December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Another possible remailer attack?
by Steve Reid 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> You want to know if Dimitri is the person regularly posting these >> messages. So, you use your powers as ISP to block his access to all >> remailers. If the public messages suddenly stop then you can be >> reasonably certain that Dimitri was sending them. > I'm not following something...just how to your "powers as ISP" affect a > remailer in, say, Holland, or one for that matter on another ISP? (As a Packet filtering at the ISP's router. If Dimitri can't connect to a remailer, he can't send anonymous messages. Sure there are a lot of hacks that could be done (like have sendmail on another system send it to a remailer) but such things could be detected and blocked by clever filters. In fact, the ISP could just claim to be "going down for maintenance" and completely block Dimitri from the internet for a while. > Just as the Nazis could isolate spy transmitters by selectively > turning off electricity to different neigborhoods, so, too, can various Isolating spy transmitters by selectively cutting power is exactly alalogous to what I have suggested.

1 0

[IGNORE unless your name is Sandfort]
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mail to you currently bounces. Is an alternative address available? -- Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures Finger for Public Key Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern Vote Monarchist Switzerland

1 0

RE: Pyramid Schemes
by John Fricker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Pyramid schemes invalidate the worth of one's word. By gaining financially from one's recommendation said recommendation becomes of dubious trustworthiness. Traditionally, personal experience and anecdotes about products, goods and services have served as reputable guides in consumer culture. By gaining financially from one's word, one is cashing in their reputation. --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. -----------------------------------

1 0

Scientists for Labour conf on encryption/escrow/data protection Nov 14th
by Caspar Bowden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Full details: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~sfl/meetings/itconf.html PLEASE DISTRIBUTE AND LINK TO YOUR WEB-SITE: Scientists for Labour - IT & Communications Group Conference on Information Superhighway Policy --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Liberty on the Line : Opportunities and Dangers of the Superhighway" --------------------------------------------------------------------- Chaired by Geoff Hoon MP, Shadow Minister for IT Thursday 14th November 1996, 9am - 5:30pm MSF Centre, 33-37 Moreland Street, London EC1 (Angel tube) --------------------------------------------------------------------- For further details or to reserve a place contact: Caspar Bowden, SfL IT & Comms co-ordinator (qualia(a)dircon.co.uk) The debate over Internet regulation in the UK has focused mainly on censorship, but the standards for control of "encryption keys", currently being formulated nationally and internationally, will lay the permanent foundations on which the Information Society is built. The long-term implications for civil liberties have received little public attention outside the Internet community. Scientists for Labour is hosting a conference to look at the data protection and economic issues arising from the integration of digital signatures, electronic copyright management, and digital cash. What kind of regulatory apparatus will allow rapid growth of an information economy, but prevent misuse of personal data ? *) New government proposals on "Trusted Third Parties", which aim to preserve law enforcement and national security capabilities for warranted interception of communications (to fight crime and terrorism), place only procedural not technical limits on the scope of Superhighway surveillance. *) Super-computers have the potential to conduct random electronic "fishing expeditions" against the whole population. Telephone and letter interception cannot be automated : digital monitoring can. Will legal safeguards against abuse offer adequate protection in perpetuity, or can cryptographic protocols be designed which make Superhighway mass- surveillance impossible, while still allowing criminals to be targeted ? Computer and legal policy experts will explain the principles of the different technologies, and the international and commercial context, in a search for interdisciplinary solutions. The attendance fee is ?5 (?2 unwaged ; SfL members free) For press information please contact : Bobbie Nicholls, SfL Press Officer, Fax: 01235 529172 The Scientists for Labour home page (http://www.shef.ac.uk/~sfl/) has information on how to join SfL, or contact the Secretary : Dr Robin Walters (R.G.Walters(a)shef.ac.uk) Programme --------- 9.00-9.30 Registration SfL members free, non-members ?5 (?2 unwaged) 9.30-9.45 Geoff Hoon MP Introduction 9.45-10.45 Dr.John Leach Cryptography and developments in Trusted Third Party policy 10.45-11.45 Dr.Ross Anderson Some problems with the Trusted Third Party programme 11.45-12.00 Coffee 12.00-12.30 Elizabeth France (Data Protection Registrar) 12.30-1.00 Simon Davies Escrow and the hidden threat to human rights and privacy 1.00-2.00 Buffet lunch 2.00-2.45 Prof. Charles Public policy and legal aspects of Intellectual Oppenheim Property Rights 2:45-3.30 Alistair Kelman Electronic Copyright Management : Possibilities and Problems 3.30-3.45 Tea 3:45-4:45 Andrew Graham Will the Information Superhighway enhance or diminish democracy ? 4.45-5.30 Panel Session Discussion (inc. Robert Schifreen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re[2]: a retort + a comment + a question = [RANT]
by SUCRUM22_at_INDY-ADP＠smtp-gw.cv62.navy.mil 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Foley <mycroft(a)actrix.gen.nz> wrote at the end of an enlightening message: >(BTW, does your address @smtp-gw.cv62.navy.mil imply >that that you're actually aboard the Independence?) yes it does. questions/comments can be directed via e-mail to my address as i am already _almost_ off-topic. remember people, i'm playing devil's advocate here. so far, while nothing has really changed my thinking process outright, comments are surely making me think more (assuming that that's the point). ---------------------- SUCRUM22(a)cv62.navy.mil ----------------------- a calculated risk based on the possible consequence of an action is better than a haphazard one based on poor judgment or ignorance --------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't confuse my views with those of the DoD or the United States Navy

