December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Why is cryptoanarchy irreversible?
by Murray Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 08 Nov 1996 14:46:56 +0100, Matts Kallioniemi wrote: >At 17:12 1996-11-07 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>Simple analogy: Suppose you put two people into a room with a deck of >>playing cards and a table, instructing "Person A" to build a house-of-cards, >>and telling "Person B" to stop him from achieving his goal. Who do you >>think will win? Obviously, the latter will win: It's vastly easier to >>knock such a structure down than to build it in the first place, and all >>"Person B" has to do is occasionally take a whack at the structure. > >What if Person A is better armed? Could that change the outcome? > > > What if person A has a pack of chewing gum? mhayes(a)infomatch.com It's better for us if you don't understand It's better for me if you don't understand -Tragically Hip

2 1

Re: Not. [Was Re: Federal Reserve Bank is ILLEGAL?]
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:57 PM 11/11/1996, "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin(a)law.miami. 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. During the Free Banking Era, banks and companies issued their own dollars. I believe that at that time the dollar was defined in terms of a certain weight of gold. The value of any dollar you might be holding was related to the level of confidence in the institution that issued it. Books were published which recorded the "exchange rate" between each kind of dollar. This is very similar to Congress licensing private mints. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

1 0

RE: Returned mail: User Unknown
by Juriaan Massenza 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I love bots... >---------- >From: Open Net Postmaster[SMTP:postmaster@opennet.net.au] >Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 1996 7:13 AM >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com; owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com; >cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com >Subject: Returned mail: User Unknown > > >The address you mailed to is no longer valid. >This is probably because the user in question was an >old Open Net subscriber. Open Net is NO LONGER an ISP, >and has not been since May 1996. > >We have no redirection address for that user. Please >remove them from any mailing lists you might have. > >This response was generated automatically. > >

2 1

Re: "Nightmare on Crypto Street--the Return of Sun Devil"
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Hendrickson wrote: < snip > ... the more we can erode the barriers between code and language, >the stronger the case is that laws governing code are violations of >the First Amendment. What if you had a compiler that accepted English >language instructions for how to build a crypto system? "Take a >random number 64 bits long. Then find a prime which is a little >larger. Then...." The language itself should remain protected by the >First Amendment even if somebody else has a compiler which can turn it >into software. Agreed, and this is happening (slowly). Some have said that "cypherpunks spread crypto" is a better motto than just "cypherpunks write code," for this reason and because it covers broader ground, although coding will always be essential to any of the other cypherpunk efforts in the end. Theres a lot of talent on this list, despite a few nuts mixed in. >Another conclusion we can draw is that cryptoanarchy is more of a >political issue than many of us would like. That means we might put >more effort into public opinion than just straight coding. (Tim may >claim otherwise, but I think he agrees with this in practice.) Distasteful, but probably true. >It may also be that the "bad boy" image of the Cypherpunks is >counterproductive to our goals. I'm not sure it's so bad, among the better educated anyway.

1 0

Re: ENT_ice
by John L. Tocher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John L. Tocher THE CITY-a bounded infinity. A labyrinth where JLTocher(a)Earthlink.net you are never lost. Your private map where every PGP: CE 72 1A 11 07 47 35 block bears exactly the same number. Even if you 35 9A C1 DE EA 64 21 BC 94 lose your way, you cannot go wrong. --Abe Kobo

1 0

What is: Returned mail: User Unknown
by camcc＠abraxis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 18:17:40 +1100 >To: mianigand(a)outlook.net, cypherpunks(a)toad.com >To: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >To: cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com >References: <199611111831.KAA10148(a)toad.com> >X-Loop: postmaster(a)opennet.net.au >Subject: Returned mail: User Unknown >From: Open Net Postmaster <postmaster(a)opennet.net.au> >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > > >The address you mailed to is no longer valid. >This is probably because the user in question was an >old Open Net subscriber. Open Net is NO LONGER an ISP, >and has not been since May 1996. > >We have no redirection address for that user. Please >remove them from any mailing lists you might have. > >This response was generated automatically. I have received about 20 of these messages. Anyone else with this problem? 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

"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