December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

In case it isn't obvious
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In case it isn't obvious, I respect the right of the freedom-knights folks to do whatever they want on their mailing list. The list is theirs; they can operate it as they please. But perhaps I can show them the folly of their definitions of "censorship." Kicking off someone who engages in personal attacks and off-topic rants will usually improve, not hurt, the tenor of conversation on the list. The tragedy of the commons and all. 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. -Declan

1 0

Re: Secrecy: My life as a nym. (Was: nym blown?)
by Rick Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hal Finney wrote: : Are there other measures which parents could take while their children are : young to get them off to a good start, privacy-wise? I doubt it's ever too late to start. Sure, it seems as if old, crufty bits sit on the 'Net just waiting to embarass us ("oh, yeah, maybe I *did* post to alt.naughty.stuff 'way back then...") but there *is* such a thing as bit rot and perhaps it really is our friend after all. The first question, always, when evaluating security measures is to ask "What are you trying to protect?" This gets really weird when you don't know what the threats really are, which is true of this situation. I don't really see "privacy" itself as something you can pursue as an absolute objective. I think Black Unicorn's tale illustrates this well -- he doesn't try for non-existence, instead he describes a series of well reasoned and consistent steps. Basically, though, it has to be a personal choice. So it's hard to judge perfectly for another, even your own kids. IMHO you have to find a reasonable balance for your kids. The problem is that you don't want your kids to disappear -- there are times they will WANT their records found. The problem is to make verification easy when they're directly involved and difficult otherwise. The basic and obvious rule to most of us is to control the SSN and don't give out a correct one except when absolutely necessary. One of the banks in Minneapolis refuses to pay interest at all if you don't have your SSN on file. I toyed with the idea of manipulating birthdates, but it wasn't clear what the benefit was. Also, it required my wife's help, and I'll defer to Tim May's recent discussion of his'n'her anarchy if you wonder why this might be an impediment. If the kids know their "real" birthdate they'll *always* report it to their teachers. And if it's consistently incorrect in school records, then what does it mean for it to be different? When faced with peculiar situations I try to choose a disclosure that meets whatever the immediate requirements are but doesn't make it easy to automatically match up records. Often the best you can do is reduce certainty and increase the likelihood of multiple matches with other records. It doesn't hurt if you last name is Smith here in the U.S.A. Rick. smith(a)sctc.com

3 2

Re: Secrecy: My life as a nym. (Was: nym blown?)
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:14 PM 11/11/96 -0600, Igor Chudov wrote: >This is an interesting topic. I apologize if my questions are too trivial, >but here they are: > > 1) Can a person without an SSN have a credit record? Some > may say that a credit record is a bad thing to have, > but I am still interested in a possibility. > 2) Will private lenders (such as credit card issuers or > mortgage companies) agree to extend credit to a person > without an SSN or to someone who refuses to give out his SSN? > 3) Will the state issue a driver's license to someone who does not > have/does not wish to give out their SSN? > 4) Will states' police (where applicable) approve purchases of > firearms if purchasers do not state their ssn (misstating it > may be a crime) on an application? > 5) Employers are required to pay certain taxes and therefore > they, in my understanding, need to know their employees SSNs. > How can people get around that (unless they do not need to work)? > 6) Can someone without an SSN obtain various kinds of insurance? > >It is my understanding that the law does not regulate use of social >security numbers between private parties. Businesses are free to refuse >to do business with someone who does not present them an SSN. In real >life, how inconvenient is life of a privacy-concerned individual? > >Say, John Anonymous is a young 15 years old who anticipates to become an >engineer and have a middle class life. He wants to get married, have >children, drive a car, obtain insurance, work at some big company, >travel around the world, invest in mutual funds or buy stocks, and so >on. Reliance on government help is not important to him, so he would not >apply for an SSN solely to get Social Security, welfare and such. > >His parents are cypherpunks and did not obtain an SSN for John. How much >effort would it cost him to live a life outlined above? He couldn't, at least not in Oklahoma. In Oklahoma, students in public schools are now required to have SSN's. This may not apply to private schools, but I imagine that it does, at least to some degree. Having a high school education is certainly necessary to gain the Masters necessary to be an engineer. However, getting a drivers liscense should be easy. My sisters drivers liscense number is one that was randomly generated, all because she did not know her SSN off of the top of her head. My drivers liscense number is the same as my SSN, all because I know my state mandated serial number. For all practical purposes, I am Roach, Sean 447-xx-xxxx. Note, 447 refers to the state of my birth. My sisters record is at least a little more convoluted.