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

"Michael H. Warfield" <mhw(a)wittsend.com> writes: > > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM enscribed thusly: > > > > Hayashi_Tsuyoshi <take(a)barrier-free.co.jp> writes: > > > > > On Sat, 09 Nov 1996 10:47:28 -0800, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com said: > > > >At 01:29 AM 11/9/96 -0800, John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> wrote: > > > >>ask questions, etc. To join the list, send mail to: > > > >> linux-ipsec-REQUEST(a)clinet.fi > > > >>The email should contain a single line that just says: > > > >> subscribe > > > > > > > >Actually, it needs to say > > > > subscribe linux-ipsec > > > > > > Probably, it needs to send mail to: > > > Majordomo(a)clinet.fi > > > > > > ///hayashi > > > > Moral: John Gilmore can't be trusted. > > Moral: No wonder you get your ass thrown off mailing lists. You're a fucking > jerk who seems incapable of making and intelligent or constructive > contribution to a discussion. > > We're working on something serious here and trying to cooperate and > help each other. All you can find to do is jump in and make an ass of > yourself. Since you're such a stupid ignoramous, I'll point out that the > instructions which John posted agree with the messages coming from Tatu's > system. They just didn't work. So, Tatu has something misconfigured on > his system. But I suppose you couldn't be BOTHERED to even fucking check. > > You own John an apology but I think that's a bit much to expect > from low life like yourself. Yeah, right. Be sure to ask Paul Bradley to implement his brute force attack on one-time pads. :-) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

WIPO Treaty: Worse than CDA- Deadline 22 Nov 96 ; availability and use of knowledge emasculated ; impact on web catastrophic.
by attila＠primenet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

