December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Remailer Abuse Solutions
by Hal Finney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I had a similar thought a few months ago. Actually with DigiCash there is a specially nice feature from the point of view of the remailer. Suppose the cash is embedded in the message headers itself. The remailer receives the message with the cash in it, turns it in at the bank to make sure it is good, and withdraws a new blinded coin which it sticks in the headers of the outgoing message. The eventual recipient of that message can then have his software turn in that coin and if it is good that raises the priority of the message for him to read. The nice thing is that if the recipient doesn't have the DigiCash software, he will never cash the coin. That means that the remailer can, after a delay, reclaim uncashed coins for its own use. It doesn't have to charge postage explicitly, but it benefits as a middleman from unclaimed postage. This would also of course encourage people to learn to use digital cash so they could take advantage of these pennies from heaven in their mailboxes. Hal

1 0

Validating SSNs
by putney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>At 4:13 PM 11/13/96, Black Unicorn wrote: >>Exercise for the reader: How does the bank verify SSNs? >OK, I'll bite. >My guess is that the bank sticks the SSN in a report to the IRS and the >bank is happy with the SSN as long as the IRS doesn't complain about it. >Now, does the IRS check? I suspect that they don't, either. Their objective >is to look for "matches" with SSNs that show up on filed tax forms, since >they want to verify the data on the tax form. Given the behavior of every >other large database I've ever seen, I'd guess that there would be a huge >number of SSNs that don't in fact associate with tax forms. If someone High >Up hasn't decreed that they should chase such things down (and allocated >heaps of money to do it), they'll ignore the mismatches. >This seems consistent with the reports of people who use bogus SSNs for >decades at a time. >Rick. >smith(a)sctc.com Yup - You've got it right. A bank's responsibility is to make the SSN match on tape with what the IRS has - thats it. It was part of the big stink in the 80's when congress first said that all banks had to withhold on all interest, the banks yelled, and then the SSN match program was instituted. There are significant fines for banks that do not follow up on mis-matches, or do not begin "back-up" withholding. One person is no big deal, but they add up fast! The IRS's job is to collect income so if the number matches with a filing then a-okay! Yo. Putney

2 1

Cypherpunks Shooting Club II
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Last Sunday, only four Cypherpunks participated in the first field trip organized by the Cypherpunks Shooting Club. Though I dare say that we had loads of fun. Anybody interested in participating next Sunday is encouraged to contact me. A wide range of firearms will be provided. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred Member JPFO. "America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization"

1 0

Re: A Disservice to Mr. Bell
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:19 PM 11/13/96 -0500, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: >Jim Bell writes > >> There are, I think, two reasons that the equity court system (and their >> sleazy lawyers, both on and off the bench) are worried. First, what they >> have now is, effectively, a monopoly on "justice." The re-emergence of >> commonlaw courts would provide competition that has been long gone. >Think >> of it like any monopoly that suddenly has to accept competition. > >A bunch of self selected whackos running a kangeroo court does not mark a >return to "commonlaw courts". As for the "self-selected" issue: In almost all areas of human endeavor, things are (often? usually?) done by people who are "self-selected." I suggest that there is simply no reason that even "self-selected" courts cannot work. And for the "wacko" part: To a great extent, the people who would tend to oppose the re-emergence of commonlaw courts are those who are the ones who most benefit from the monopoly (oligopoly?) on justice which has developed over many decades. Judges, prosecutors, and lawyers of course profit directly. But psychologically, people wedded to a statist philosophy would have their precious worlds overturned. They're not happy. Also: The reason for an (apparent, implied) association with extremism is, simply, because the system has been suppressed (actively or passively) for so long that it tends to be the "extremists" which most notice the possibilities of a commonlaw court. This is quite analogous with the fact that the label "extremists" was almost certainly applied to the revolutionaries who proposed the American Revolution, the abolition of slavery, giving the vote to women, pushed civil rights in the US during the 50's and 60's, etc. By definition, people proposing a change in the status quo are "extremists," if they weren't they wouldn't be proposing a change, huh?!? And this goes back to the "self-selected" issue above as well. While the main work of commonlaw courts, today, is the reversal of the abuses of the equity court system, as the commonlaw courts become once again well accepted they will simply not need to stand out and look "extreme" as they may look to you, today. > Such courts do not exist within the constitution >of the United States. Unlike the UK the US has a written constitution, if >it isn't written down on paper then it does not exist. You're obviously confused. 1. Commonlaw courts predate the US Constitution by a few hundred years. The former does not depend on the latter for authority or credibility. 2. The US Constitution is, at most, a statement of the authority of the FEDERAL portion of government. It is, arguably, only a statement of the powers granted to the Feds by the people; it is most certainly not intended to be a statement of every right retained by the people. (In fact, the 9th and 10th amendments make it clear that non-enumerated rights exist.) No authority over commonlaw courts (such as appointing judges) was given to the Feds by the people. 3. The Federal Constitution only references states, and I don't think it references state Constitutions at all. Yet clearly state Constitutions exist. Clearly, it isn't correct to say "if it isn't written down on paper then it does not exist." For example, people are not "written down on paper," yet they exist... > The structure of the courts, You should have said, SOME courts. Not "the courts," implying ALL the courts. Notice that the US Federal Constitution (at least, to my recollection) does not describe or regulate state courts, or for that matter local courts. Just Federal, which is as was intended. Given this, there is no reason to assume that commonlaw courts need to be described, authorized, or regulated by the Feds. If your argument is, "if it isn't defined by the Federal Constitution it doesn't exist," then you'd just destroyed your own argument. >the legislature and such was the principle task of the constitution, >that is why the bill of rights is a set of ammendments - they were an >afterthought. This has absolutely nothing to do with the commonlaw court system. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

