December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Cypherpunk Inquest?
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Return-Path: lzkoch(a)mcs.net X-Sender: lzkoch(a)popmail.mcs.net Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 12:28:29 -0600 To: jya(a)pipeline.com From: Lewis Koch <lzkoch(a)mcs.net> Subject: Regarding a story for Upside Magazine John Young: This is an identical letter to a limited number of contributors to Cypherpunks regarding an article I will be writing for Upside Magazine about the Cypherpunks List -- its history and the current controversies it now seems to be facing. (I'm the person who uncovered the Gorelick/"Manhattan project" story. A more recent "Cybersense" column dealt with Chicago Police Superintendent Matt Rodriguez wanting to escape from a 1974 Federal Court injunction against police department spying on "radicals" so that he could now join in on investigating Cyberterrorists. See http://www.upside.com/ ) I will be writing a number of articles for the magazine itself. I have been "lurking" on Cypherpunks for about nine months with only one communications to the list regarding a request for leads on "Snake Oil" stories.) I would like to better understand and be able to explain to Upside readers why several members have chose to "leave" the List. Perry Metzger and others have argued that flaming and extraneous personal attacks have negatively impacted serious discussions of encryption, hacking and public policy and thus they have chosen to end their relationship and their writings on Cypherpunks, with Metzger forming his own, moderated list. Others contributors to Cypherpunks have argued that there have been "distractions" rants about religion, assassination politics, and language which are inappropriate for the List membership. Late last week John Gilmore wrote and said he had taken steps to remove Dr. Vulis from the list which has prompted differing responses. Some have responded positively to Gilmore's actions while others have said that it was an affront to freedom of speech and individual decision-making. (I have very deliberately chosen _not_ to make this an open letter to the list, nor will I engage in any open List-dialogue about the people I am interviewing or what I expect to write. Naturally I will respond to individuals once the article is published.) I do not expect to be able to publish your responses in their entirety. They will be edited with honesty and clarity. I have no agenda here. I will consider all your written and/or phone communications to be "on the record" unless you specifically wish prior selected and/or identified parts of your communications to be "off the record" or "for background purposes only." I will _not_ publicly announce a full list of those I have contacted. While you are of course free to share this letter with others, I have already made fairly firm decisions as to who I will contact. I would ask that your circulation be highly limited, if circulate you must. On the other hand, I will seriously consider suggestions you might offer me regarding other people who you believe I should contacted regarding this article. The article will be lengthy but I do not entertain the idea -- at this point -- about expanding the article into a book length manuscript. That doesn't mean that if thousands upon thousands gather outside by home demanding more information, that sometime in the future... I would prefer to communicate in the open, mainly because I am just now somewhat tenuously managing PGP through Private Idaho. Those of you who insist your communications be encrypted, well, it's probably good for my soul that I honor your request. Here are the questions I would like you to consider. Please do not consider them "definitive" or limiting. If you believe I have missed out on pursing certain avenues of thought and argument, please do not hesitate to point them out to me. I will note that I will be looking at the history of the list and I have noted the letter from Hal Finney regarding http://chaos.taylored.com:1000 I do not expect to write a general follow-up question to this entire list but I may wish to seek further clarification from individuals from their answers to this letter. Thank you, in advance, for what I know will be thoughtful and considered responses. * * * * * * 1. What was the original purpose of the Cypherpunks list and has it changed? For the better? Worse? 2. Does the apparent breakup reveal anything in general about unregulated, unmoderated lists? Can one make a link to the breakup to an inherent failure in the concept of anarchism? Can one make a link from this breakup to any insight in the nature of the Net itself -- both now and in the future. 3. What do you think led to the growing number of highly personal, highly inflammatory attacks made on various contributors to the list -- Tim May most especially. 4. Do you consider discussions about religion, assassination politics, and other non- cryptographic/encryption subjects to be "distractions" or substantive additions to intellectual inquiry? Are some threads more valuable than others? 5. Has the list imploded or veered off in a new, positive direction? I would ask that you use the header "Cypherstory" in your response and Cypherstory 1, 2 etc. for further communications, additions, changes. ********************************************************** Thank you Lewis Z Koch lzkoch(a)mcs.net http:www.upside.com/ "Cybersense" column

1 0

UNSUBCRIBE CENSORSHIP
by paratama＠idola.net.id 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

