December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Free & Open Society & toleration
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate allegedly said: > > It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should [...] > > This is not my case at all. I hold that [...] > means do I hold [...] > I hold [...] > worthless. I DO hold [...] > all speech. I further hold [...] > I further hold [...] > I further hold [...] Whew! That's a lot of holding, my friend. I've heard that prunes help. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F

1 0

Re: How I Would Ban Strong Crypto in the U.S.
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:58 AM 7/15/96 -0400, about six months ago, when Clipper III was new, Raph Levien wrote: >1. The battle over whether applications can contain strong encryption >algorithms has basically been lost. For example, SSL-enabled >applications are widely available over the world, thanks in large part >to the work of Eric Young. The same will happen for any other encryption >protocol that catches on. Unfortunately, the Government hasn't given up on this one; Peter Gutman's recent articles on export policy in New Zealand and Australia suggest that Our Public Servants are trying an end-run by getting those countries to stop export and development by productive crypto authors, targeting the toolkits that are being widely used inside and outside the US. >2. The battle for key management has not yet been fought. Yeah. I haven't heard much from Clipper III recently, since they've been trumpeting Clipper IV "Key Recovery" recently, but that doesn't mean it's not going on. Unlike politican efforts such as Key Recovery, infrastructure attacks such as PKI may require long-term technical development - the Cooperative Research and Development Alliances (CRADAs) are not just to bribe otherwise-valuable companies to stay out of the way, they're to do things that may be sprung on us later; I'd predict this coming summer. For instance, back in July, John Young quoted a Business Wire article about = Toronto -- Certicom Corp. a leading information security = company, today announced that it will participate in an = initiative by the U.S. Commerce Department's National = Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) which will = lead to the development of the elements of a public key = infrastructure (PKI). Certicom are the folks who do Elliptic Curve Cryptosystems, which haven't been used much due to patent questions and RSA's dominance, but which allow much shorter public keys and may have some speed advantages, both of which are quite important for smartcard use. >3. Anybody can write an application that supports strong encryption >algorithms. Witness SSH, a very impressive and useful program, which was >basically done by one person, Tatu Ylonen. However, building a key >management infrastructure will take lots of money, hard work, and >cooperation. .... >4. Thus, the best leverage for the TLAs to win is to guide the >development of a key management infrastructure with the following >property: if you don't register your key, you can't play. I believe that >this is the true meaning of the word "voluntary:" you're free to make >the choice not to participate. .. >6. Export is a two player game. The other country has to allow import of >the stuff, too. If the Burns bill passes, the "administration" would >strong-arm other countries to prohibit import of strong crypto, still >leaving US developers with no market. It failed, and they've now got an Ambassador strong-arming other countries to prohibit export. >7. Building this stuff is too much of a task for the TLAs. They tried it >with Clipper, and it failed. They hoped that building the Tessera card >would be enough - that once they threw it over the wall, it would be >eagerly snapped up by industry. >8. Thus, they're going to cajole, bribe, and coerce software companies >to play along. This fact is quite nakedly exposed in the document (good >thing the injunction against the CDA is still in force :-). Yeah. Clipper IV is getting a lot of people jumping on the bandwagon to get export permission for their 56-bit software. Many of the people who are most vocal about it are the usual suspects anyway, but it's closer to commercial usability that industry's more cooperative this round, especially with more Internet money fever. >> Don't be fooled. >Who? Us cypherpunks? >Raph :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: Key Security Question
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> writes: > > On the other hand, if the "repairman" replaced your pgp executable > > with version 2.6.3kgb, which uses your hashed passphrase as the > > session key, you're hosed. Or if he installed a keystroke sniffer, > > or added a small radio transmitter to your keyboard, or whatever. > > Depends on your threat model. If you need to be paranoid, > > they've already gotten you.... > > If you're really paranoid, you can boot from a clean floppy and > reinstall everything from your backup tapes. You do have a > contingency plan in case your hard disk goes bad, or gets a > virus, don't you? Well, if you're in doubt, exercise it. And what if the repairman replaces BIOS ROM chips with KGBios? - Igor.