The Key for the IPG 200 Megabytes at NETPRIVACY.COM
by wichita＠cyberstation.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In response to the numerous requests for us to post the key that we used to produce the almost 200 megabytes of raw encryptor stream at our web site, we are pleased to provide the ASCII values of same as follows: OFFSET 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 237 55 181 123 98 190 172 218 32 95 1 76 254 70 151 109 109 115 87 146 142 2 233 129 176 197 154 22 122 168 96 9 3 115 234 241 54 78 120 81 33 128 196 4 177 8 69 53 71 116 0 245 126 158 5 29 239 80 219 86 236 193 50 7 31 6 84 188 5 215 175 213 222 4 180 144 7 187 162 205 215 60 144 120 75 195 66 8 178 81 212 56 123 177 189 113 101 91 9 211 194 48 171 17 64 197 118 148 24 10 32 67 114 171 26 131 19 149 121 32 11 235 112 114 45 28 80 37 142 138 15 12 229 228 155 214 66 246 174 195 224 215 13 116 233 106 209 66 233 175 229 244 245 14 74 81 136 163 100 21 114 240 48 184 15 124 151 145 74 34 33 14 70 132 37 16 82 253 70 97 72 20 106 41 162 30 17 136 18 105 227 219 232 121 49 119 218 18 6 97 193 180 228 204 92 158 116 222 19 145 91 34 200 199 235 178 116 103 196 20 79 104 90 22 69 212 91 65 171 133 21 92 208 76 127 37 83 92 140 27 249 22 229 22 132 205 5 67 203 8 196 141 23 136 80 68 156 228 38 254 97 170 179 24 43 152 124 172 91 52 79 94 248 131 25 202 82 36 41 11 229 As explained at the web site, that key is expanded to an 8192 byte key and used as described therein. www.netprivacy.com In order for those few who have not had the opportunity to check it out, we will leave it up another week and then take it down and put up a new shorter one, maybe a 2,560,000 byte one permanently and a monthly 2,560,000 byte one where we publish the key each month. Of course, no university, coderpunk, or cypherpunk, or any collection of same, has broken the system, nor will they ever. As most of you now know, it is absolutely unbreakable. We have had over 100 universities, IBM, Microsoft, Intel, hundreds of other corporations, several dozen different government agencies, and thousands of other individuals to download the data and look at the algorithm. Of course, like everyone else, they have been benighted, even if some of them will not own up to it. Several people have requested me to provide a narrative description of the algorithm explaining why the raw encryptor output stream seems to be so remarkably random. I am preparing such a document and it should be ready next week, or the week after. I will post it accordingly. Thanks so very much, Don Wood

1 0

Worrying...
by Benjamin Grosman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Isn't it worrying that so many people can happily devote their time to trying to annoy others?

1 0

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by Richard Charles Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hyperlex(a)hol.gr ("George A. Stathis") wrote: > >>> Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider >>> what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications >>> media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership >>> and communciation they espouse? >> >>And just how plausible do you think this is? I believe it is next to >>impossible, unless it is the result of government regulation. > >Man you're nutts. There are very few and quite vast Media Companies >in the world, and they're on the verge of becoming monopolies. > >Even your American President is in reality a puppet of the Trilateral >Commission, who effectively also control CNN, the Washington Post, >and many many many other things all over the world. You're so naive. The Trilateral Commission is just a puppet of General Electric, the British Royal Family, the Illuminati, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Elders of Zion, the Knights Templar, the Military- Industrial Complex, the Communists, the Secret Government, Dead White Males, the Freemasons, the CIA, Scientology, and my Aunt Marge. -rich special agent, zog northwest i do not speak for the world affairs council