UNSUBCRIBE CENSORSHIP

1 0

Re: [NOISE] Censorship of Dr. Vulius
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:00 AM 11/4/96 -0500, you wrote: >someone abuses that priveledge they may lose it. Plain and simple. It is >also worthy to note that the Right to Free Speech, etc. applies to the >government (IOW, the government can not hinder the right to free speech so >long as that speech does not infringe upon someone else's right. Since when >is this list government run? The decision was apparently a personal one. I don't think anyone has argued that the owner of the list doesn't have the right to remove people from it. However, simply because he has the right to doesn't mean he should, and it also doesn't mean other members can't or shouldn't argue that he made a bad decision (unless, of course, the dissenting members are removed as well.) Many, if not most, members believe the list should be run in a non-authoritarian manner (whoever argued that the term authoritarian applies only to governments is wrong. the difference is a person has the right to act in an authoritarian manner over his own property whereas a government doesn't have that right over it's citizens. Again, however, having the right doesn't necessarily make it "okay"). //cerridwyn//

2 2

Re: Any Info for Sen. Pressler....
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:57 PM 11/4/96 -0700, Troy M. Barnhart wrote: >Due to circumstances I occasionally see and speak >w/ Senator Larry Pressler - (Committee Leader)... >Been talking to him w/ the Burns Bill and such... >He wants less gov't. control, but does have "concerns" >w/ the garbage... What does the Burns Bill have to do with "the garbage"? We're not talking about the CDA... >And, wants to balance the business and private concerns... Tell him that we get real nervous when someone uses the phrase, "wants to balance." It contains the implicit assumption that the market ("The Market") is somehow incapable of providing that "balance." It also seems to assume that the person using the term has the AUTHORITY to "balance" those issues. While senators probably assume that they always have the authority to do whatever they want, there is no reason to believe that this should be true given the ostensible restrictions of government power in the US Constitution. Since the Internet is really just a large conglomeration of private property acting together in cooperation, the government's role should be at best quite limited, if not non-existant. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

[CRYPTO] Death of USENET Cabal Predicted, Film at 11
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

VICTORY _____________________^_. KOOKS RULE CANCELBOT|..`. SPAM IS GOOD SPAMBOT |...= s P a M O==-o <- Cabal FUCK THE CABAL GRUBORBOT|...~ \ |\ HAIL DR. GRUBOR------------------v~~ ~~ DEATH TO UUNET DRG CJ3 AGA` BOURSY` ` DLV` `

1 0

Re: Censorship on cypherpunks [RANT]
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 04 Nov 1996 07:20:15 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >> > I'm quite upset about this. Up to now I was able to tell >> >people that "there is at least one mailing list on the net that >> >functions in a completely open manner". No more. >> This has been taken far too seriously. Cypherpunks is a *PRIVATE* list. >> There is no obligation to accept anyone. >Isn't this the same argument used by the state whenever they want to differentiate >between your "rights" and your "privileges"? Can they reject one of your privileges >whenever they want to, at their discretion? No. >So if c-punks is really "private", how does it decide (arbitrarily?) who to include >and who to reject? It's a big difference. Can you set up your own mailing list? Yes. Can you go elsewhere? Yes. Can Mr. Vulis send email directly to list-members anyway? Yes. Can you do the same if the government runs it? No. Can you set up your own list/printing press* if the state won't publish your ideas? No. One could apply a similar rationale to socialism - after all, it may seem like an extension of "love your neighbor" to take care of their needs, which is certainly a laudable goal. That's not the problem. The problem is when it becomes mandated *with no alternatives*. # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # <cadams(a)acucobol.com> | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY" "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them." --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)

1 0

Re: Dr. Vulis
by Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Frantz wrote: > > As I put on my flame resistant suit... > > IMHO, most of the posts about John Gilmore's action re: Dr. Vulis are > seriously miss-analyzing what has happened. As far as I can tell, John > instructed his Majordomo to refuse subscription requests to cypherpunks > from Dr. Vulis. That is all that John has done. What John has not done > is: Of course John was right to give Vilus the boot. Cypherpunks is a club and like many private clubs occasionaly finds it necessary to give some oik the boot. And of course this is not an action that can be strictly justified in terms of absolute rights which many are fond of prating on about. Rights are limited, as Mills observes they are a product of law. Society finds it necessary to enact laws to protect rights. Dmitri's posts were affecting other people's right to speak. There is thus the traditional liberal conflict, that of having to infringe rights to protect them. If libertarians would read "on Liberty" rather than using it like a magic charm they would know that the main theory it advances is of the *balance* between the rights of communities and the rights of individuals. The genius of Mills is that he shows that the "rights" of government stem from its duty to protect the "rights" of the citizens. Its an imperfect answer because the notiopn of "citizenship" it advances fails to take any account of foreign relations. Mill's rationale for obeying laws breaks down when one crosses national borders for example. > The best paradigm I can come up with to analyze John's action is my quite > imperfect understanding of communitarian theory. In essence, > communitarians say that there should be a level of social control between > individual rights and the forceful coercion of the state. What John has > done is step forward and excommunicate Dr. Vulis. He has said to Dr. > Vulis, "You are no longer a member of the cypherpunks community." Rather than "should", try the word "is". One of the things the Web demonstrates is that there are such communities. I would not state the action in terms of "excommunication", rather consider that John took the action on behalf of the community for the good of the community as a whole. > I would love to hear how people feel this action fits in to the > cryptoanarchy, libertarian utopias we frequently discuss. E.g. Why is it > not a perfectly reasonable action for some one to take in an anarchy? If we could get away from the bleating denials of the need for government and instead consider them as a positive force, preventing a power vacum that others would fill a synthesis can be reached. The founders of the US realised that to pervent tyranny it was necessary to have different branches and levels of government. The essential point being however to prevent power being used. When a community of people get together they can exercise far more power than individuals acting alone. Sometimes this power can be for the common good, other times it can be the sectarian persuit of one minorities interests against another. Phill

