December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Libel/slander & crypto relevancy
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote: 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'. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com Not one to ever let a mention of Canada go unchallenged - even when it is a simple fact or a compliment - I thought I should jump into the discussion. Like the CoS, many companies have threatened libel actions as a means to silence people. The McLibel Two in Britian quickly come to mind. However, also like the Cos, many companies are finding that the net effect of these libel suites are not in their favour even when they win. Some brilliant examples of subversive use of trademarks can be found at the site: http://www.adbusters.org Specific examples: http://www.adbusters.org/Corporate/Greasestick.html http://www.adbusters.org/Gallery/spoofabs.html http://www.adbusters.org/Corporate/Kalvin.html A little clever marketing could go a long way to promoting privacy issues in the public consciousness. Perhaps an NSA Friends and Family calling plan? James

1 0

Re: Passphrase Online...
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>If I am connected to the Internet via a SLIP/PPP connection and I >>type my passphrase while being online (for example, in Private >>Idaho, after getting my mail), could that passphrase be compromised? >>If so, how would that be done? You're much safer if you're using an operating system instead of a kluge like Windows... On the other hand, operating systems make it easier to run applications like telnet servers that allow someone else to connect to your system while you're on line. Some different ways you could be at risk include - someone sends you a keystroke-sniffer program and tricks your machine into running it - so it grabs your passphrase from PI or PGP and sends it in later - someone sends you a keystroke-sniffer program and tricks _you_ into running it, whether they use email, web, etc. - someone logs into your system, guesses that the root password is "trustno1", and modifies your copy of PGP to save keystrokes. (On MSDOS, of course, you don't _need_ a root password.) - someone sets up a web page with an evil ActiveX script that convinces your Internet Explorer to download a new copy of PGP. - someone sends you email with an attachment named ..\..\..\windows\pgp.exe and your mail system is dumb enough to accept the pathname. - somebody sends you email with an MS-Word/Excel/PPT attachment that, instead of having a dumb Concept macro virus, has a macro that does something useful like replace your copy of PGP, and you don't have any innoculation on your MS-Word. - any of the above, where the "pgp" program is replaced with one that's almost identical but uses non-random numbers instead of good randoms, and maybe also leaks out your secret key or passphrase. - any of the above, where your email program is modified to add Cc: janet(a)kremvax.su on outgoing smtp. > Still paranoid? Good! # 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: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Dale Thorn wrote: > > Kevin L Prigge wrote: > > > paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk said: > > > > "cypherpunks will make the networks safe for censorship" > > > "Idiots will make the networks require censorship" > > The line above this one says it all, doesn't it? If I judge you to > > be "an idiot", then, if I also have the power to shut you up, I can > > not only shut off your "noise" from me, but also prevent anyone else > > from hearing you as well. That's the real beauty of censorship - > > if I have the power, I can make you a non-person by preventing most > > people from hearing you at all. Oh, lovely, isn't it? > Don't you like power, Dale? I have a great deal of respect for power. When I was 6, I unwound a coat hanger and put both ends into an electrical outlet. All I remember from that is something like a sledgehammer hitting me, and I went backwards rather quickly. And I never did it again. But seriously, I was just telling the folks over the weekend, if I had my hand on the button, a lot of people would die very quickly. As in The Day The Earth Stood Still, a single act of aggression would suffice to be immediately terminated. The best place to begin, in the USA at least, would be the public freeways. There you have the most acts of aggression in a short space, and the best pickings for liquidation. Give me the power, and I'll show you all those nifty techno-ways of eliminating people that have been kept from the public by our benevolent government ("sources and methods"). BTW, I don't give a damn about someone "cutting me off", since I'm not aggressive enough (outside of my liquidation duties) to be bothered by that in most cases. I'm primarily concerned with vehicles who get too close behind, who pass with no safety margin, etc. I call these people anal-compulsive (as opposed to anal-retentive). You've seen the videos on PBS, the various animal species whose male members perform occasional "mounting" of others to intimidate. There are a large percentage of humans who try to do the same thing, demonstrating that they (IMO) have no further need of their lives.