2 1

Q.E.D |= Montgolfiering + Inbongis + Fermented Pear Juice
by wichita＠cyberstation.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fermented Pear Juice == Supercilious Pap There they go again, the imperium, or so they think, of cryptographic shamans are trying to bamboozle list readers into believing their warped cryptographic gimcrackery. They do not need Zadoc to anoint themselves the Solomons of the cryptographic world. They think that they are perfectly capable of doing it to themselves. Have they ever cracked a single meaningful cryptographic system? Have they ever implemented a significant cryptographic system? Of course, I am not speaking of Dr. Ron Rivest and other rightfully honored members, but rather of that ragtag group of cryptographic medicine men that think they have all the answers to all the questions, that is, the small cypherlunks subset of cypherpunks/coderpunks. Despite their trifling anomalous performances, they have Napoleonically crowned themselves as the aristocracy of cryptography. They are not "au fait" august, aureate practitioners, rather "au fond", they are narcistic harlequins, "fons et origino" of their own and claque homologated mirages of autistic cryptographic fantasies. Remember, how that self appointed College of Cryptographic Cardinals cannonaded me, and you, with a fusillade of self serving avowals such as, "we do not do it for money, we do it for the public good", "it is our duty to expose snake oil salesmen", "I feel a snake oil attack coming on", "it is a public service", "we owe it to the public, to protect them against charlatans," and on and on "ad nauseam," with their silly putty rodomontades. Now that their pusillanimity has been exposed for all to see clearly, they have apparently adopted the opportune, timorous motto of "sauve qui puet." They have proved themselves to be an alliance of fainaiguers that change their tunes when called to task. How many of them want to do it for the public good, now ? How many want to expose the snake oil salesman, now? How many of them want to protect the public, now? Not one. Show me, us, one of them that is not intellectually tremulous. They leaped into the contest when they sensed blood, but now they realize that it is their blood to be spilled, they shirk from their intellectual responsibilities. All of the Sir Galihads and Sir Lancelots of yesterday, have proved themselves to be Sir Coward Chickens now, as everyone can plainly discern. Most of them have chosen the exeunt course and are now hiding their heads in the sand, hoping that no one will take note of them. Where are all those chivalrous cryptographic knights now? I am sure that if asked, most would reply to the effect that they are "otherwise engaged," which parses to "nonpossumus," and only the most naive could fail to recognize that. What has become of their chivalry? Quite simply, the impersonate knights have become loathly benighted. The cypherlunks, riffraff, were quick to engage in jousting over OTP logomachy because they thought that all they had to do was beat their fingers on the keyboard and cite Shannon. The neologizing of the term "Software OTP," drove them into an uncontrolled frenzy of attacks. Alas, to do so, did not tax their notional mental facilities. On the other hand, when challenged to demonstrate their cryptanalytical skills, the cypherlunks became panic stricken and in mass hysteria took flight in frightened awe of the IPG algorithm. Their knightly bravado and braggadocio were hastily jettisoned in their wild flight away and superseded by their otiose nihility. That flock of cryptographic turkeys, a.k.a. cypherlunks, flew off to their clangorous roosts. There, though the more intelligent became quiescent as circumstances dictated, the court jesters started wildly flapping their wings and gobbling out their gobbledygook in order to becloud and confuse people about the proffer of the heretic. Those clowns were, and are, trying to create the illusion that their incondite cryptographic skills are irrefutable because they say it is so, and that makes it so. I think that those cypherlunk fabulists should adopt the apropos motto, "Talk very loudly and carry a tiny turkey feather duster." Their quixotic sallies into cryptanalytics are quintessential asininities. They are not subduing great crypto dragons, or giants, or even midgets, not even windmills; they, even more than Quixote, are merely fantasizing their efficaciousness. Their only significant cryptographic artifices are locked forever within the confines of their convoluted individual and collective minds. The cypherlunk's nympholeptic calliope of reciprocal "inbongis" is indicative proof of their total capitulation in the face of the impregnable IPG algorithm. Their clannish drum beating, high fiving, and back slapping of each other is reactionary declamatory histrionics. What a tragic waste. If there was only some way to channel and divert that energy atrophy into productive causes. For example, illimitable outrage against the dissonant alliance of Freeh and Saddam Hussein in trying to prevent their citizenry from having unbreakable encryption technologies. Gore and Rashanjanti are also advocating similar polices with respect to encryption restrictions. We must recognize that Gore, Reno, Freeh, Exon, and others similarly situated believe they are doing what is right. The fact though is, that by so doing they are becoming welcome allies of Hussein, Qadaffi, Rashanjanti, Castro and other human rights oppressors. That is a red flag if there was ever one. It raises the irreconcilable question of how can both groups in such an unseemly alliance be right. Obviously they cannot. Accordingly, that existential incongruence succinctly points out the dichotomous character of the question of whether or not unbreakable encryption technologies should be made openly available to everyone. In reality, the question though is not even close. While granted that there may be some criminals and terrorists who will pervert the use of encrypted communications, the number is extremely small because most such malefactors are far too ignorant and in too much of a hurry. If we spent a fraction of the saved money on openly bribing accomplices, far better emanations would be forthcoming. Furthermore, even if unbreakable encryption systems were allowed, law enforcement would still have an immense arsenal, existing and developing, of far more efficacious technological weapons available to them. Cryptanalytics has become the tiny tail that continues to wag the immense dog of intelligence gathering. A few powerful oligarchs are screaming "the sky is falling, the sky is falling," in order to protect their "Hillistic" empires. Wake up, the sky is not falling, and it is not going to fall anytime soon. Oh, those all powerful empire builders think they are doing what is proper and prudent for our country and its people, but they are absolutely wrong. The good far outweighs the bad on the balance scales. We desperately need unbreakable encryption technologies to aid and abet freedom fighters against tyranny around the world, and that is the reason that Hussein, Castro, Rashanjanti, and others of that persuasion are opposed to unbreakable encryption systems. We also need it in order to make it possible for individuals to protect their privacy in the onrushing information age. We also need it to so that businesses can protect their proprietary and other vital interests when essentially everything goes online. Unbreakable encryption will also insure for all people that governments do not wantonly intrude into their lives. To paraphrase FDR, "the only thing that we have to fear about unbreakable encryption systems, is the misplaced fear that it will do more harm than good." If the Internet and the Information Age are to achieve their potential to build us a better world, then unbreakable encryption technologies must be one of the irreplaceable cornerstones on which such a future can be built. We, who favor the advancement of the view that I am advocating, will not win by adhering to reactionary defensive tactics. We must go on the offensive. We need to bombard our Representatives and Senators with e-mail questioning why Castro, Freeh, Gore, Hussein, Qadaffi, Rashanjanti, Reno, Sung, Jr. and others that disagree about almost everything else are allies with respect to denying the public the use of unbreakable encryption technologies. Also, ask them, how are we ever going to be able to address the privacy issues in the information age without such encryption systems. Additionally, tell them about how we are handing over a multi-billion dollar market to foreign competitors because of the ITAR export ban, billions of dollars a year now and growing. We can win this affray because we are obviously in the right but we must become much more proactive by making everyone aware of all of the good things that will accrue to our human species by doing what we are advocating, That is the only real way to effectively combat those who mistakenly are taking the myopic view that we should not do it because it will help the criminals and terrorists. Guns and explosives help maleficence elements too, but we do not outlaw them because they serve other very useful purposes, and the same thing is obviously true with with respect to unbreakable encryption technologies. Back to the IPG system, we believe that you would like to know that commencing this date, IPG is advertising as follows: "In addition to posting the algorithm(s) at our web site: http://www.netprivacy.com IPG has also posted the algorithm(s) to a number of other sites, including Universities in the United States and Canada, as well as the famed Cypherpunks and Coderpunks lists. Since the IPG algorithm is impregnable, obviously no individual, or collection of individuals, from said Universities, the Cypherpunks, or the Coderpunks has been able to crack the system. Of course, this inability to do the impossible applies not only to the present but for all time, for all eternity." Of course what we are saying is obviously true, and we thought you might want to know. Thanks so very much, Don Wood

