December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Libel, Times v. Sullivan
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970202:0457 blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> said: +Yes, if the Magna Carta guaranteed a right and the forefathers fought +to secure it, why should any of us ever have to lift a finger in our +own defense. seems to me Jefferson said it took a rebellion every 20 years or so to keep democracy awake... other than presuming your answer is tongue in cheek (not elsewhere), complacency == welfare. +My contribution to this thread from the Cpunk History & Philosophy +Division: a Jewish saying from a book I glanced through of couple of +weeks ago, something like: + + "What good is it to a man who has lost his sight + that his ancestors had perfect vision." not a lot, but that does not mean he should scorn those who have managed to retain their sight. your saying is rather characteristic of the genre --best glamourized in Mad magazine. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMvTfKL04kQrCC2kFAQG48gQA3LCObnHCe09r1jtV/0HbeilmKqSuP7ue lf6yScJiBHCwgm8aGT+NqjmSdvKUlTEfjV4H2zVCfoYyQEh5tMs4LnnDpd4zPL0M EBUrCdu2KBgLQpgbzP9g64cUCsq6LMGsfe7mqKaYYFIUmYJMBLsrYrLtPLPGlJ0S +LRYfJexD1s= =y085 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A couple of people have sent me pinging messages, asking about my status on the Cypherpunks list....apparently it has taken several weeks for folks to notice my absence! :-} This may speak volumes about why I have left the list, and what the list has become..... I chose not to write a "departing flame" (or message, but some might call it a flame) when I unsubscribed several weeks ago--within an hour of reading that John and Sandy had decided to make "their" list a moderated list, by the way--as I saw little benefit. I was also fed up with things, and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list _founders_, at least not me) were being sought. It's my nature to just say "Fuck it" and leave when I feel I have overstayed my time, or things are no longer fun, or I am made to feel unwelcome. But since several people have pinged me, asking about my status, I'll take some time to say a few things. I've had access to the hks.net archive site, and/or the Singapore site, to occasionally see what was being said on the list (old habits die slowly, so I sometimes drop in to see what you people are flaming each other about...not surprisingly--in fact utterly predictably--I see vast amounts of bandwidth consumed by arguments about moderation, about the putative biases of the Moderator and Director of the New Cypherpunks World Order, about alternative moderation strategies (which is stupid, as John and Sandy announced what they were going to do, not just some of their preliminary thoughts), and so on. I've also noticed fewer substantive essays. With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose substantive essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day. (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name Nurdane Oksas, and the occasional bit of crypto news. Ho hum. I'm glad I'm not reading the list in e-mail, and thus can easily avoid replying to these inanities...which would probably not be approved for reading by Sandy, so why bother anyway?) Rather than compose a traditional essay, I'll take the easy way out and list some bulleted points. * First, I don't argue that John Gilmore is unfree to do as he wishes with his machine, toad, which has been the major machine host for the Cypherpunks list. John can tell us we have to write in Pig Latin if he wishes. Much of the debate I saw in the archives was debate that missed the point about what John could and couldn't do. No one can seriously question the right of the owner of a machine, or the owner of a restaurant, etc., to set the policies he wishes. The owner of a restaurant is perfectly free--or used to be, and still is to anyone with even slightly libertarian or freedom tendencies--to set the rules of his "house." He may insist that shirts and shoes be worn, or that smoking is not allowed (or even is required, in theory), etc. He may say "All those eating in my restaurant must wear funny hats and have their costumes approved by Sandy Sandfort." This is unexceptionable. * However, anyone who disputes these rules (disputes in the sense of disliking or disagreeing with them, not legally challenging them) is free to leave. Those who don't like crowded, noisy, smoke-filled sports bars are encourgaged to leave. And so on. Again, unexceptionable. (The more complicated case of contracts, verbal or written, and "changing the rules," does not apply here. No one had a contract with John, or Sandy, or Hugh, etc., so this is not germane.) * But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group? Would we think that a corporate host, say, would have the authority to direct what we could say on the list? (Again, not disputing their corporate property rights...as a libertarian, I cannot. Other issues are what I'm getting at.) * If a Boy Scout troop meets at a local church, and has for several years, continuously, would we consider the church to be the owner of the troop? Could the church insist on avoidance of certain "cuss words" and demand that prayers be said before each gathering? Certainly the church could tell the troop what policies were to be followed if the the facilities were to be used, etc., and the troop could leave if it didn't like the terms (or, in parallel with my situation, any troop member could choose to leave....). This is what we mean by "property rights": the legal right of a property owner to do with his property as he wishes, modulo prior contractual relationships, criminal laws, etc. * How did the mailing