8 10

NRC crypto breifing
by Decius 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Did the NRC discuss the State Department's GROSS FAILURE to prosecute Phil Zimmermann? (PGP) is military strength, and it's out there!" -- Audience member at NRC crypto briefing Dr. Herb Lin <hlin(a)nas.edu> of the National Research Council's Computer Science and Tecommunications Board gave a briefing this afternoon to address the Council's recent report, Cryptography's Role in Securing the Information Society. The briefing was sponsored by the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. One of the most striking aspects of the briefing was the diversity of perspectives on the issue. Most of our discussions on cryptography have been with people in the cypherpunk community; this was the first time we had ever come face to face with people on the other side of the fence. It is quite obvious that there is much emotional intensity here and we do not feel that this issue is going to go away soon. However, the NRC seems to be a voice of reason. We are faced a policy problem: the developing information society is vulnerable to security threats. Cryptography can be a powerful tool to thwart these threats, but it is also a dangerous weapon in the hands of criminals. As a result of concentration on the above issues, the cryptography debate has often been framed as a conflict between privacy rights and law enforcement. The NRC feels that the current policy on cryptography discourages its use by the private sector. Lin states that cryptography is a very valuable tool for crime prevention and thus benefits Law Enforcement. Policy makers should promote cryptography because it can help legitimate businesses better secure themselves against would-be attackers. However, cryptography also assists criminals in circumventing surveillance. So there are both positive and negative impacts for Law Enforcement, but Dr. Lin notes an important statement made in the NRC report: "The benefits of the widespread use of cryptography far outweigh the risks." Dr. Lin and the NRC believe that there will be an explosion of interest in computer security in the coming years, and that government should provide guidance and technical input, both to industry and law enforcement. The upcoming debate can (and should) be carried out on an unclassified basis. He said that open standards should be promoted in an effort to reach consensus between government and industry interests. Interested parties should be encouraged to study and understand the algorithms employed by their cryptosystems so that market forces may drive crypto policy to that which best fulfills the needs of US industry. NRC promotes the growth and leadership in the private sector and encourages all organizations to invest in information security. In addition, the NRC supports the use of link-level encryption in public networks, especially the cellular network. In this mode, LEOs can still access plaintext, but it is much more difficult for unauthorized listeners to get it. It should be noted that Cryptography is just one part of a comprehensive information security program. While it is useful to prevent eavesdropping, provide user authentication, and ensure data integrity, it is not particularly effective in overcoming the problems of insecure operating systems, and corruptible employees. One of the more controversial points in the report is the recommendation for domestic cryptography policy. The NRC recommends that no restrictions be placed on the use of domestic cryptography, and that the market should be allowed to choose the best systems. This was met with incredulty by many members of the audience, particularly those representing the government. They seemed to feel that "the people" should not be allowed to make this decision and that many important aspects of cryptography policy are not necessarily reflected in market interests. While NRC recognizes Law Enforcement's growing problem in adapting to new technologies, Dr. Lin said that the FBI could provide not one example of a class three wiretap that had been thwarted by means of encryption. Access to encrypted files seemed to be a bigger issue for LEOs. This takes us naturally to the topic of key escrow. NRC cautions that key escrow is an unproven technology. Of particular concern is the integrity of escrow agents: how it is to be evaluated, and what level of integrity is sufficient in any particular instance? Who is liable if keys are incorrectly disclosed? What are the liability issues if the key escrow system fails to provide LEOs with access? There just isn't enough information at this time to make these judgments. Many audience members commented that the administration had rushed into key escrow without forethought or open discourse. The NRC discourages the hurried passage of new legislation without clear, thorough discussion of the issues involved by those who will be most directly affected by the law. Furthermore, any government supported cryptography system must provide additional value to the end users. The Clipper system does not do this. Dr. Lin mentioned that data recovery might be of significant value to most users. If encryption systems are too strong then users will have a bigger problem with lost keys than they ever had with stolen intellectual property. The NRC recommends that the US government act as a test market for key recovery rather than pushing it out to the public before it is fully developed. The NRC also recommends that Congress consider criminalizing the criminal use of cryptography. This issue has already been discussed at length in academic fora, and the general consensus is that this concept is much easier said than done. We feel that such a policy is not likely to be a serious deterrent unless the additional penalty outweighs the benefits of secure crypto. It is also worth noting that if crypto is the default in system people shouldn't be charged with additional crimes for not turning it off. As for export issues, the NRC recommends that the government allow export of 56-bit DES without special approval, effective immediately. The recommendation also suggested that the allowable key length should be increased over time in order to keep up with improvements in cryptanalysis and computing power. They feel that export controls should be lessened but not fully removed. Law Enforcement needs time to develop the skills and technology necessary to deal with new situations. We would take issue with the NRC's assertion that 56 bit DES is "good enough for most commercial applications," and that algorithms be designed to preclude multiple encryption. It certainly depends on the threat model involved. DES would be an improvement over plaintext networks, but it is certainly not strong enough to defend against industrial espionage efforts. We feel that strong cryptography should be exportable now to defend against such attacks. We feel that legitimate law enforcement interests can get access to the information they require in most cases without even having to employ cryptanalysis, especially if systems are secured at the link level as the NRC recommends. We would also point to the reality that wiretapping is not often used by Law Enforcement, and we don't feel that they have justified any increase in it's use. The NRC briefing was very helpful in understanding the meaning of the report and highlighted many important issues. NRC will have a number of briefings in major cities all over the US, in hopes that this will spark more debate over these issues. Attendance at this briefing was much smaller than we had expected. We would encourage anyone who is interested in cryptography to attend a future briefing. It is a very good opportunity to hear and meet people on all sides of this issue. We would also encourage the cyber-rights crowd to seriously consider the NRC's recommendations. It seems to be a realistic look at these issues, and there is plenty of room here to defend fundamental civil liberties. Tom Cross and Jeremy Mineweaser Electronic Frontiers Georgia