5 5

Re: PGP3.0 & ElGamal
by Gary Howland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> At 10:43 pm -0500 11/13/96, Lucky Green wrote: > >I agree. Support for soon to be patent free algrithms is a good thing. I > >hope that in version 4.0, after the users had time to migrate to > >DSS/ElGamal, PGP will fully move away from RSA. > > Speaking of patent-free, :-), can you do blind signatures without RSA? I think it is possible using the both Diffie-Hellman and the RPK algorithm (developed by the New Zealand chap quite recently), although patents probably apply to the latter algorithm. Don't forget that for ecash style systems, only the *client* needs to do the blinding, not the bank. 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

1 0

No Subject
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan, Cypherpunks does not seem to me to be anything like the well- regulated lists you ascribe to Prof Volokh. Could you, with Professor Volokh, expand on the application of "editorial control" on "unmoderated" lists? (See Netly below) As well as amplify "the power to kick folks off a list ... if conversation veers too far from the list's charter." (See your quote below) Isn't this power the black heart of free speech racketeering? And what makes the glands of secret authoritarians thrill with benevolent suppression of assent on behalf of the disorderly, fuzzy-minded citizenry? Media moguls and list runners share commonalities, to be sure, but I wonder if it's not cruel to compare John Gilmore to Professsor Volokh, and both to, say, Rupert Murdoch. -------- [Netly News] 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. [Your post of 11-13] In my experience, and I've talked about this at some length with Prof. Volokh who runs a number of lists himself, the best and most valuable discussion lists are those that are unmoderated but have a list owner who has the power to kick folks off a list and can try to steer the direction of a conversation if it veers too far from the list's charter.

3 2