1 0

Re: Toto's database
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Greg Broiles wrote: > An interesting assertion. Is your database available for others to draw > their own conclusions from? As a matter of fact, it is. It consists of the cypherpunks unedited and flames list. > I'd appreciate seeing at least a first-level abstraction of the data Given the well-developed and ratiionally strong questions you asked in your post, I am afraid that you would find my abstractions of data rather rudimentary, at best. I keep a separate directory of CypherSpam, for my own purposes, and I merely popped the moderation-related criticisms into another directory and made some direct comparisons. I used my computer-brain to draw my conclusions from, which I suppose might raise the issue of personal bias and/or competent technology. (I regard my brain as a Pentium, but there are others who aver that it can more closely be compared to the digital circuitry on their office coffee-machine) > Of course, correlation alone doesn't tell us much. If it really exists, it > suggests that the two phenomena observed are related in some way, but it > doesn't tell us the nature or the cause of the relationship. That is why the world has need of spin-doctors, conspiracy theorists and data-analysts. > Another explanation would be that a moderation opponent is sending the > spams as a way to punish the proponents of moderation. This is an illogical conclusion, since the proponents of moderation receive the censored list, and therefore do not receive the UCE/Spams. On the other hand, the UCE/Spams are passed along to the other lists, despite the fact that not a single member of the list has indicated any desire to receive them. The fact that John and Sandy have shown absolutely no concern for 'protecting' the list members from UCE/Spam until their forced censoring of 'undesirable' list members indicates that the 'punishment' you mention applies only to those who oppose the censorship of list members. > I think this is especially true given the relatively inexact nature of the > "spam" weapon Unfortunately, the 'spam weapon' is an extremely exact science in the hands of those familiar with remailer systems and bots. Also, some of the spams appear to originate from toad.com itself, as opposed to coming from outside sources. Toto

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:47 PM 1/27/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: ... >You misunderstand AP, yet again. AP doesn't really take votes, it merely >totals donations. It is an essential element of the AP system that even a >tiny minority should be able to kill individuals who are seen as threats, as >long as this capability is universal. True, the smaller the minority the >more uneconomical such an action would be for them, but it would be well >within the ability of 1% of the population to avoid a another Holocaust by >getting rid of those pushing for it. > >In the current political system, in the US for instance, 51% of the >population is able to screw the remaining 49%, just as long as they can >maintain the majority. Or, perhaps even more accurately and ominously, a >tiny fraction of the population (the current leadership class) is able to >screw the 49%, as long as they have the un-thinking backing of the remaining >and relatively uninvolved 51%. > >AP disables this system. AP turns government into the moral equivalent of a >pick-up football game: Nobody is being forced to play, and everybody and >anybody can simply "get up and leave" whenever he wants to. The moment the >"rules of the game" to make an individual's continued participation >unsatisfying, he can leave. > ... In our society, which, if I remember correctly, 10% of the population control 90% of the wealth, AP would only lead to 10% of the population being able to screw the remaining 90%. At least as it is, it takes a simple majority. As for the murder of the rich, here is a scenerio. A collection of poor pool their capitol to have a tyrant killed. The tyrant assembles a counter-wager saying that anyone able to prove thier ability to kill him without harming him, and who can show they got through will get 110% of the poor's bid. The household is told that a standing bounty has been placed with a collection of individuals, on the head of the trigger man involved in the tyrants murder. The poor can not hope to match the tyrants bid as they only have 10% of the wealth, the household knows that thier participation in an attempt on the tyrant will get them killed. Even if the attempt was successful. The people from the outside who would benefit from the bounty benefit more by taking the tyrants offer and then trying again, i.e. tiger teams.

1 0

uae_1.html
by Lynx_User＠linux.nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Reuters New Media [ Yahoo | Write Us | Search | Info ] [ Index | News | World | Biz | Tech | Politic | Sport | Scoreboard | Entertain | Health ] _________________________________________________________________ Previous Story: UK Bill To Fight Millennium Computer Bug Moves On Next Story: Intel to Europe: Get Online Or Fall Behind _________________________________________________________________ Monday January 27 9:50 AM EST UAE Launches Service To Censor Internet DUBAI - The United Arab Emirates's monopoly Internet provider launched a service Saturday to censor sites in cyberspace that breached local moral values and traditions. Officials from state telecommunications company Etisalat said the new Proxy Service would be compulsory for the UAE's 9,669 subscribers, who will have to configure their web browsers that navigate the net by February 2. "The service was launched today as part of our efforts to improve the Internet service to our subscribers after lengthy study and research," said one official at Etisalat. "We were working on it before some official statements were made on the need to control access to some sites on the service," he told Reuters. The move follows repeated calls to regulate access to the Internet in the conservative Gulf region, where most women are veiled, magazine pictures revealing cleavage or bare legs are blacked out and questioning the existence of god can be punishable by death. Some are worried about the spread of pornography as well as religious and political material through the worldwide network of interlinked computers. Last year, Dubai Police chief Major General Dhahi Khalfan Tamim created a rare public row in the UAE saying the information ministry and the police, rather that Etisalat, should be authorized to issue Internet licenses as it was their job to monitor data coming into the UAE and maintain security. Telecommunications experts say the Proxy Service will not be "fully water-tight," but would help block access to known and unwanted sites -- a list of which could be constantly updated. The proxy server will be pre-fed with Internet addresses where access is blocked off, industry sources said. But the server will be unable to block access if addresses of prohibited sites are changed, as frequently happens. Etisalat says it will disconnect any customer who abused its Internet services and violated "order and clear laws." "Singapore has succeeded to a great extent in its drive to control harm done by the Internet," said another Etisalat official. "Why cannot we?" Singapore government measures to regulate political and religious content on the Internet and keep it free of pornography became effective in July last year. They require all Internet service operators and local content providers to be registered with the Singapore Broadcasting Authority. Copyright, Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved _________________________________________________________________ ________________________ ___________ Help _________________________________________________________________ Previous Story: UK Bill To Fight Millennium Computer Bug Moves On Next Story: Intel to Europe: Get Online Or Fall Behind _________________________________________________________________ [ Index | News | World | Biz | Tech | Politic | Sport | Scoreboard | Entertain | Health ] _________________________________________________________________ Reuters Limited Questions or Comments

