December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Moderated list is missing headers
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lou Poppler wrote: > > The arguments about imaginary quotes and libel are harder to untangle > because the moderation process seems to consume the mail headers showing > the messages' travels before reaching toad.com. I suggest that these > headers are signal not noise, and should be propagated if at all possible. > We have had problems in the past with forgeries, and should retain this > basic tool for evaluating a message's source. The header information, on all of the lists, has been changed in order to make it more difficult for list members to keep track of what is going on behind the Electromagnetic Curtain. A simple example is the fact that, originally, a quick glance at the header was sufficient to recognize which messages were sorted to the flames list and were sent out by toad.com from this list. This has since been changed to make the process of censorship more obtuse. Your complaint about it being difficult to 'untangle' certain message threads seems to stem from the fact that you have chosen to receive only a cypher-world-view that has been censored before you receive it. The purpose behind censorship on the list is for the censoring party to be able to spoon-feed you only what they deem fit for you to read. Given the haphazard methods with which the censorship is being instituted, it is not in the best interest of the censors to make it easy for the list members to track the course of the various postings. Toto

1 0

Re: Reuters article: "Unstoppable Internet will defy controls"
by Name Withheld by Request 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>More broadly, modern governments rely on their ability to control >information and money to maintain control over their citizens. >But does the Net mean we no longer need government in its present form? The German law professor Alexander Rossnagel has published an article titled "Globale Datennetze: Ohnmacht des Staates - Selbstschutz der Buerger" (global networks: state's impotence, citizens' self-protection) in Zeitschrift fuer Rechtspolitik 1997, p. 26 ff. He describes that decentral networks are difficult to control, and anonymizers, encryption and steganography can be used to defy surveillance. "[The state] can neither enforce matters of public interest, nor offer protection to its citizens", including protection of privacy and legally protected secrets. The state cannot effectively face law violations: "If it somewhere suppresses information, it will be 'mirrored' by many other servers world-wide. If it blocks communication lines, the message will find a way around. Sattelite transmission also renders the question of location almost irrelevant. Theresa Orlowski was denied a license for her porn channel here. Now she is broadcasting from Britain. In cyberspace, functions of social relevance, such as protection of minors, can no longer be fulfilled by the state. They are transferred to the parents exclusively." "The state can only interevene where the immaterial world of the network touches the physical world: It can arrest criminals, seize devices and data storage, when these physically are in its control. It can enforce adherance to its laws where it physically can exersize its power. But in the incorporeal world of the network, to a large extend it is powerless. All these examples indicate a new fact: The networks constitute a new incorporeal social space. Increasingly more social contacts, economic and legal exchanges are being transferred to it. In it, conditions are different from in the social relationships of the physical world. In this new world, the state has no means of coercion, no monopoly of power, and no sovereignty." "Law to be enforced requires power. The democratic constitutional state depends on sovereignty and obediency to laws. Only with these it can universally enforce democratic decisions and protect the citizens' basic rights from violations by third parties. To guarantee this is the fundamental reason for the modern state to exist. Its protective mission continues to apply. However, it has expanded with the civilisatoric development. With Hobbes, the focus was on the procetion of life and limb, with Locke the protection of freedom and property were added, and in this century, facing new threats, the protection of privacy. [... The states'] sovereignty is based on the authority to exclusively exercise physical power in [their territory]. This sovereignty has limits in the immaterial space of global networks. But when the citizen no longer receives the state's protection in the special sphere of the networks and the state can no more enforce matters of public interest there, then its basic legitimation in so far is in danger. According to Thomas Hobbes, 'the citizen's obligation to the sovereign can ... only last as long as he is capable of protecting the citizens'." But that would also endanger democracy and the constitional state. Stating that the normative strategy at large is obsolete, the author proposes new solotions: "When the democratic constitutional state can no longer reliably protect its citizens in the new social space of the networks, in compensation it must enable them to protect themselves." Information and communications technology offers various means of protection: * encryption and steganography * digital signatures * untraceable pseudonyms * certified electronic mail * ecash * software agents * connectivity management programs [whatever that is...] * cellular phones without location data * PICS * secure portable user-controlled devices that support these measures "Some of these measures - for example the encryption program PGP - can be used without any advance concession. The state only has to abstain from impeding regulations. Others - such as digital signatures - depend on an infrastructure that allows the individual to use these protective measures. The citizen of information society still depends on infrastructural prerequsites. But there is a fundamental difference in whether the individual can decide about using self-controlled protective measures himself, or the state or an other large organization offers protection that he cannot influence." "In order to protect and preserve the /old/ goals of freedom and self-determination in the /new/ social space of the networks, law must permit and support /new/ technologies." The article ends with the author's vision of a 'civil information society' as a free democratic society where basic rights are guaranteed by technology. "In this information society, the state has a limited, but fundamental role. [...] it creates a framework for the citizens to protect themselves. Thus they are enabled to freely inform themselves, solve conflicts in free self-organization, and negotiate and practice mutual security without depending on a big brother."