WIPO Treaty: Worse than CDA Deadline 22 Nov 96 for comment to Congress WIPO was introduced this spring to Congress. It is not understood by either the Clinton administration or the Congress and few of the public are aware of the problem! CP internal bad mouthing and intellectual assignations need to to come to a dead halt --if we want the net at all, or for the net to be an information provider, the impact of the CDA would be chump change for peanuts in comparison. The WIPO clauses involving rights to collections of what are commonly public domain "fact" will become private property --literally; even more so than the restrictions of the 'fair use' conventions. The availability of knowledge emasculated; the impact on web is catastrophic; web information and fair use policies are gutted. My message to Bubba, West Publishing, and the rest of the greedy bastards: Cyberspace and Freedom are Information. FUCK your WIPO, too. -attila ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following message is an excerpt of a message from James Love <love(a)tap.org> forwarded by attila <attila(a)primenet.com> see Consumer Project on Technology: http://www.essential.org/cpt ------------------------------------------------------------------------- . Sports fans in the United States will be surprised to learn .that U.S. Government officials are pressing for the adoption of .an International treaty that will (if enacted) significantly .change the ways sports statistics are controlled and .disseminated. The treaty isn't specifically directed at sports .statistics -- it is a much broader attempt to create a new property right in facts and other data now in the public domain -- but it will have an enormous impact on the legal rights [...] on sports, stock prices, weather data, train schedules, data from AIDS research and other facts are controlled.... See, for example: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,3208,00.html The treaty addresses much more fundamental issues regarding ownership of information currently in the public domain... I am deleting the bulk of the report for brevity, including only the definition of the "database" as it applies to WIPO. .WHAT IS A DATABASE? WHAT ISN'T A DATABASE? . .The treaty would protect "any database that represents a .substantial investment in the collection, assembly, verification, .organization or presentation of the contents of the database." . .This term should be understood "to include collections of .literary, musical or audiovisual works or any other kind of .works, or collections of other materials such as texts, sounds, .images, numbers, facts, or data representing any other matter or .substance" and "may contain collections of expressions of .folklore." The "protection shall be granted to databases .irrespective of the form or medium in which they are embodied. . .Protection extends to databases in both electronic and non- .electronic form" and "embraces all forms or media now known or .later developed. . . Protection shall be granted to databases .regardless of whether they are made available to the public. This .means that databases that are made generally available to the .public, commercially or otherwise, as well as databases that .remain within the exclusive possession and control of their .developers enjoy protection on the same footing." . .WHAT ARE EXTRACTION AND UTILIZATION RIGHTS? . ."The maker of a database eligible for protection under this .Treaty shall have the right to authorize or prohibit the .extraction or utilization of its contents." What is "extraction"? .Extraction is defined as, "the permanent or temporary transfer of .all or a substantial part of the contents of a database to .another medium by any means or in any form." "Extraction . . . is .a synonym for `copying' or `reproduction' . . . by `any means' or .`any form' that is now known or later developed." . ."Utilization" is defined as "making available to the public all .or a substantial part of the contents of a database by any means, .including by the distribution of copies, by renting, or by on- .line or other forms of transmission," including the right to .control the use of the data "at a time individually chosen by .each member of the public." . .WHAT IS A "SUBSTANTIAL PART" OF THE DATABASE? . .The treaty sets out tests for determining if an extraction is ."substantial," and these tests are both highly anticompetitive, .and extremely broad in scope. . .The "substantiality" of a portion of the database is assessed .against the "value of the database," and considers "qualitative .and quantitative aspects," noting that "neither aspect is more .important than the other . . . This assessment may also take into .account the diminution in market value that may result from the .use of the portion, including the added risk that the investment .in the database will not be recoverable. It may even include an .assessment of whether a new product using the portion could serve .as a commercial substitute for the original, diminishing the .market for the original." . .Then the treaty adds that a "substantial part" means any portion .of the database, "including an accumulation of small portions . . .. In practice, repeated or systematic use of small portions of .the contents of a database may have the same effect as extraction .or utilization of a large, or substantial, part of the contents .of the database." .In the US implementing legislation, the only types of data use .that would not be regulated would be "insubstantial" parts, ."whose extraction, use or reuse does not diminish the value of .the database, conflict with a normal exploitation of the database .or adversely affect the actual or potential market for the .database." Under this language, a database owner could say that .it might in the future want to charge for each transmission of a .fact or an element of a database as part of its "normal .exploitation" of the database. With the Internet and digital cash .this claim is likely to be made. The public would not have "fair .use" rights, since fair use is only defined in matters involving .copyright. . .FOR HOW LONG? 15 YEARS, 25 YEARS, OR FOREVER? . .The Treaty would require a minimum term of protection (15 years .in the EU proposal, and 25 in the United States proposal) for the .database. But this