1 0

Re: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

blanc wrote: > From: Toto > What currently threatens the list, in my opinion, is not the dissension, > but the rise of a cliquish sheep-mentality and the resulting dismissal > of the opinions of people of Reason (and the opinions of 'anyone', in > general, whom 'I' perceive as being on the 'other side' of an issue). > ........................................................................ > Who are these sheep you're talking about? At the end of the trial period, > anyone still on the list who doesn't like the moderation can at their > leisure either protest vehemently its continuation, producing masterly > works of eloquence in favor of continuing the free-for-all, or they can > unsubscribe (sp?). I am not speaking of the sheep-mentality in regard to moderation or any other single issue on the list. I am speaking of the tendency of many list-members to fall into common ruts of thought wherein the comments and opinions of others are auto-files as this-or-that, and interpreted in that light, no matter what the actual content of their messages. I told Attila the Hun, in private email, that when I opened his messages, that I never knew whether to "pucker-up or duck", because he was just as likely to chastise me as agree with me, depending on his personal opinion of an individual post of mine. I regard Igor and yourself, and a number of others, in the same light. I'm reluctant to bend over and drop my pants, waiting for you to kiss my butt, because I realize that I am just as likely to feel the sting of your toe-nailed boots instead of soft lips. > I think what threatens the list is the absence of really major issues to > fire up everyone's sense of indignation & imagination, But, under the New List Order, any strong opinion risks being thrown in the crapper as a 'flame'. >plus the fact that > many of the long-timers are pretty sophisticated on all the political > issues which have been discussed before (how many of Tim May's long > treatises, engaging, thorough, and relevant as they may be, can one read > yet again without recognizing the repetitive themes therein), Yes, but there are always members to whom these treatises and orientation of thought are 'new', and people only notice the repetiveness when they are, indeed, following these posts, which means that they must be getting some value out of them. > plus a lack > of interest in engaging in rhetorical arguments with people who find it > difficult to think in a straight line. I, too, agree that you can lead a horse to water, but a stitch in time saves nine. > Sometimes the posts on the list > come to resemble more attempts at educating the clueless than discussions > among peers which could truly advance an understanding of between fine > points of difference. Some of the more rambling threads are indeed the result of not understanding that some of the clueless aren't seeking a clue, but merely to hold on to their ignorance. But I would rather err on the side of believing that the person I am replying to is sincere in wanting to discuss an issue in order to gain a broader understanding of it. Toto

1 0

Re: Key Security Question
by Rob 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 31 Jan 1997 15:37:01 -0500, you wrote: >My computer went into the shop a few days ago, and I was unable to take >my PGP keys off it before it went in. What are the security risks here? >If the repairman chooses to snoop through the files, what would he be >able to do with my key pair? Will I need to revoke the key and make a >new one, or will I be relatively safe since he doesn't have my >passphrase? Depends how paranoid you are, how good your passphrase is, how much you trust the repairman not to snoop, etc. For the hell of it I'd revoke my key and issue a new one though. It's not a minor inconvenience, and when people use your old key you can still decrypt the message... just send 'em a note that you prefer they use you're current (unrevoked) key. --Rob

1 0

Flaming Moderators
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Attila T. Hun wrote: > "Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack > upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our > doom.' > --Samuel Adams ("patriot, statesman..."), speech, 1771 Looks like Sam needs to be autobotted to the 'flames' list. Toto

1 0

RE: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Toto What currently threatens the list, in my opinion, is not the dissension, but the rise of a cliquish sheep-mentality and the resulting dismissal of the opinions of people of Reason (and the opinions of 'anyone', in general, whom 'I' perceive as being on the 'other side' of an issue). ........................................................................ Who are these sheep you're talking about? At the end of the trial period, anyone still on the list who doesn't like the moderation can at their leisure either protest vehemently its continuation, producing masterly works of eloquence in favor of continuing the free-for-all, or they can unsubscribe (sp?). They *don't* have to take it, or identify with the cpunks any longer. I think what threatens the list is the absence of really major issues to fire up everyone's sense of indignation & imagination, plus the fact that many of the long-timers are pretty sophisticated on all the political issues which have been discussed before (how many of Tim May's long treatises, engaging, thorough, and relevant as they may be, can one read yet again without recognizing the repetitive themes therein), plus a lack of interest in engaging in rhetorical arguments with people who find it difficult to think in a straight line. Sometimes the posts on the list come to resemble more attempts at educating the clueless than discussions among peers which could truly advance an understanding of between fine points of difference. Whom can one blame for what does not exist (on the list) - there is no mechanism for its production; only the attractions of the subject and the aim, are what bring in the participants who could provide substance and depth. Perhaps waxing lyrical on the features of Eudora and regular reminders on the benefits of mail filtering would be encouraging to "the timid"? .. Blanc