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> writes: > From: jim bell (in response to Dimitri Vulis') > > Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to > prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see > any recognition of this fact. > ........................................................ > > 1) Jim, why do you insist on discussing this on an forum for encryption? Assassination politics is certainlyhighly crypto-relevant (being an important application of anonymity and untraceable payments). It's of interest to a number of participants in the forum. So, why not? > 2) Why do you suppose the Iraqis haven't already thought of doing this > themselves? Perhaps because they love Saddam, who really is a great guy. Stop listening to what U.S.gubmint and media tell you and use your brain. What did Saddam do to _you? > 3) The Mafia uses this method all the time - why then haven't they achieved > a more rational society among themselves? The Mafia in the U.S. doesn't work. The sicilian Mafia is very successful at assassinating any public officials that fucks with it. > 4) Weren't governments (like the U.S.) instituted to prevent this sort of > thing (even if they don't work out as expected)? i.e., there were systems > of courts and lawyers and such instituted to openly deal with "criminal" > activity so that a) people could receive assistance against low-life > degenerate killers, and b) it could be proven that the accused were indeed > deserving of punishment. When I was taking political science at Columbia, one of my most memorable insights came from reading Aeschil's tragedies. Consider this recurrent thread: why are people rude on highways, and is shooting them justified? I claim that if a driver felt that the likelihood of him getting a ticket for cutting people off was high enough, they wouldn't do it. But of course the cops are busy chasing the drug dealers :-), so the only remaining deterrent is the likelihood that someone will shoot you for cutting them off (which happens occasionally). > Humans being what they are, this hasn't worked like it's supposed to, but > the point is that there is a reason why such ideas for systems of justice > were introduced in the first place. That reason, as I eloquently read in > a book, was "So That Reason May Live". That is, so that people who choose > to live in a "society" may do so by the method of solving problems through > the application of intelligence, rather than merely knocking each other off > because a voting majority decides they don't like someone. Re-read your Hobbes - but don't believe him. The state did not come about because the people thought they'd be better off under it. The state came about as one tribe conquered and enslaved another tribe; and gradually most members of the winning tribe became slaves too. > Destructive people often ascend to positions of power not simply because > they are ruthless, but because they have 1) many sycophantic followers and > 2) many ignorant, vulnerable people unable to prevent it. You might be > able to kill off one Saddam, but potentially many others would be waiting > in the wings to take his place. The situation surrounding the existence > of someone like Saddam is part of the contributing factors which keeps him > there, not simply that one man himself. It was the same with Hitler and > with so many others - they don't just have an excess of "power" > concentrated within themselves which puts them in positions of control over > others - there will have been many people who will have helped put them > there, expecting to derive benefits from it. I don't like your Saddam example, having much admiration for the man, but again this goes back to the perceived likelihood of future assassination. If Saddam is killed in an unlikely event, he will be succeeded by someone who does not fear assassination. If all potential successors are convinced that the rubout can be repeated, they won't go for the job. Remember, the purpose of "terrorism" is not just to kill someone, but to "terrorize". > And what will be done about all those people who made this "power" > possible? You don't just kill the one man and be done with it - you have > to also "kill" the conditions which maintained him. You rub out enough key people and terrorize their potential successors into not wanting to take over their jobs, and the system collapses. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Libel/slander & crypto relevancy