2 1

Re: Exon Countdown Clock and farewell messages
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If Exon had understood the Internet, he would have wanted to control it even more. Worse yet, his staff would have drafted a CDA more likely to pass constitutional muster. -Declan On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Sean Roach wrote: > 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). > >> ... > > To Which, on Mon, 11 Nov 1996, I wrote: > > >> 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. > > To which, at 07:57 PM 11/12/96 -0800, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > >I disagree. I think people understand the printing press and still want > >to control it. Morality police are morality police, no matter what the > >medium or how well they understand it. > > A valid point, and Exon may have had designs of media control the whole > time. The methods he used and the arguments he stated, however, suggested > to me, that he was someone who did not comprehend the technology. Those who > he was able to sway with the dossier of .GIF's certainly were ignorant, many > of them were turned by that one display of images. > // declan(a)eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan(a)well.com //

1 0

Re: A really short one time pad. (fwd)
by gimonca＠skypoint.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 08:02:16 -0600 (CST) > From: Ron Strasburg <rstrasbu(a)bronco1.hastings.edu> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: A really short one time pad. > > On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > > At 5:39 PM -0800 11/12/96, Sean Roach wrote: [deletia] > > >For that patter the nth root of any prime number. > > >Cheap, I know. Wonder if this type of "one time pad" is as foolproof as > > >truly randomly generated ones. > > > > You needn't wonder. These are not one time pads. Read any opening chapter > > of any book on crypto to see why. > > > this was proposed a couple months ago by a Robert Shueey, he first posted > asking if "Irrational=Random". > not sure if he got any responses. "The Broken Dice" by Ivar Ekeland has a chapter that discusses Shannon, Kolmogorov, what is random and what isn't. Interesting, readable, non-technical.

1 0

[NONCRYPTO] Re: cypher-censored the netly news
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>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. Incorrect, Cryptography and the promotion of privacy by use of same. Not "Free Speech." >Thus began a debate over what the concept of censorship means in >a forum devoted to opposing it. <sigh> see above. >Did Gilmore have the right to show Vulis the virtual door? Yes >But what if your private club's express purpose is to cherish free >speech? Again see above, this is not a stated purpose of this list. >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? Dimitri's been here three years? >Will Rodger from Inter@ctive Week and Lewis Koch from Upside >Magazine are writing about this.) I can hardly wait (insert dripping sarcasm). It still seems people are confusing a benevolent dictatorship with some sort of democracy. Cypherpunks is just a list, a tiny, tiny portion of a small corner of the Internet. John started it (with Tim, Eric and others) and John owns it, no big deal. Dimitri was kicked out of John's "Virtual Living Room" after daring him to do so. We can all still hear his screeching from out on the virtual sidewalk. To those who call this censorship I say "To a man who only has a hammer, every problem resembles a nail." I do admire Declan's efforts however, please keep up the good work. Brian "When catapults are outlawed only outlaws will have catapults."

1 0

RE: Remailer Abuse Solutions
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:34 AM 11/13/1996, Mullen Patrick wrote: > Sounds like another attempt to raise the cost of using the Net, nothing more. I am curious which conspiracy you believe I am participating in, other than the Great Cypherpunk Conspiracy, that is. Keep in mind that nobody is forced to participate. > Sure, paying postage (Is $1 really necessary? Why email when snailmail's > cheaper??) may reduce general spamming done by local punks, but it does > nothing > against corporations which already spend millions on snailmail spamming. Many people would be happy to read spam mail at $1 a piece. Assuming you can scan at a very conservative 3 messages/minute, that's $180/hr. you can make in the privacy of their own home. Not enough for you? Raise the rate. One dollar is a nice schelling point. That's why I chose it for my example. In practice the people involved are welcome to choose any amount in any currency they like. > Also, > what happens when your long-lost friend comes across your addy and tries to > email you? Surely you don't want to charge postage for an otherwise free > service to him/er. Maintaining a list of "accepted sources" would be a hassle > not many people would accept. Absent highly intrusive global net monitoring techniques, that's what they are going to have to do anyway. E-mail is inexpensive. The advertiser can justify the expense even if generates a small number of leads. Expect more spam. The alternative to filtering the mail in some way is to create Internet licenses for every participant which may be revoked for infractions. These licenses would have to be global. Big Brother is Watching. Advertisers do not have a monopoly on spam. Many people - especially women - complain about harrassing mail they receive. > Slight variation is to generate a list of "toll these entities." A smaller > list > (hopefully :-), and generally easier because then it defaults to no-bill. Or, > to accomodate superstars/actors/etc, generate files like rhosts.accept > rhosts.deny in UNIX. That way, the user may use either/both types of > filtering. How will you construct your "toll these entities" list yet accept mail from any remailer? Why will spammers not figure out remailers? > Again, the average user wouldn't want to deal with this hassle, everyone's > mail > software would have to be rewritten, and I basically oppose any ideas that > cost me money for something I already get for free... :-) No, everybody's mail software would not have to be rewritten. That was the idea. For instance, it would be easy for users of Unix systems to use procmail to pre-filter their mail for whatever program they like. Nota bene: the remailer operator is not offering to filter the users mail. "Free" is not always the best choice. I would gladly pay $10/month to receive the cypherpunks list if it meant that messages were delivered immediately when sent. (I believe these delays hamper the discussion.) As it is, I can't complain because I am a recipient of John Gilmore's charity. I would be interested to hear more about your solution to this problem: People spam other people who don't like spam but like to receive anonymous messages. I would prefer to see solutions in keeping with the Cypherpunks spirit; that is, no use of force, no use of law, and no loss of anonymity will be acceptable. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

