December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Govt & cyberspace
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[snip] >"tech envy"-- what impact is this going to have on our >government? it's becoming a huge issue. it may be a >really great opportunity for a populist movement to >truly reform the government in the process of upgrading >their computers. Even better, this is an opportunity to choke off all, or certainly increased, funding in order to hasten its collapse. >I suspect that the "groupware" technology >that is just getting started will have major influence >in these areas. as private companies find increasingly >sophisticated ways of managing themselves, the obvious >question will arise, "why can't we have an efficient govt >when our private industries are"? the answer is, we >can!! Don't improve it, remove it! > >I've written about "electronic democracy" repeatedly. many >people object to the idea. but when it is phrased in terms >of groupware, it becomes more palatable. imagine a small >company humming along with its groupware application that >allows it to make company-wide decisions using a democratic >process. moreover, the software is robust and scales well. >why can't the same principles be scaled up, up, up? I predict >that they will be in a rather extraordinary revolution. > >a new "velvet revolution"? comments anyone? Democracy is not without its significant shortcomings. If you doubt this read Tocquevelle. --Steve

3 2

Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:48 PM 2/3/97 GMT, Adam Back wrote: > >Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> writes: >> I believe that Cypherpunks is beyond hope of recovery. In fact, each day >> Cypherpunk (as in cypherpunks(a)toad.com) lives on, it does damage to the >> cause. Let's kill the list. Once and for all. Let the hard core crypto go >> to Coderpunks, the politics to Cryptography, and the garbage into the void. > >What about the leaks? (rc4.c, Mykotronics dumpster contents, etc) >Where do they go? I have been thinking about this question. I don't really have an answer other than that the more recent leaks posted to this list drew zero response. How many of you remember the anonymous message posted to this list revealing that Skipjack is an elliptic curve cipher? [One of the most respected names in cryptography confirmed this to me in private conversation. No, the person was not privy to the secret specs. The person didn't need to be. :-] If nobody cares about the leaks, why do we need to provide a forum for them? Besides, there are other fora that could be used. sci.crypt or Coderpunks are both good places to post "found" code. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi

2 1

what's in a name?
by Wei Dai 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've stayed out of the debate about list moderation so far, but a recent post from tmcghan(a)gill-simpson.com reminds me of something I've been thinking about. An interesting way to look at what happened is that John Gilmore owns the name "cypherpunks(a)toad.com" and has chosen to exercise that ownership. Even though those of us who disagree with the way he has done so are free to leave and set up our own mailing list, it is costly to do so, and the problem of central name ownership remains. List subscribers have made investments that are specific to the name "cypherpunks(a)toad.com", and most of the cost of switching to a new list is in the new investments they would have to (re)make. The fact is that a promise of no censorship is not enough incentive for us to do so. I suspect that the hierarchical nature of name ownership on the Internet today will be an important technological barrier for the establishment of truly anarchic virtual communities. Unless this problem is solved, the closest we'll come is pseudo-anarchies that exist with the tolerance of beneficent dictators. Wei Dai

4 3

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<tmcghan(a)gill-simpson.com> writes: > in a message allegedly from: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> > > > 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. > > > But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed things > > considerably. > > > 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.) > > Now that the horse is out of the barn, ( or maybe not? ), I can't help > but ask whether one specific 'change to the change' would have > satisfied most of your objections: retaining 'cypherpunks' as the > name of the unedited, all-the-crud-you-can-read-and-then-some, > version, and adding an 'cp-worthwhile' list for those of us who prefer > not to wade thru mountains of garbage to glean a few precious tidbits. That was the objectionable part of the moderation experiment to me. > What's in a name? Is perception more important ( to you ) than > reality? If just swapping names between cp and cp-unedited would make > such a large difference, I humbly suggest to you that you consider how > much labels need to matter. Is the title of the group more important > the the content? From where I sit, this looks a lot like a > style-over-substance complaint. There is a lot in a name. The name `Cypherpunks' has, or had a reputation. Tricks like censoring the list are not helping that reputation. This wording indicates that the other two lists are to satisfy purists: (relevant output from sending message with body `lists' to majordomo(a)toad.com) : cypherpunks (THE MAIN LIST) Fermenting ideas on crypto and society : cypherpunks-flames (FLAMES DELETED BY MODERATOR) Ideas on crypto and society : cypherpunks-unedited (THE UN-MODERATED LIST) Ideas on crypto and society The naming convention indicates that cypherpunks is the main list, as does the ordering (moderated first). The text in the sign up message: (extracts from output from sending message with body `info cypherpunks' to majordomo(a)toad.com) : cypherpunks moderated to suppress spam and flames : cypherpunks-unedited all submissions, just as they arrived : cypherpunks-flames the submissions that didn't pass moderation Also I note in passing that if I recall correctly this section used to give Hugh Daniel's email address. Seems John is managing majordomo himself now? Is Hugh's no longer being list manager related to the moderation decision? : For other questions, my list management address is not the best place, : since I don't read it every day. To reach me otherwise, send mail to : : gnu(a)toad.com > It may also be worth noting that the current 'status quo' is a > transient experiment, with a fairly short time limit. When JG, > Sandy, et al. evaluate the results with an eye to future > direction(s), they may well consider an 'inverted default' for the two > list names (i.e.: cp / cp-unedited) It would be nice also if JG, Sandy et al, took some notice of the list opinions next time. It really would have been better to create a _new_ moderated list, rather than take over the existing list address, and subscribers. Maybe those who initiated the moderation experiment thought they wouldn't get many people moving over to the moderated list if they had to go to that effort. Another alternative would have been to discontinue `cypherpunks' and start `cypherpunks-edited' and `cypherpunks-unedited' forcing people to choose. I wouldn't have liked that either, but it would have been a better experiment. (Likely that would have lost many altogether, who simply wouldn't have bothered to resubscribe at all). Several times in the past, a USENET newsgroup alt.cypherpunks was suggested. Some people were against it because they felt that it would attract more noisy posters. Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of alt.cypherpunks. (As an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore was the guy who started the alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically to facilitate freedom of speech). Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