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970201:1452, Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> said: +Since we've now got Jim Bell arguing that it's obvious that a free and +open society must tolerate anything which might be defamatory, and Jim +Choate arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society cannot +tolerate anything which might be defamatory, ... for what it is worth, anti-defamation, Germany's anti-Holocaust denial, and anti- just about anything legislation dealing with free speech is of and by its very nature an abridgement of your personal freedoms. If you deny one form of speech, it is easy to deny another, and then another... do you wish to march foolishly to Fahrenheit 451? Before the current generation of government vipers and revisionists remove or rewrite even more of the immortal words of history: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." --Abraham Lincoln let's look at one more famous speech on "nibbling" your rights: "Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. "Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.' It is a very serious consideration that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event." --Samuel Adams ("patriot, statesman..."), speech, 1771 and: "The more difficult it is to interact with the government, the more the government wants gun control." --attila in other words, the more they deny our inaliable right to free speech, the more they need gun control before we rise against the usurpers of our rights. Now, if there ever was a liberal do-gooder, Eleanor certainly was: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." --Eleanor Roosevelt now, does she mean what she says literally? in other words, is she saying to say what you want, and she will not be harmed or "feel inferior" in this case? I can presume Eleanor could be offended, but is that sufficient to abridge your rights? Nietzsche expresses a defiant tone on first glance -no, the general interpretation is absolute freedom --speech included. "I understand by 'freedom of Spirit' something quite definite - the unconditional will to say No, where it is dangerous to say No." --Friedrich Nietzsche Is not the right to bear arms the same basic freedom as free speech, with one limitation: improper use carries criminal penalties --basically, because the act denies another his freedom. "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature ...and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." --St. George Tucker, in his edition of Blackstone's Commentaries did not the Magna Carta guarantee the right of free speech? Of course, there was not full suffrage at that time, but the Magna Carta is the basis of our common law. Then, let's look at another concept of freedom and a "democracy" Just because a mob calls itself a government, doesn't make it so. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. People who claim that money doesn't matter, are usually living on someone else's money. Society is a mental construct, formed by those people who are too insecure to handle the concept of people as individuals. which gets down to just what the hell did my forefathers, and maybe yours, fight for in 1776 if it was not for freedom of speech and assembly, the right to bear arms, to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; and enjoy the protection of law? if we do not pick up that fight and stop corrupt governments from usurping the power of the people, we will lose all freedom. If we give in on _any_ of the first 10 amendments, our Bill of Rights, we are surrendering our deserved personal franchise to a usurping government. and it starts with society and government trying to tell us what we can freely say. I may not like what you have to say, or that you insult my sensibilities or my rectitude, but I will defend your right to my death so that you may do so. Therefore: "With heart and hand I pledge you while I load my gun again, you will never be forgotten or the enemy forgiven, my good comrade..." --Anton Szandor LaVay -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMvRHa704kQrCC2kFAQE9dgP8D+q2ZFytBzdgWDh+QdtunUa8nqhopHrS OVc5yWkG+UJzcVhtRFyu5O4nhSkgzhjbiGxYUWM1ZNZwaIDehFmieCv8GG/c+Cal 0BHWha5cHqL0pEiFs/NTWAVoVGfPZl2jcikViXMRAqt8mmXmbC3bxPjBtlfnTzmB yTZ51fvB3tU= =aTWw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

PGP 2.1
by Larry Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? Thanks

2 1

RE: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Toto I am not speaking of the sheep-mentality in regard to moderation or any other single issue on the list. I am speaking of the tendency of many list-members to fall into common ruts of thought wherein the comments and opinions of others are auto-files as this-or-that, and interpreted in that light, no matter what the actual content of their messages. ................................................ Hm, well, what's an anarchist to do about other people's psychological makeup? = I regard Igor and yourself, and a number of others, in the same light. I'm reluctant to bend over and drop my pants, waiting for you to kiss my butt, because I realize that I am just as likely to feel the sting of your toe-nailed boots instead of soft lips. .......................................... Hm, well, I'm not in the custom of doing either of those things, but thanks for the compliment! = But, under the New List Order, any strong opinion risks being thrown in the crapper as a 'flame'. ............................................... Not that I'm condoning centralized management, but I bet I could flame anyone pretty good yet by-pass the moderator. It's all in the style, you know. Some people are very delicate about what offends them - I know I could get on some particular people's nerves any day without trying. An opportunist can take advantage of another's infirmity by being perfectly polite while yet excruciatingly annoying. = Yes, but there are always members to whom these treatises and orientation of thought are 'new', and people only notice the repetiveness when they are, indeed, following these posts, which means that they must be getting some value out of them. ............................................ Oh, I wasn't condemning Tim's posts as being repetitive and boring - it's commendable that he would write about the same ideas in fresh new ways, for the benefit of the newbies and the entertainment of the oldies. But not everyone is as interested & willing (or have the time) to re-iterate this way, and with only one or a few "holding up the ship", so to speak, it leaves a lot of room for wayless bickering degenerating into unproductive ad hominems - ad absurdum, ad nauseam. You, know, Toto, I heard that there's a vacancy in the Cypherpunk Division of History & Philosophy .... .. Blanc

1 0