1 0

Re: Libel/slander & crypto relevancy
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:50 PM 2/27/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: >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. Civil actions against people doing "graffiti" are only interesting where the defendant has assets worth suing for. This economic dimension substantially limits the number of suits which will be brought. Corporate plaintiffs, if they chose to bring suit, would in many cases prefer to sue in federal court. (Federal juries tend to be more conservative and hence pro-corporate; they're also more likely to be friendly to an out-of-town corporation suing a local individual). To sue in federal court, the plaintiff needs to find a federal question or diversity jurisdiction. Other causes of action (like copyright infringement, trademark dilution, or false designation of origin) would provide a federal question and hence federal jurisdiction. Criminal prosecutions for defamation (in the case of "graffiti") are still unlikely - a much more straightforward charge would be unauthorized access to a computer or some flavor of fraud, depending on the facts. Confusion aids defendants, so I predict prosecutors will avoid defamation law (and its tar pits of actual malice and the defense of truth) when they are able to do so and still have a reasonable chance of conviction. >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? There's a world of difference between understanding technology and screwing up once in awhile. Perhaps you've never screwed anything up (although your summary of US defamation law ought to count), but the rest of us do, from time to time. Were I involved in computer-related litigation, I'd choose an attorney who could talk to a jury over an attorney who was good with computers, hands down. Not even a question. And I'd pick an attorney who owned up to making mistakes sometimes over someone who imagined him or herself somehow superior to people who fuck up now and then. >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. I was that "party", and I guess that in trying to be civil I was actually unclear. If you were a politically important person or organization, and if Toto's message had caused you real damage, and if Toto were reasonably available to prosecute, a prosecutor might get interested. But you're not important, Toto would be difficult to extradite, and you weren't harmed. So you picked a crappy example to make your point(s) with. Change the facts, and you'll get a different answer. Duh. >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. Yeah, I'll bet that your local prosecutor's failure to prosecute Toto is going to cost them dearly in the next election. You picked a hypothetical which did a poor job of illustrating the points you're making in this later message. Do you want to talk about whether or not Toto is criminally liable for making fun of you while making a point about ownership of networks and its relationship to freedom of speech, or do you want to talk about the more general case of liability for misattribution? If it's the latter, yes, there are some issues there, but I still think that defamation law is a poor way to address them. You seem to be having an "I've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem. And all of this seems a bit contrived if the real crypto-relevant point is "use digital signatures to avoid misattribution". >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. Despite your closing, I haven't seen you write anything about "how it should be", beyond the idea that people should learn more about digital signatures. You've forwarded lots of information from other people's web pages about defamation liability in different jurisdictions, but no discussion about why the rules we've got now are good ones (or bad ones). Other commentators have suggested that defamation law is obsolete (Tim May) or should be reconsidered in light of a victim's ability (via the net) to reply to a defamer (Mike Godwin). Do you have a proposal along these lines? Your message suggests to me that you're very pro-plaintiff with respect to defamation (at least when you're the plaintiff), but you haven't explained why other people should adopt your perspective. You did suggest that juries are also likely to think it's in their best interests to find for plaintiffs (because they might find themselves in similar circumstances someday); but it's unclear to me why that reasoning wouldn't make them equally likely to side with defendants (because they might be wrongfully accused of doing something bad), or why your logic wouldn't apply to every case, not just defamation cases. And, for what it's worth, juries aren't supposed to consider "what is in our best interest" either as individuals nor as a community, nor is that a legitimate topic for argument to the jury with respect to questions about liability or guilt. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn wrote: > > Kevin L Prigge wrote: > > paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk said: > > > > "cypherpunks will make the networks safe for censorship" > > > "Idiots will make the networks require censorship" > > The line above this one says it all, doesn't it? If I judge you to > be "an idiot", then, if I also have the power to shut you up, I can > not only shut off your "noise" from me, but also prevent anyone else > from hearing you as well. That's the real beauty of censorship - > if I have the power, I can make you a non-person by preventing most > people from hearing you at all. Oh, lovely, isn't it? > Don't you like power, Dale? - Igor.