2 1

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My main complaints about the `filtering' service forced upon the list readership are that: 1. It was done to the main list! If cypherpunks were left unchanged, and a `cypherpunks-edited' were created I wouldn't have a problem, it would be just another filtered list. However there are already several filtered lists, so the usefulness of this is limited anyway. Merely including details of these filtered lists in the sign on message, and posting a reminder every few weeks would suffice. I and apparently, most others didn't choose to subscribe to a filtering service. I object to this choice being over-ridden. OK, so I can re-subscribe to cypherpunks (cypherpunks-unedited), but many won't bother. (Actually I subscribe to cypherpunks-flames and cypherpunks, as the most efficient way of receiving all messages, and still being able to see the moderation results). 2. The impetus for moderating the main list seems to be as a result of a few posts by Dimitri. Really, if this is all it takes to destroy an unmoderated list, I've got to laugh at cypherpunks collectively. Why is it such a big deal to press the `n' key, if you don't like what Dimitri, or anyone else, has to say? If your time is too valuable to press `n' keys, what is wrong with subscribing to the existing filtered lists? Or with setting up a kill-file? Or maybe generating a bit of signal yourself? 3. It is even more funny that in my opinion Dimitri purposefully set out to raise the issue of censorship (after his own partial censorship), and has succeeded to this extent. The whole thing is just allowing yourself to be manipulated by his transparent efforts. 4. There is already a moderated forum for discussion of cypherpunks issues: cryptography(a)c2.net, why do we need another one? My vote is for renaming: `cypherpunks-unedited' -> `cypherpunks' and `cypherpunks' -> `cypherpunks-edited' and for moving all those still on the edited list to the unedited list. Post a note advertising the availability of a new filtering service called `cypherpunks-edited(a)toad.com', along with the references to the other competing filtering services. If at the end of the trial forced moderation period, John Gilmore doesn't have the bandwidth on toad.com to support all of `cypherpunks', `cypherpunks-edited' and `cypherpunks-flames', I suggest that a new home is found for `cypherpunks'. Or perhaps Sandy as proponent of his filtering service, would be able to find a home for `sandys-filtered-cypherpunks' service, as with the other filtering services. Personally, I am not in the habit of flaming people, or using the word `fuck', in general discussion, but I find the way this `filtering service' was foisted on the main list highly objectionable. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