is extended each time the database is revised .or enhanced. According to the draft treaty, "any substantial .change to the database, evaluated qualitatively or .quantitatively, including any substantial change resulting from .the accumulation of successive additions, deletions, .verifications, modifications in organization or presentation, or .other alterations, which constitute a new substantial investment, .shall qualify the database resulting from such investment for its .own term of protection." . .The provision on revisions raises the specter that protection for .many databases will be perpetual. This could indeed be the case .if the original versions of the database are only "licensed" by .the vendor for a limited period of time, so that the only .available versions would be the new ones, which would have a new .term of protection. [Database vendors write these restricted use .licenses now]. . . The proposals for a new legal environment for publishing .facts are outlined in a draft treaty on "databases" that will be .considered at a December 1996 meeting of the World Intellectual .Property Organization (WIPO), in Geneva, Switzerland. See: . . www.public-domain.org/database/database.html . . The proposal would require the United States and other countries to .create a new property right for public domain materials. "Texts, sounds, .images, numbers, facts, or data representing any other matter or .substance," will be protected. . . The treaty seeks, for the first time, to permit firms to ."own" facts they gather, and to restrict and control the .redissemination of those facts. The new property right would lie .outside (and on top) of the copyright laws, and create an .entirely new and untested form of regulation that would radically .change the public's current rights to use and disseminate facts .and statistics. American University Law Professor Peter Jaszi .recently said the treaty represents "the end of the public .domain." . .Copies of the proposed treaty, a federal register notice .asking for public comment, and independent commentary can be .found at: . . http://www.public-domain.org/database/database.html . .WHO IS PUSHING FOR THE DATABASE TREATY? . . In 1991, the US Supreme Court ruled (in the Feist decision) .that the facts from a telephone "White Pages" directory of names, .addresses and phone numbers were not protected under the .copyright laws, and that in general, "facts" could not be .copyrighted by anyone. The Feist decision alarmed several large .database vendors, who crafted this new "sui generis" property .right that would protect facts, and just about everything else. .[The vendors have already succeeded in obtaining a directive on .the database proposal from the European Union, although no European .country has yet passed legislation to implement the treaty]. The .most active supporter of this new property right is West .Publishing, the Canadian legal publisher. A West Publishing .employee chairs a key ABA subcommittee which wrote a favorable .report on the treaty. A number of very large British and Dutch .database vendors are also lobbying hard for the treaty. .West wants the new property right to protect the "page .numbers" and "corrections" it adds to the judicial opinions it .publishes in paper bound books. Telephone companies want to .protect the names, addresses and telephone numbers they publish, .and other database vendors what to protect scientific data or .other non-copyrighted government information they publish. In .seeking to protect these items, the treaty was written to stamp ."owned by" labels on a vast sea of information now in the public .domain. Copyright experts J.H. Reichman and Pamela Samuelson .say it is the "least balanced and most potentially anti- .competitive intellectual property rights ever created." see: . . http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/reisamda.html . . In Feist, the Supreme Court noted: . (a) Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 8, of the Constitution mandates . originality as a prerequisite or copyright protection. The . constitutional requirement necessitates independent creation . plus a modicum of creativity. Since facts do not owe their . origin to an act of authorship, they are not original and, . thus, are not copyrightable. . [From the Syllabus of the opinion, at: . . http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/classics/499_340v.htm . .Since facts cannot be copyrighted, the supporters of the .treaty have framed this as a new "sui generis" property right, .which will have a separate statutory framework. "Originality" or ."authorship" will not be required. . .As a "sui generis" property right, the database proposal .does not incorporate the fair use principles from copyright that .reporters and value added publishers often take for granted. The .leagues would be able to require license to publish box scores or .other statistics in any media. One can imagine a world where the .leagues wouldn't require licensing of box scores to print based .periodicals like daily newspapers, but that a much more .controlled regimen would evolve on the Internet. The leagues .could require licensing of box scores and other statistics for .Internet publications, or linking to the leagues own web sites, .such as: . . www.nba.com . www.nba.com . www.nhl.com . .WHAT CAN YOU DO? . . The government is taking comments on the database treaty .through November 22, 1996. If you don't think the government .should rush into a new regulatory scheme for sports statistics, .let them know. . You can email your comments to: . . diploconf(a)uspto.gov . .If you want to know more about his proposal, check out: . . http://www.public-domain.org/database/database.html . .Two law professors who have studied the treaty extensively are: . .Professor Pamela Samuelson, University of California at Berkeley, .Voice (510)642-6775, pam(a)sims.berkeley.edu . .Professor Peter Jaszi, American University, School of Law, Voice .(202) 885-2600, pjaszi(a)wcl.american.edu . . APPENDIX . .Extracts from James Love, "A Primer On The Proposed WIPO Treaty .On Database Extraction Rights That Will Be Considered In December .1996, October 29, 1996, . . http://www.essential.org/cpt/ip/cpt-dbcom.html -- Cyberspace and Freedom are Information. FUCK your WIPO, too. -attila