1 0

Protecting Your Data With Crypto
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We have put the November UNIX Review article Peter cited in his letter to the editor, "Protecting Your Data With Cryptography," at: http://jya.com/protect.htm ---------- Peter Allan wrote: > >[ I refer to the article starting on p55 > of the Nov 1996 Unix Review. ] > >-----letter to Ed start here------ > >Andrew, > >Congratulations on a welcome crypto article in UR. > >This is an important topic for security, networks, >web-based commerce etc and is only going to increase in >importance as people realise data is money. > >The article did raise my eyebrows a few times though >with some wild statements - about the speed of brute-force >attacks on DES, and about USG 'key escrow' proposals, >patents and key certification. > >Also there are absolutely crucial issues not touched on, >probably for lack of space. Details matter, and if you're >contemplating another article on the subject I'd be happy >to write it [subject to my boss' approval] or review it >before publication. The field moves fast at times, and >it would be good to keep an eye on the subject in a fairly >regular column. > >Strangely, your author didn't mention ftp.ox.ac.uk, >an ftp site for many good crypto tools, which >(as a UK site) is not subject to US export restrictions. > > > -- Peter Allan peter.allan(a)aeat.co.uk

1 0

Re: Censorship on cypherpunks
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri "Too Hot for Cypherpunks" Vulis writes: > Does saying "The list owner should not kick people off the list for speech" > violate the list owner's right to free speech? That depends on whether plug- > pulling (and mailbombing and ping-storming and other obnoxious behavior) > is speech. The entire, highly recursive question of free speech versus censorship relies almost entirely on the assumption that human beings can be controlled. The observation that certain behavior is obnoxious arises from an inability to control one's own environment at a basic level. Issues such as this have nothing to do with mailing lists or net.protocol, except as vehicles of expression for human conditioning which is already present. Until the fly can be tolerated, removing the shit will only serve to turn one's attention to a new annoyance. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet In a dark alley, a pickpocket tried to snatch Nasrudin's purse. There was a violent struggle, but eventually Nasrudin got the thief pinned on the ground. At this moment, a charitable woman passing called out: "You bully, let the little man up and give him a chance!" "Madam," panted Nasrudin, "you ignore the trouble which I have had getting him down."

1 0