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, I have received several private emails inquiring into what possible crypto relevance the recent exchange over libel/slander and the law. It is clear that even in democratic countries like Canada (not know as a freedom of speech protectorate) slander/libel is covered under criminal codes. While it is true that currently these statutes are not heavily used, if at all, this will change as businesses and special interest groups move even further onto electronic networks. Consider the zealous use of the law by the CoS. Ask Julf if the ramifications are not 'real world'. Consider a trial where a person is purported to have altered a transmission by some party. It is not in the juries best interest to rule in the favor of anyone other than the person claiming the damage. Why you might ask? Simply because they are going to see themselves in that same situation and will want to know that they are protected both in spirit as well as actuality. What company will want to use an environment where their contracts and other exchanges can not only be viewed by unknown third parties but are subject to a man in the middle attack, potentialy ruining a company. Consider the ramifications in a political venue. Now some will quickly point out that they can encrypt the entire document, hardly suitable for web pages and other forms of advertisment. I predict that within the next five years these slander/libel laws will be used by some organization to prosecute defamation of their Internet presence (eg web page graffitti). Within 10 years this area will be one of the hotest areas of the new communications law. Now some have held that list operators and such will be protected, most probably not in reality. Consider, we live in a time where a person can get drunk and kill somebody with their automobile and the bar or store they bought the drink(s) from can be charged. There is a current trend in the legal industry to find the person that is easiest to prosecute in the chain of events and it has nothing to do with personal responsibility or other quaint but possibly naive views. I want to thank Toto for acting as the unknowing and unwilling dupe in my taking advantage of his emotional outburst and its results, it wasn't personal I was simply trying to create a suitable environment to make my point. It was a happenstance occurance I could not resist taking advantage of. It is clear that here we have a lawyer in Canada who is not even aware that there is a little used criminal statute in the country he practices in which could be used by citizens sufficiently motivated and having suitable quantities of cash at hand to pursue the matter. This is not a unique occurance by any means, consider the outburst from some list members, supposed legal experts, over some of the references that I forwarded (not what I would call a consistent understanding of the law by any stretch of the imagination). The reality is that the legal industry (after all the main motivation for the legal profession is money) has a serious lacking in trained individuals. This should be a warning sign to everyone in any society which has hopes of embracing communications technology. Lawyers don't make law, they survive by taking their views of the law and convincing juries of from 6 to 12 (YMMV) persons that this is the way to protect 'society' and its best interests. If they don't understand the technology (eg forwarding private email to publicly accessible lists by accident) how in the world are they going to understand what is best, let along convince anyone else? Is this the kind of self-interest you want to trust your criminal communications case, let alone your liberty, to? It has been proposed by at least one party that a district attorney or other public prosecutor would not act on such events. This is also naive. The ramifications for their political opponents to use this 'insensitive and clearly self-interested' refusal to act as a perfect example of how that prosecutor is interested in their own political career and not in the interest of the people they are charged with protecting as well as a good demonstration of their technological ignorance. It would be very difficult to get re-elected in such an environment. Now the crypto relevancy, one of the methods to help reduce if not completely abort such attempts is digital signatures. Recently a couple of co-workers for Tivoli-IBM went to the Usenix conference and while there did some key signings. However, after discussion upon their return it was clear that having had their keys signed and signing others there was no clearly useful way to apply those keys in commen communications. Last year the Austin Cypherpunks did a short term experiment with a system (kourier.ssz.com) which was involved in encrypted file systems, encrypted transfers, traffic analysis, and heterogenous key-ring management. This also made it clear that the legal ramifications, economic issues (eg who pays) as well as the technical hurdles have not been studied sufficiently to call this technology mature. All that I ask is that instead of jumping the gun and saying 'it ain't so' you simply consider the ramifications from 'their' perspective. It truly is amazing what one can learn by walking a mile in another mans shoes. For if there is one truth to be learned it is that this discussion is not about how it is, but rather how it will be and how it should be. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