1 0

Re: Rarity: Crypto question enclosed
by Michael Peponis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Sorry that this message doesn't include any flames, "outings", > denigrations, or other stuff...... Hey, that "stuff" comes in useful. Some of the more origional ones are posted on my office wall, so when people accuse me of being a childish, insensitive and egotistical I just show them some cypherpunk postings, "See, I'm not this bad, count yourself fortunate how would you like to work for some of these guys?" > My simple question is regarding key/certificate distribution: > > Is there any particular reason that such can't be accomplished via > on-line lists, and made available via a service on a port, using standard > (textual) commands, like mail and such are now? Conceptual, I had the same idea about a year ago, but never enough time to do it. Practically, it could be painful. It's possible to have a key-server listen on a port and accept requests, then it would fork a process, process the result, and return an answer set. But how many CPU cycles would it take for a machine to process a request, ie going through 1000 of keys? I am not exactly sure, it took a long while on my pentium. In my opinion, if I were to run a key server as a service, with clients connecting and requesting a key it shouldn't take more than a minute to get a responce. > The things that come to mind are a 'client' request for a key, a > 'client' submission of a key, an external host requesting a key exchange, > and the host itself requesting a key exchange with another system (only > new/changed keys being swapped). Had the exact same idea, but came up with an interesting concept. When a person submits a key, a PGP process is spawned yeilding the following information 1.) The name (peponmc(a)cris.com) 2.) The real name (Michael Peponis) 3.) The key size 4.) Creation date of the key 5.) Key finger print This information, along with the acutal key would be inserted into a SQL Database table With a structure similar to this Name varchar2 Real_name Varchar2 KeySize Integer CreationDate date PGPKEY Varchar(a fairly large one) Submission_date Date The idea here being that the key would be added as a field, and requests from clients and other key servers would do a simple Database query, which are very quick. > The way I see it working is similar to (but not as slow as, or > requiring the human intervention) of the key servers already existing. > Granted that the first few such servers might carry a higher load, but I'd > think that would taper off as the (presumably free) software became > available, similar to the growth of remailer software (which would seem to > be a fairly reasonable relationship....). > Hooks into existing PGP-fluent software shouldn't be difficult with > a standardized protocol, and I wouldn't think that the servers would be > that difficult to code and implement on a 'standard' (consistently used, > that is) port. It's not that hard, it's performance that's more of an issue. The beauty of my approch would be that initially, there would be alot of "Add" requests, resulting in many PGP processes running on the box, but eventually, they would tapper off. Database requests pose no real problems, on Unix boxes, especially with Oracle, the SGA is always running, it's just one more request, going up against a realatively small table. The box could return an answer in a matter of seconds, as opposed to over a two minutes. Server updates would be swift too, they would just transfer well defined SQL Datasets between themselves. > I'm willing to have a try at the first server, if the parameters > can be defined. Let me know what you think of my idea > Dave Merriman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: cp850 iQCVAwUBMoZirkUffSIjnthhAQFBpAQAw1a48NY/IPai8FqAkqlfi2tLoreGlQlW RaWLVnSE/dl4CpRf+nLXjRRYQL6FlmKxfVkgv68yS3srFlx9KpkGqOT3k9hZGfzU 3X+ADKI2oKzSZM92vmYoM+BGtxggdgg/SjoPwyxq76FuiHt6SnDcCvXeRUDclFHi CMqPPKvaqBo= =Yudv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: "Nightmare on Crypto Street, Part 1"