list for the group, now called Cypherpunks, get started, and how did it end up being run off of John's hardare? Hugh Daniel got the actual mailing list rolling, based on a discussion Eric Hughes, Hugh, and I had the day after the first physical meeting, in September 1992. We thought the group we had just spent the day with ought to be able to stay in touch, and that a mailing list was the right way to go. There was talk of siting it on the UC Berkeley computers (actually, the Undergraduate Association computers, a la the Cypherpunks archive site at "csua"), but Hugh thought he might be able to use "toad," and this is what happened. (I have not heard from Hugh on his views of this New and Moderated Non-Anarchic List.) * I think we should all be very grateful to John for agreeing to let it run on his hardware, but not let our gratitude turn into some sort of subservience and blather about how John "owns" the Cypherpunks group. * Again, is the "Cyherpunks community" the same as the mailing list? And is the mailing list, hosted at toad, the "property" of John Gilmore? * In my view, neither John nor Sandy in any sense "own" our group. It is a virtual community which sometimes has physical meetings at various places (including corporations, restaurants, and bookstores, none of which are even partial "owners" of the group) and which has had several instantiations on the Net, including sub-lists not connected to toad.com in any way. While John is of course free at any time to suspend his hosting of the list, I think it a serious misapprehension of the basic nature of virtual communities to accept the claim that John should decide on what is appropriate to bear the "Cypherpunks" list imprimatur and what is to be consigned to the flame list. * The mechanics of the announcement troubled me greatly. To be blunt, I was seething with anger. I was mightily annoyed to read that John had made a decision to appoint Sandy as his Moderator, with no discussion on the list. I don't know if Eric Hughes and Hugh Daniel were asked their opinions, but I certainly know I was not. I feel that as one of the two or three founders, depending on how one is counting, and as a frequent contributor to the list since its inception, and so on, I (and others) should at least have been told of this plan. Better yet, have the plans discussed on the list, as some good ideas may have been generated. I'll have more to say about my problems with how things were handled. Frankly, it smacked of the same kind of fait accompli decision John made with the unsubscribing of Vulis. While John had (and has) every legal right to do with his property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First, Vulis found other ways to post (duh). Second, the list was consumed with flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others. Third, journalists (who love sizzle over substance any day of the week) lept into the fray with articles which gave Vulis the publicity he craved. Fourth, it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their anarchic ways." (I'm well aware of the issues with pests like Vulis, who seek to destroy virtual communities like ours. But the solution John used did not work, and generated more crap. As you all should know, it was John himself who coined the wonderful saying, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." A delicious irony.) * In the archives, I did see a bunch of "I support Sandy" and "John is our leader" comments from reasonable people. The obvious noise of Vulis and his cohorts like Aga made a "Do something!" attitude somewhat understandable. I don't think the decision made was a wise one, and I strongly doubt it will work to make the list a better one. * The proper solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship. Censorship just makes opponents of "speech anarchy" happy--it affirms their basic belief that censors are needed. * "Censorship" is another overloaded term. I don't think the "Definition 1" of dictionary definitions, about _governmental_ restrictions, is the only meaningful definition. Everybody knows what it meant when we say that "Lockheed is censoring the views of employees," even though we know Lockheed is not using government power. A censor is one who censors. And even my "American Heritage Dictionary" gives this as its "definition 1": "censor n. 1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable." (Other dictionaries of course give similar definitions. The notion that censors are confined to being government employees is a misconception.) * OK, even given that John had decided to censor "his" list, what about his choice of Sandy Sandfort as the censor? I've known Sandy for several years (I was the one who invited him to the second Cypherpunks meeting), but he's a poor choice as a censor, moderator, whatever. First, because he has so often gotten involved in protracted flame wars, such as with Vulis (remember the dozens of messages about the "bet" to bring Vulis out? I stayed out of the charade completely.), with Hallam-Baker, and with others. Second, because he has not been actively composing essays for a while, perhaps because of his job with Community Connexion. Other reasons, too. (I count Sandy as a friend, but I'm just being honest here. Sandy is just not a "Peter Neumann" (moderator of the "RISKS" list). * Nor do the announced criteria make any sense. While the inane one-line scatological insults have been filtered out, many "flames" make it through, based on what I've seen in perusing the hks archive site. And some reasonable comments get dumped in the flame bucket. * As expected, those who only want to talk about cryptography (but who rarely do, themselves, also as expected) waste bandwidth saying the "anarchist" and "libertarian" stuff ought to go in to the "rejected" list. More bandwidth wasted, as each group lobbies to have its ideological opponents censored by Sandy. * I would have had no problem had John announced that he was creating a new list, the "Good Stuff" list, with Sandy has his Chooser of Good Stuff. After all, both Eric Blossom and Ray Arachelian already offer just such lists, and more would not hurt. But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed things considerably. * (Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by Sandy for whatever reasons....maybe he might think my essay was off-topic, or used one of the Seven Deadly Words, or was "too flamish." Whatever. I realized that life is too short to have Sandy Sandfort deciding whether my essays should go out to the main list (which is really just a list like Eric Blossom's best-of list, except it is be edict now the main list) or be dumped into the flames list, to be read by a handful of people.) * Why, many reasonable people may ask, did I not simply unsubscribe from the "Cypherpunks" list and subscribe to the "Cypherpunks-Unedited) (or whatever it is called) list? Because of my overall anger with the issues raised above. The imperiousness of the decision, the notion of favoring Sandy's tastes in a more "first class" way than, say, the tastes of Eric Blossom, Ray Arachelian, or, for that matter, me. "Some censors are more equal than others." * The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful ammunition to give to our opponents, and Vulis is certainly gleeful that his fondest wishes have been realized. And it won't work. People are consuming even more bandwidth arguing the merits of John's decision, the traffic is presumably being slowed down by the need for Sandy to wade through the traffic and stamp "Approved" or "Rejected" on what he glances at, and people are "testing the limits" of what they can say and what they can't say. * It also sends a message that people are incapable of filtering out bad speech, that they need a censor to do it for them. (Again, I have no problem with competing "screeners," a la having Ray, Eric, or David Sternlight filtering what they think is OK and what is not. Let a thousand filtering services bloom.) But the clear message by having Sandy censor the main list (the default list, the list name with the main name, the list we all know about, etc.) is that Cypherpunks need Big Brother to shelter them from Bad Thoughts, from Naughty Words, from Evil Flames, and from Impure Desires. Foo on that. * Psychologists might point to random reinforcement, even to the effects of terror. How many of us are likely to write controversial posts knowing that Sandy might wake up having a "bad hair day" and thus reject our posts? How many will begin to skew their opinions to match those of Sandy? (I would venture a guess that a Duncan Frissell would almost certainly get a libertarian rant past Sandy while a Phill Hallam-Baker might easily fail to get a leftist rant past him.) * Those who want "less noise" should subcontract with the filter services of their own choosing. This is the "Cypherpunk Way." Having Sandy as the censor is the easy way out. * By the way, the moderated list "RISKS" works pretty well. But it is not a _discussion_ group. It is, rather, a digest of news items related to computer and technology risks, with some discussion by various contributors, and with a long turnaround time of a few issues per week, tops. Peter Neumann also devotes a lot of time to making it run smoothly and bases part of his professional career on running it. I surmise that Sandy is not prepared to do the same. Nor would this be a good idea, as this would kill the spirit of the debate. * Had there been a debate about the policy, I can think of several approaches I'd like better. But inasmuch as John made it clear that there would be no debate (and, perhaps as part of the "problem," John has not really been a active member of the mailing list, in terms of participating in the debates), this is all moot. In any case, my several years with the list have taken a huge amount of my time. Given the way this whole thing was handled, and the way the list is degenerating even further, it looks like it's good that I'm moving on to other things. * To summarize: - the decision to censor the list was made without any discussion on the list, without any discussion with at least some of the longterm core contributors, and was presented as a "fait accompli." - while John has every right to do with his hardware as he wishes, he does not "own" the Cypherpunks group (though whether he owns the "list" is a semantically debatable point) - whatever our group once was, or still is, is not dependent on having a particular mailing list running on someone's home machine...and it cannot be claimed that any person "owns" the Cypherpunks group. - there is some talk of creating another Cypherpunks list, on other machines; I don't know whether or not this will fly, or if I'll devote any time to such lists. - the effect of censorship, such as I have seen it so far, is not producing a better list. In fact, as I would have expected, it is producing a more boring and sheltered list. And so there you have it. I had no plans to set down my views, feeling it was a waste of my time and your time. Rather than foam and rant the way some did (and Vulis must have posted 100 messages on the subject), I chose to simply make my exit, quickly. But as I have recently seen several mentions of my absence (including a particularly complimentary comment from Asgaard--thanks), I do feel I owe it to you all to explain my views. Which I have done. Have a nice year, and a nice millenium in a couple of years. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 5