2 1

Rush on Anonymity
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rush Limbaugh opined that most of the BS on the Nets would disappear if Net IDs could be easily traced. (He was observing not advocating.) I know this isn't correct. Most of those who post do so under their own or easily traceable identities. Most of what is posted is "as legal as church on a Sunday" in any case. Many posters are judgment proof student types as well. The net is the equivalent of barroom conversation or other casual conversation between individuals. The only difference is more people can overhear. In addition, speakers are likely to get a bit more rambunctious because they are not in the physical presence of others and so are less likely to be intimidated in monkey-troop fashion. No deference need be given to those higher on the pecking order because those primitive responses are keyed to physical presence. The Net is an approximation of a stream of consciousness since many posters don't think before they post. That's not illegal, however. If the Fibbies knew who posted the Friendly Fire message about TWA 800 (how many megabytes of such messages have there actually been?), it would make no difference since such claims are legal. The Net is just what you get when communications barriers and physical intimidation are reduced. It isn't even very "nasty, brutish, and short." I've posted controversial opinions for years and have hardly been flamed once. All those reporters who get on the Nets and immediately get flamed must either be hanging out in the wrong places or be pretty stupid in the way they say things. DCF

1 0

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> It's not a way of saying I don't understand. Instead, I find your > viewpoint incomprehensible and internally inconsistent. Which, of course, means that there is nothing to understand...for you. However, I do observe that there are meanings in things I, myself, find both incomprehensible and inconsistent. Just because I am unable to understand does not mean that there is no understanding to be had. I am not that important. Are you? > In fact, you Freedom Knight folks seem to be closet censors yourself. Why > do you support not carrying newsgroups like alt.config? I never have supported or opposed alt.config. I have said that it is meaningless, but that was after I understood its purpose. ;-) > Yes, ownership gives you a license to censor. I'm going to have a party in > my home a few weeks from now. If I don't like what someone is doing, I'll > kick 'em out. I won't do it lightly, but I will fight for my right to do > so. Of course, you may invite anyone you choose, since a party is usually had by inviting people whom you select. If you invite them and then subsequently kick them out when they do things you do not want them to do, I will chastise -you- (if I am present) for your lack of judgement in whom to invite. Their behavior would merely something to learn from, yours would be fashionably dishonorable. BTW, "Kicking them out" is not censorship. A party and a mailing list are usually two different things. The former may include the latter, but the latter is not anything like the former. > Oh, and I plan to subscribe to the freedom-knights mailing list and infest > it the way Vulis did cypherpunks. Every hour, on the hour, a crontab > script will flood it with rants about Dave (fart) Hayes. You won't do this, because I won't let you on the list. I, unlike you or Mr. Gilmore, have the judgement on whom to invite to my list. > What will you do then? Even if you did such a thing, I have a mail filter. Your messages would be unceremoniously discarded. Have you learned nothing from USENET? ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Ask the American public if they want an FBI Wiretax and they'll say 'no.' If you ask them do they want a feature on their phone that helps the FBI find their missing child they'll say, 'Yes.'" - FBI Directory Louis Freeh, on Digital Telephony, US House (Subcmte. on Telecommunications & Finance) hearing on the Digital Telephony bill, 09/13/94).

3 2

Re: New Linux-IPSEC mailing list for the S/WAN project
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk writes: > > I've got more interesting things to do than read "deeper" into > > your ignorant drivel. > > Can you say "fuckhead" ? - pull yourself together and get a life. > > Besides which I think one could hardly call my posts "ignorant > drivel" given that the sum total of information in your own postings > adds up to "Tim May is an Russian jew who knows nothing about > cryptography". > > If you had more interesting things to do you would be doing them > rather than posting off topic rants and lies to the cypherpunks list. I don't think Timmy May is a Jew. I think he's way too stupid to be suspected of being a Jew. Also he's make many anti-Semitic remarks. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0