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> wrote: >I also summarize Peter's set up much as you did: > >"Suppose [A]. Suppose [B] ... [Then Z is likely]. In the middle of the Polish crisis, in the early 1980s, while there were riots over the high cost of living and the lack of food, Tversky and Kahneman [seminal cognitive science researchers] asked a number of political leaders and generals to evaluate the probability [Scenario 1] that the United States might withdraw its ambassador from the then Soviet Union (without any hypothesis as to why). They further asked the same subjects to evaluate the probability [Scenario 2] that _both_ of two other things would take place: (a) that the U.S.S.R. would invade Poland and (b) that, as a consequence of the former, the United States would withdraw its ambassador from the Soviet Union. Guess which was scenario was assumed to have a higher probability. These questionaire-experiments, just like real life, have countless times shown us that a plausible and well-told story can lead us to hold as "objectively" probable events that, just minutes before, we would have considered totally improbable. Probabilities being, by their nature, less than one, the probability of the entire chain (or the last link) being true is always and without exception lass probable than the probability of the least probable link in the chain. We fail to notice this prograssive attenuation of probability. The story takes over from reality. The trick - which is the oldest in the book - is to find the narrative path by which the last, and most implausible, link can be made imaginatively compelling. Give us a little story, a script, something born of our own imagination, and our own natural tendencies, cognitive or emotional, do the rest. This discussion applies as well to the other script: Irreversible Crypto-Anarchy, soon appearing on a street near you. Ciao, James Quoted liberally from the book _Inevitable Illusions_ by Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, Ph.D. The author is a pricipal Research Associate of the Center for Cognitive Science at MIT. I recommend the book.

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

At 07:16 AM 11/10/96 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >jim bell wrote: > >> Interestingly enough, the one thing the Commonlaw court system needs is an >> effective enforcement system. One likely method is the commercial lien >> process, but even that tends to be resisted by people who are far more used >> to dealing with equity court personnel. It turns out that my AP system >> seems to mesh almost perfectly with their needs, although obviously in >> practice it would only be used as a "last resort." > >Speaking of Common Law courts and their Liens, the feds have expanded their crackdown >begun with the Freemen of Montana. They arrested Elizabeth Broderick and several of >her associates or whatever, and I know at least one person personally who is hiding >or keeping a very low profile at least. [these are people in the common law/lien >business] This is, generically, a dispute that the Federal government will eventually lose, I think within 10 years or so. Commonlaw courts were quite real (in fact they pre-dated equity courts by at least 2-3 centuries), and they can rapidly reconstitute themselves along their original lines. 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. The second reason is that with the return of commonlaw courts will be eliminated the tradition (and that's all it was, effectively a tradition) of judicial immunity. Imagine how easy it could be to bring criminal charges against judges, lawyers, cops, and others who are either "impossible" to sue or at least very difficult. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0