-making secrets, I am in a desperate need for cash.

5 8

Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Netly News http://www.netlynews.com/ November 11, 1996 Cypher-Censored By Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) The cypherpunks mailing list, so legend goes, coalesced around two principles: the dissemination of strong encryption and an absolute commitment to free speech. It was a kind of crypto-anarchist utopia: Here was a place where anonymity was encouraged and PGP-signed postings were the norm -- and nobody seemed to be in control. That is, until recently, when Dimitri Vulis was given the boot. After he refused to stop posting flames, rants and uninspired personal attacks, Vulis was summarily removed from the mailing list. Now, normally, when someone gets evicted from a mailing list, it excites little attention. But here was an ironic -- some would say momentous -- event: The list is run, after all, by John Gilmore, the EFF cofounder, a cypherpunk god who is famous for having once said that the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. And it was none other than Gilmore who gave Vulis the boot. The shunning of Vulis was "an act of leadership," Gilmore said. Thus began a debate over what the concept of censorship means in a forum devoted to opposing it. Did Gilmore have the right to show Vulis the virtual door? Or should he have let the ad hominem attacks continue, encouraging people to set their filters accordingly? The incident raises deeper questions about how a virtual community can prevent one person from ruining the forum for all and whether only government controls on expression can be called "censorship." Vulis, a 31-year old Russian emigre who completed a PhD in mathematics last year at the City University of New York, is described as sociable, even friendly, by people who have met him. Online, though, he's almost notorious. His .sig file, for instance, proudly points out that he's a former Kook of the Month; Vulis was also a Net-legend and even has the alt.fan.dimitri-vulis newsgroup named after him. Vulis portrays himself as a victim, but as I posted to the list last week, I disagree. Anyone who's spent any time on the 100-plus-messages-a-day list can read for themselves the kind of nasty daily messages that came from Vulis's keyboard. The list is on Gilmore's machine and he can do what he wants with it; he can moderate the postings, he can censor material, he can shut the whole thing down. By kicking off an offending user, a list owner merely exercises his property right. There's no government involvement, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. And the deleted, disgruntled user is free to start his own mailing list with different rules. But then the question is whether Gilmore should have exercised that right, especially in such an open forum. Again, I think Gilmore's actions were justified. Consider inviting someone into your home or private club. If your guest is a boor, you might ask him to leave. If your guest is an slobbish drunk of a boor, you have a responsibility to require him to leave before he ruins the evening of others. Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, runs a number of mailing lists and has kicked people off to maintain better editorial control. Volokh says that the most valuable publications are those that exercise the highest degree of editorial control. But what if your private club's express purpose is to cherish free speech? That's where the terrain gets mucky. One 'punk wrote: "For someone who espouses freedom of speech to arbitrarily censor someone is indeed hypocritical." Another called it a "big cypherpunkish move" that couldn't be condoned "even bearing in mind the inane and wearisome behaviour of Dr. Vulis." Still others said that this demonstrated that "libertarianism can't work without some measure of authoritarianism." (Libertarianism being the primordial flame war topic, the debate nearly consumed itself at this point.) Vulis told me yesterday: "I'm particularly disappointed by John Gilmore's actions. I've known him and communicated with him before. His treatment of me was rude and unprofessional and inappropriate." In posts to the mailing list, Vulis levels the additional criticism that it was "arbitrary and capricious" and that he was not notified that he would be forcibly unsubscribed. This week Vulis busied himself by saying that now Gilmore can be sued for what happens on cypherpunks, arguing that the list owner is exercising greater control and so is subject to greater liability. Of course, in this country anyone can sue for anything. But it's highly unlikely the suit would go anywhere. Solveig Bernstein, a lawyer with the Cato Institute, says: "Chances are in a defamation lawsuit he'd be treated like a publisher or bookstore owner.. They exercise some control over content and enjoy pretty broad immunity from lawsuits." For his part, Gilmore calls removing the Russian mathematician "an act of leadership." He says: "It said we've all been putting up with this guy and it's time to stop. You're not welcome here... It seemed to me that a lot of the posts on cypherpunks were missing the mark. They seemed to have an idea that their ability to speak through my machine was guaranteed by the Constitution." What does Vulis's ouster mean to the community that sprang up around this mailing list, of which he had been a member for nearly three years? Many of his peers think he did it for attention or notoriety; one longtime list-denizen declined to be interviewed for fear of encouraging him. (If that's his goal, he's already succeeded. Will Rodger from Inter@ctive Week and Lewis Koch from Upside Magazine are writing about this.) Other cypherpunks wonder why Vulis is abrasive online, yet mild-mannered in person; Gilmore likened him to "a Jekyll-and-Hyde personality." The flap comes at a time when other prominent cypherpunks are leaving, citing too many flames and too little content. Perry Metzger, another longtime member, announced last month he would start his own, moderated mailing list. The hard-core programmers have moved on. Yet the list membership has never been higher, at 1,949 direct subscribers. And the cyber-rights issues the group discusses have never been more important. Ironically, tools like anonymous remailers that the cypherpunks labored to create now make it impossible to get rid of Vulis completely. Blocking posts from remailers is unthinkable to the cypherpunks. So the embattled Russian émigré continues to read the list under a pseudonym and appears to be posting as frequently as ever. But perhaps Gilmore succeeded in part. If not more polite, Vulis's messages now are at least on-topic. ###

8 13