Electronic Funds Transfer without stealing PIN/TAN
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Sender: e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: Rachel Willmer <rachel(a)intertrader.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 15:03:25 +0000 From: Rachel Willmer <rachel(a)intertrader.com> To: Multiple recipients of <e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com> Subject: Electronic Funds Transfer without stealing PIN/TAN --- From RISKS digest --- Date: 1 Feb 1997 05:12:02 GMT From: weberwu(a)tfh-berlin.de (Debora Weber-Wulff) Subject: Electronic Funds Transfer without stealing PIN/TAN The Berlin newspaper "Tagespiegel" reports on 29 Jan 97 about a television show broadcast the previous evening on which hackers from the Chaos Computer Club demonstrated how to electronically transfer funds without needing a PIN (Personal Identification Number) or TAN (Transaction Number). Apparently it suffices for the victim to visit a site which downloads an ActiveX application, which automatically starts and checks to see if Quicken, a popular financial software package that also offers electronic funds transfer, is on the machine. If so, Quicken is given a transfer order which is saved by Quicken in its pile of pending transfer orders. The next time the victim sends off the pending transfer orders to the bank (and enters in a valid PIN and TAN for that!) all the orders (= 1 transaction) are executed -> money is transferred without the victim noticing! The newspaper quotes various officials at Microsoft et al expressing disbelief/outrage/"we're working on it". We discussed this briefly in class looking for a way to avoid the problem. Demanding a TAN for each transfer is not a solution, for one, the banks only send you 50 at a time, and many small companies pay their bills in bunches. Having to enter a TAN for each transaction would be quite time-consuming. Our only solution would be to forbid browsers from executing any ActiveX component without express authorization, but that rather circumvents part of what ActiveX is intended for. A small consolation: the transfer is trackable, that is, it can be determined at the bank to which account the money went. Some banks even include this information on the statement, but who checks every entry on their statements... Debora Weber-Wulff, Technische Fachhochschule Berlin, Luxemburger Str. 10, 13353 Berlin GERMANY weberwu(a)tfh-berlin.de <http://www.tfh-berlin.de/~weberwu/> -- Rachel Willmer, Intertrader Ltd, Cova House, 4 John's Place, Edinburgh Email: rachel(a)intertrader.com Tel: +44 131 555 8450 Fax: +44 131 555 8451 Sun Internet Associate and winner of 1996 SMART Award for Innovation "We develop Java Commerce Solutions" --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/