1 0

Trolling with Dale (a bite)
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> Subject: Re: overview.htm (fwd) Dale Thorn hopelessly wrote: >Let's be realistic about how AIDS is acquired. Yes, Dale, let's >AIDS, OTOH, is likely to be a development from years of 1) Contact >with germs, chemicals, food additives, antibiotics other medical >treatments, sexual contact, etc. and 2) Immune-suppressing activities >such as lack of sleep and exercise, anxiety and stress, and so on. Sounds reasonable to me, especially contact with germs (Who says "germs?"), and sexual contact. Take it on the road, Dale. >It seems to me that "proof" of someone acquiring AIDS from one stab >with a contaminated needle is a very nebulous thing. As far as nurses >go, the contact I've had with many of them tells me they are also >(on average) drug users extraordinaire. Yes, nebulous! Extraordinaire (on average), certainly. At the risk of being offed by the moderator, I do believe that Dale is masturbating when he writes nonsense such as this. Perhaps "masterbating" as opposed to j.o. will pass muster. Dale makes an excellent case for having a moderated list right here. What do his nutball beyond-the-fringe remarks have to do with crypto, privacy, security? Cripes, in the old days even an _accurate_ off-list remark would open a blast furnace of condemnation, a la Jim B. If the list won't moderate itself to "guide" the Dale's, it DESERVES to be moderated. He's gotta be trolling to keep it hard. (Dangerous ground here!) Read "erect" for "keep it hard." I suggest even (even!) "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" would disavow this pseudo-scientific nonsense regardless of his stated feelings toward homosexuals which I do not share but, nevertheless, believe may be aired. Step up, Doc. P.S. Does tripe such as Dale's latest make the mod list?

2 1

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: > Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> wrote in article > > blanc wrote: > > > From: Dr.Dimitri Vulis This [below] is one of the most remarkable posts I've ever seen.... > > > However U.S.G. is able to say that people of Iraq or Lybia or Cuba > > > should not be permitted on the 'net. It also bombs Iraq and murders > > > their civilians in retaliation for something their governments > > > supposedly did. > > > The U.S.G. has many more resources than most of us to do these things, > > > including equipment, cooperative troops, money, and recognition from > > > other governments. If other nations disagree with the U.S.G. they > > > have the resources to discuss, bargain, negotiate, criticize, form > > > alliances, take their chances and retaliate, etc. > > I wish this were true, at least of nations which would be friendly > > to someone like me (white, Western, etc.). A bully on a school > > playground can always be knocked down, no matter how big or how > > vicious he is. Sadly, the U.S. bully cannot be knocked down. Bad > > enough you get nuclear, chemical, and/or biological stuff waved at > > you - if you get into a hot war like Desert Storm, your country is > > carpet-bombed with fleets of B-52's until it is thoroughly debilitated. > Actually the US is being remarkably ineffective in keeping > Cuba etc off the Net. If you don't believe me just try > the cuban home page. We had a Web server running in Sarajevo > during the siege back in '93. There is no way that the US govt. > can hope to control the Internet any more than it can control the > phone system. What is astonishing is that the Cuban authorities are > so keen to import a technology that breaks down their propaganda. This *is* amazing. The cuban govt. is *eager* (keen) to subvert their own propaganda. > The Cold War was not won by the arms race, it was won in > Eastern Europe which was never a major participant. The main > instrument that won it was West German TV which broadcast > pictures of supermarkets with full shelves into the homes > of East Germans every night. The viewers could see that it > was not mere propaganda and their relatives confirmed the > fact. As a result the East German guards on the Berlin wall > simply decided to leave their posts one night. That's it? The system collapsed because the guards left their posts? And no mutiny charges? Incredible. > The East Germans couldn't stop the TV signals either. When > Dresden started to become a ghost town because people wanted > to move to a town which could recieve the broadcasts the > East Germans ended up installing their own relay to keep > the locals happy. People left their own home towns just so they could watch TV? I know a lot of Americans who'd like to leave their towns to get away from TV, permanently.

1 0