public_law_other_650.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[ISMAP] [INLINE] Libel and Slander Tape #650 _________________________________________________________________ On this tape I will discuss libel and slander. It is for your general information only. It is not legal advice. It will give a general outline of the law on the subject as it applies in Ontario. If you have a legal problem, you should talk to a lawyer. We all have the right to have our reputation protected against false statements made against us. This protection is given to us by the law of defamation. On this tape I'll talk about defamation in both its forms - libel and slander. Libel can be a crime, but this section of the Criminal Code is rarely used, so I'll talk about libel and slander only in their civil context - the person defamed suing the defamer; asking for money as compensation for the injury to his reputation. Generally speaking, a defamatory statement is one which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. For example, if someone calls you a cheat in your business dealings, you probably have a lawsuit against him. That is, you do if he says it to someone other than you. It's not enough that the statement be made to the person it's about. It has to be communicated to another. What's the difference between libel and slander? Broadly speaking, if the defamatory statement is made in some permanent form, such as a newspaper or a letter, then it's libel. If it's in a transitory form, such as a hand gesture or the spoken word, then it's slander. But a defamatory statement that's broadcast on radio or television will be libel, not slander, even though it's spoken and not written. In the past, there was a good reason to know the difference between libel and slander. Today, if you can prove that you have been libelled, and there is no good defence, then the law will presume you have suffered damages and will fix an amount as compensation for your loss of reputation. In other words, you do not have to prove damages for actual financial loss. For many years, in cases of slander, you had to prove actual financial loss before you would be awarded damages under the law. In part, this was because slanderous statements were not considered permanent and therefore would not have as great an impact as libellous words, gestures or portrayals. Today, under the Ontario Libel and Slander Act, the requirement to prove damages in slander cases has been removed in certain situations. Mainly, these include cases where words are chosen to call into question the reputation of a person in relation to that persons office, profession, calling, trade or business. Therefore, if you could prove that Bill told John you were a cheat and then John refused to enter into a contract with you because of the statement, you would be compensated for the loss of contract and reputation. You would have to prove it was Bill's intention to attack your business reputation, but otherwise, damages would be awarded outright. Unfortunately, the Ontario Libel and Slander Act does not remove completely the requirement to prove damage, in all slander cases. Therefore, it is important to discuss your case with a lawyer to determine how yours would be treated under the law. We said earlier that the law protects a person's reputation. But obviously this protection can have the effect of restricting other rights, such as free speech. So the law tries to balance these competing interests. In certain circumstances, even though a defamatory statement may have been made and a person may have suffered injury to reputation, other interests are considered more important. In those cases, the law provides certain defences that can protect a defamer from liability. The most common defences are: truth (known in law as "justification"); absolute privilege; qualified privilege; and fair comment. The first is the easiest. A statement might well lower your reputation, but if it is the truth then anyone is free to say it. Additionally, if you consent to the statement being made, you cannot later argue you have been defamed. The second defence - that of absolute privilege - covers statements given in evidence at a trial, or made in Parliament, to give the two prime examples. And it extends to the fair and accurate reporting of those statements - the newspaper report of a trial, for instance. Our systems of justice and parliamentary democracy demand that in those situations participants must be free to speak candidly, without having to worry about risking a lawsuit for defamation. The defence of qualified privilege covers other situations. For instance - say a former employee of yours has given your name as a reference, so you get a call from someone who wants to hire him. He asks your opinion. You say: "Well, frankly, I always suspected he was stealing from me." That's an occasion of qualified privilege . You had a moral duty to give your honest opinion and the caller had a legitimate interest in hearing it. As long as you acted in good faith and said what you honestly believed you would have a valid defence to an action for defamation. Finally, there's the defence of fair comment. We are all free to comment freely - even harshly - on matters of legitimate public interest as long as our comments are made honestly, not maliciously, and are based on true facts. For example, say a columnist writes that an MP secretly holds shares in a company which has just got a large government contract. Then he comments that the MP is deceitful and should resign his seat. Well, if in fact the MP owns no shares in the company, then the columnist may be open to a lawsuit. But if the facts are true, that is the MP does own the shares, and the columnist honestly believes bases on those facts that the MP is deceitful and should resign, then he will have the defence of fair comment. If you intend to sue for a libel in a newspaper or a broadcast you must give notice to all those you intend to sue within six weeks of learning of the publication or broadcast, and you must specify in your notice the nature of your complaint, with specific reference to the actual words of which you complained. As well, you must commence your action within three months of learning of the publication or the broadcast. Failure to conform with either of these two steps will deprive you of any right to sue. In cases not involving newspapers or broadcasts, you must commence your action against the defaming party within 2 years of the words being spoken or written. Finally, there's the matter of apology. When a libel has been published in a newspaper or other periodical, or in a radio or television broadcast, the publisher or broadcaster can limit the amount of the damages the broadcaster may end up paying by publishing or broadcasting a full apology at the earliest opportunity. Not only newspapers and broadcasters can limit their damages by offering an apology before the action begins. Any defaming party can offer an apology in the hopes of having their damages reduced. The law of defamation protects your right to your good name. If a person makes a false statement to another to your discredit you can sue for damages. But because of other competing rights in our society, such as free speech and fair comment, there are cases where even the most defamatory statement will not give rise to an award of damages. If you think you have been defamed, you should talk to a lawyer. Home Search Feedback What's New Copyright & Disclaimer About This Site