3 2

Re: New X-Ray Imager
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:18 AM 2/4/97 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >Steve Schear wrote: >> New X-ray gun trades privacy for safety >> Reported by Andy C >> Seen in The Nando Times on 13 August 1996 >> "I'm incredibly concerned," said John Henry Hingson, a past president of the >> National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, meeting here this past >> week. "The entire nation could become a victim of illegal searches and >> seizures and the law is powerless to protect them from these police abuses." >> But in these nervous times following the the crash of TWA Fight 800 and >> bombings at the Olympics, Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center, many >> Americans are now willing to trade some of their privacy and civil liberties >> for greater security. >> A poll last week by the Los Angeles Times found that a majority of people -- >> 58 percent -- said they would curtail some civil liberties if it would help >> thwart terrorism. Thirteen percent said it would depend on what rights were >> at stake. The poll didn't ask people to single out any rights. > >The L.A. Times quotes this "poll" all the time, and in fact probably >just made it up. Why do I know that? Because they ran a "letter" >from a "teacher" in the valley somewhere about a year ago which said >exactly this same thing. The "teacher" ran a poll of her students >and they agreed to give up the rights without even knowing which >rights they were giving up. Wouldn't it be nice if, in a new poll, they asked the following question: "Do you believe that the people who ask you, in other polls, whether or not 'you'd be willing to give up a little freedom to thwart terrorism' have any proof it's possible to, in the long run, 'thwart terrorism' by sacrificing freedom?" Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Cypherpunks FOIA request
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 1/18/97, I sent freedom of information act requests to the FBI (main and San Francisco offices), CIA, NSA, and Secret Service, asking them for copies of information in their files relating to or referring to the cypherpunks list, the cypherpunks meetings, and copies of any messages sent from or to "cypherpunks(a)toad.com". To date, I have received three responses: one from the SF office of the FBI, indicating that they have no records responsive to my request; one from the NSA, indicating that they are processing my request, and one from the Secret Service, asking for a copy of my signature. (I've got no clue why they want that; unless I screwed up, I believe my initial request was signed.) Copies of my requests and the responses are available online at <http://www.io.com/~gbroiles/cp-foia/>. I'm not sure what I think about the response from the SF FBI branch - it seems unlikely that they'd never have paid any attention to the list, given the media coverage in Wired and other places. On the other hand, maybe the FBI doesn't read Wired. :) While they're not supposed to be monitoring noncriminal domestic activity, I figured they'd at least have something about the Mykotronix stuff. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvhHPf37pMWUJFlhAQGBSAf/XIdNAMrxn3flb6O7Q1TZYL1xd/RHAAZv YsuuXs/n6Dih/SnJVqc35tF5/33N0gK0xWhyPCBWdIitVCgHpt+214WEOg3IWBqO KGcnbXg/YMs4xN50zLgpV+Xoim4rjfwCROqNNWvrBqwo6RicAyJbLRoRGE+KdDkx WSslCzxsVYzRHzzkF48rhbYAXqU2vUesG0t8Alg17R/2w4TvjAzlQ3PpclUukB8U VglMVB+dicn+5B2zITt1WG21xMmSHQea5rpwKpDxZdjBvBKXLhgH8L1Hdl6nu3zI sqDEENxeV+bI5UdSzemQDy+TDQoy7BSN7Tby8JgwXE9x3AitY2A05g== =S1Zy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- 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

Letter Re: Kahn Supporting GAK
by Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl' 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- My letter to Long Island Newsday regarding David Kahn's pro-GAK editorial was published today. You can read it at http://www.newsday.com/mainnews/rnmi052u.htm What's odd (?) is how they editied it. I directed my comments toward Mr. Kahn's views, which they changed to "Newsday" (odd, since I've never seen them print an editorial one way or another on GAK; does this mean they are taking a stand? -- Kahn is an editor at Newsday). I wrote "The greatest flaw in the argument is it's very reason, 'criminals... are increasingly using encryption to conceal their plans and activities'" which they changed to "It reports...". I never considered an op-ed piece as "reporting", even if it states a fact. The following paragraph There are also a variety of technical problems associated with escrowing encryption keys, mainly, how to do so securely? A single `backdoor key' (or set of keys) for a popular product can become an easy target for crackers who can jeopardize the security of an entire system. Software can be easily hacked to disable or damage the key escrow features, and there are techniques to hide even the presence of a message in something innocuous as a digitized image. (Mr. Kahn seems to have forgotten to mention that the FBI not only wants to overhear cellular phone conversations but also read E-mail and any other encrypted files people have.) was changed to just There are also several technical problems associated with escrowing encryption keys, mainly, how to do so securely. They did leave the last two paragraphs relatively intact, though. Yeah, yeah... the piece could have been much longer & detailed, but it's only a letter to the editor... - --Rob -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvhdzgTNlSxdPy6ZAQEw8Qf9FnDSSd/m+XwUxU1CCJnwVOrvS4qyIubX 2E18o2rrS+F8TDjkhVsaDR3lJNqikdOzAL2GfjX53/cBEOhYcYcip7IHkd8UxqY6 zDHp2LwWnSuF8wwxeKw/DyPhAURsxYAl+LCJbsJjK+zxpgPU1Z0YzFkj3Am6bscv t8qiPoTxUF3tusueT5I3xQsRgEAx1SNwRHgQGzLS+zPwdFBT9ZsIsp4EbZ0fx1cE ZpbIxu1koDCWhkmJdTiL5HXXJ6mROJvCIGHfr1NU099AlIOO/FXq2UTnti2TzQn7 wYF73490ru1AFMEViLipj3zXzJsIGBo32La37yDozBEItd32B0L/+w== =3wRg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key.

1 0

Newt's phone calls
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimwit L)amentation( Vehement K)retin(OTM enjoys sucking the puss from his syphilitic homosexual friends. /\_./o__ Dr.Dimwit L)amentation( Vehement K)retin(OTM (/^/(_^^' ._.(_.)_

1 0

Re: [ADMINISTRIVIUM] Extradition treaties
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Drunkard Vilest K>rap<OTM wears satin lingerie embroidered with pink swastikas, prancing around for his faggot, AIDS infected lovers. |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ __ | \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ | O~-_ Drunkard Vilest K>rap<OTM | >----|-|-|-|-|-|-|--| __/ | / / / / / / / / |__\ |/ / / / / / / /

1 0