1 0

Re: Lucifer
by winsock＠rigel.cyberpass.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Deflated Vermin K`adaver'OTM has been fired for masturbating in front of his boss. o o --/-- <~\ Deflated Vermin K`adaver'OTM __\ _/\

1 0

None [ANNOUNCEMENT] Secure envelopes
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim C[rook] May's aberrant sexual life has negatively impacted his mental integrity. ,,, -ooO(o o)Ooo- Tim C[rook] May (_)

1 0

Re: [OFF-TOPIC] Newt's phone calls
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dipshit Viscera K<rap> Of The Month will fuck anything that moves, but he'd rather be fucking his own mother's dead body. ^-^-^-@@-^-^-^ (..) Dipshit Viscera K<rap> Of The Month

1 0

Re: Key Security Question
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v1.24

2 1

RE: Libel, Times v. Sullivan
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Attila T. Hun +Yes, if the Magna Carta guaranteed a right and the forefathers fought +to secure it, why should any of us ever have to lift a finger in our +own defense. seems to me Jefferson said it took a rebellion every 20 years or so to keep democracy awake... other than presuming your answer is tongue in cheek (not elsewhere), complacency == welfare. ......................................................... Definitely tongue-in-cheek. Just noting that if a thing has been "guaranteed", this means (by my interpretation) that it is a done deal and nothing further need be done about it - it's established and automatic. But obviously a "right", though it be a basic operant in Nature and existent as an abstract concept in some people's minds, is not recognized either naturally or formally by many. Therefore, as Jefferson remarked, we cannot depend on our forefather's vision to uphold our honor but must re-establish it as needed. .. Blanc

1 0

Re: alt.cypherpunks created
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:06 PM -0800 2/12/97, Greg Broiles wrote: >According to DejaNews, Mike Duvos has also issued a newgroup for >alt.cypherpunks: I've already posted two articles to it. I expect it to be the main place I post my words, as it eliminates any possibility that some site admin will "moderate" my essays. (And few of my articles in the last several days have made it to the Main list. They were not flames, but apparently failed Sandy's test of relevance.) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:47 EDT > From: "E. Allen Smith" <EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.rutgers.edu> > Subject: Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) > > Someone with more experience correct me if I'm wrong (I'm just > starting to learn about mailing list management), but isn't saving > at least the first bounce from a given address good in order to check > what address is the one that's actually bouncing? Admittedly, this only > applies to badly-formed bounces. The rest can just have the address > noted. Hmmm, I can see saving the address causing the bounce in some sort of array that is indexed to the majordomo subscription list for a given remailer. It would not cost anything but overhead to save the entire message. I guess my motivation was not that I cared their mailbox was full or it was a invalid address but that I wouldn't be able to deliver at this time. I just don't see any reason that it helps me to know why they can't receive mail only that they can't. > >Want to volunteer? > > Give me some idea of how much programming knowledge, time, etcetera > is required, please, before I can answer. I'd be renting space on some other > computer (e.g., an account on cyberpass.net) to do it in; the only higher-level > programming language (i.e., beyond Applesoft Basic) that I know anything of > is Perl (and I don't know that all that well); and I am somewhat busy with > other stuff. In other words, it depends. Hmmm, not shure how much programming it would take - never done it myself. I think Perl would be an acceptable language. I certainly hope to do the majority of the scripts on the CDR in Perl myself. Perhaps there is somebody who knows the fine points of how INN cache's messages. Redbeard and I had a short discussion about this issue today relating to tracking messages to reduce mail-loops. I will discuss it with him and see what happens. I know exactly what you mean. I have two full-time jobs and hadn't really thought of taking on the cpunks list in any manner. But hey, that is the spice in life... Give me a couple of days to look at the situation and if somebody don't beat me to it I'll post what I find out. Cool? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0