1 0

Re: S/KEY (was: 2 Questions)
by Steven M Orrin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks to Bill and Peter for your help. Steveo

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Kevin L Prigge wrote: >. The purpose of this list was > and should be discussion of cryptography and related issues. Your view seems to be contradictory to that of Sandy. Sandy has stated that s/he does not censor the list according to crypto- relevancy. Toto

1 0

RE: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:04 PM 1/27/97 -0800, Sandy Sandfort wrote: ... >Eric, would like to require a deposit ($20 was the example he >gave) from subscriber/posters. Non-subscribers would not be >allowed to post. Subscribers who voluntarily left the list, >would get their deposit back. Subscribers who flamed twice >(every dog gets one bite) would be kicked off the list and their >deposit would be forfeited (or perhaps turned over to the flame >victim). I know that this wasn't your idea, and am not critisizing you. This idea would be great if everyone had an equal access to funds. Persons willing to part with funds could flame people indiscriminately. Persons with more money, meaning no bills or very few in relation to capitol, would be more willing to part with funds. Suddendly, the rich control the press again, at least to the extent that they would be able to say anything. The rich would be more equal. The plan could be hacked. With several accounts, perhaps stolen, forged, etc. a person submits the $20, flames h[is/er] victim, unsubscribes, collects h[is/er] deposit, resubscribes under a new name, and repeats the cycle. Plus, as has been said before, the definition of a flame is subjective. It has been shown that children with more symettrical faces get along better with teachers. It has been shown that even uncorrupted babies know what physical beauty is. If there is any ability to pre-judge a persons character before reading the post, than the post is more likely to be judged accordingly. I hope that you will be fair in your determinations, and I assume that you will do your best. But I still worry, only because that you are human. And humans make mistakes. At least the current moderation doesn't cost any one twenty bucks.

1 0

Re: OTP security
by Rick Osborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Paul replied: >Depends on how that 16th bit is related to the other bits and whether >these predictable bits give any information about the other bits on >the disk. Yes, I had figured that if the bits depended on eachother, then it would blow the whole system. [Yet another case of my fingers lagging behind my brain.] What I was thinking was more along the lines of something like: 1.You've got 16 hardware devices that each generate random noise. 2.One of the devices fails (or is sabotaged) and emits a predictable stream (10101...) 3.The other 15 devices are just fine, and the stream generated by one device does not effect the stream of another. 4.You do not know of the (failure/sabotage) until *after* you've generated your encyrted documents and they are out of your hands. So the revamped question is: How secure are those documents now? _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ Good evening... as a duly appointed representative of the city, county and state of New York, I order you to cease any and all supernatural activity and return forthwith to your place or origin, or to the nearest convenient parallel dimension.

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list (fwd)
by Daniel Harter 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > Actually, it is a certifiable fact that the list subscribers can > jump to the unmoderated list whenever they want to. It is also a > certifiable fact that they (97% or so) have *not* done so. Has anyone compiled a summary of the difference of volume of posts to the lists? I'd be interested to find out. > Because of these facts, I must conclude that either: > > 1. The subscribers have spoken by staying put, or, > 2. The subscribers are so lazy and unaware of what's going on that > they've just left things as is. > > Now, in my opinion, we've come to this: Some people here will hold > the optimistic view of the bulk of the subscribers, and others will > hold the pessimistic view (the bulk will presumably be in-between). I just started subscribing to the list near the time it started, so I have not noticed a difference. If the unmoderated list is not much more (~10%) I think I'd prefer the unmoderated list. Regards, Dan Harter dharter(a)harter.pg.md.us

1 0