December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

anonymity and e-cash
by Lee Tien 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The NSA's research report on e-cash says: "The ideal situation (from the point of view of privacy advocates) is that neither payer nor payee should know the identity of the other. This makes remote transactions using electronic cash totally anonymous: no one knows where Alice spends her money and who pays her. "It turns out that this is too much to ask: there is no way in such a scenario for the consumer to obtain a signed receipt. Thus we are forced to settle for payer anonymity." Keeping in mind I am only a lawyer, my skim of Schneier (2d ed.) didn't illuminate. The discussion of digital cash seemed to assume no payee anonymity. But the immediate previous section of dining cryptographers involved (it seemed) recipient untraceability. Is payee anonymity technically possible? Under what conditions? If so, is the issue social, e.g., as NSA notes, the lack of a signed receipt? Thanks, Lee

2 1

anonymity and e-cash
by Lee Tien 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The NSA's research report on e-cash says: "The ideal situation (from the point of view of privacy advocates) is that neither payer nor payee should know the identity of the other. This makes remote transactions using electronic cash totally anonymous: no one knows where Alice spends her money and who pays her. "It turns out that this is too much to ask: there is no way in such a scenario for the consumer to obtain a signed receipt. Thus we are forced to settle for payer anonymity." Keeping in mind I am only a lawyer, my skim of Schneier (2d ed.) didn't illuminate. The discussion of digital cash seemed to assume no payee anonymity. But the immediate previous section of dining cryptographers involved (it seemed) recipient untraceability. Is payee anonymity technically possible? Under what conditions? If so, is the issue social, e.g., as NSA notes, the lack of a signed receipt? Thanks, Lee

4 3

List for discussing many majordomos (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:46:03 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> > Subject: List for discussing many majordomos > Yes, this is a good idea. One of the proponents of the "many majordomos" > project apparently has plans to impose his own ideas about intellectual > property on the project, and this seems like a pretty serious thing for a > setup that's allegedly going to prevent censorship. We need a place to > discuss this. Please explain how making submissions de facto public domain censors anyone? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:22 EDT > From: "E. Allen Smith" <EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.rutgers.edu> > Umm... because you'll eventually accumulate _lots_ of addresses > that don't work, which will slow things down tremendously in sending > mail out? The current subscription is between 1,000 and 2,000 I don't think that is _lots_. All we need to do is count the number of bounces per address in a given period, the SSZ end is trying to decide between weekly or monthly cleanings, and then clear that address. At no point would I need to archive the original bounce. > >I can verify this. If I was not already having to deal with these problem > >as a current mailing list operator I certainly would not take on the > >job. It is one of the reasons I STRONGLY suggest anyone serious about this > >should use the resources to make money as well. Anyone capable of setting up > >and operating such a remailer system is at least capable of basic skills. > > Well, loki(a)cyberpass.net has made the offer to host the entire > list... and Lance is certainly making money at it. While this would have > some problems in comparison with the distributed list idea (namely more of > a choke point), it would decidedly help. I certainly hope they get a cpunks address made available. I will certainly subscribe cpunks@ssz so that the distributed remailer will benefit from that input. However, one of the major realizations is that as long as one anything is involved in the list it is capable of being shutdown at any time with no warning. It also makes it much easier to compromise. I would like to see servers in several countries myself. > >Is anyone interested in acting as a mail-to-news gateway? Want to volunteer? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks"
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> writes: > > At 1:20 PM -0600 2/11/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > >If the people decide for creation of a new USENET newsgroup, > > >we need to think very hard about actually moving it to a different > > >hierarchy from alt.*. I would propose comp.org.cypherpunks, > > >comp.cypherpunks, sci.crypt.cypherpunks or something like that. > > > > > >A comp.* or sci.* newsgroup, if created, has the following advantages > > >over an alt.* newsgroup: > > > > > >1) There is usually less spam in sci.* or comp.* > > >2) There are virtually no completely irrelevant flamewars > > >3) The propagation will be a lot better > > >4) More people will be able to read it because of the issue of providers > > > not carrying alt.*. > > > > > >I see nothing that would make a sci.* or comp.* newsgroup worse than > > >alt.* newsgroup. > > > > Sure, and this has come up in every past discussion of creating > > "alt.cypherpunks." > > > > But the creation of alt.cypherpunks is _easy_, and needs little permission > > or support, whereas the creation of "soc.culture.cypherpunks" or whatever > > takes work, requires a vote, blah blah blah. And so it never gets off the > > ground. > > > > (Nor is it clear to me, and perhaps not to others, that it belongs in the > > the various places Igor mentioned. Comp.org.cypherpunks probably is the > > best fit, but then many would cite the "comp" part to try to insist that > > only _computer_ topics be discussed. Likewise, the "soc" domain would skew > > discussion...etc. "Alt" has the nice advantage of explicitly not be part of > > sci, or comp, or soc, or even talk.) > > > (I apologize to everyone whose e-mail has gone unanswered this week - I've > had a bunch of other stuff to do, but I'll get to it eventually. Also, > I posted > the Anshel+Goldfield zeta function paten number - do check it out.) > > Random thoughts: > > 1. A newsgroup like comp.privacy.cypherpunks will be carried on a lot of > corprate news servers that don't carry alt.* (or even soc.*). Note that > soc.org.cypherpunks is inappropriate since cp is *not* an organization. :-) > Another possibility is sci.crypto.cypherpunks. (True, people whose corporate > newsservers don't carry soc.* and talk.* can use dejanews - provided their > firewall lets them.) > 2. It takes more work to create a comp.* newsgroup than an alt newsgroup. > It takes a vote. I'm willing to be one of the proponents and generally help > with the process. (Both I and Igor have been co-proponents of major Usenet > newsgroups - don't know about other people onthis list. :-) Not only it takes a vote. What is more important is what a vote gives: a good discussion of the newsgroup and the formal RFD/RFD/CFV process ensures that, on average, a good balance is found between various groups of readers. I am not concerned as to what the name of the group will be, it is not important. What is important is that it should be in a more or less flame-free zone. It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage. > 3. An unmoderated Usenet newsgroup would have even ore crap than this mailing > list. I've been thinking of how to deal with crap, and with the obvious desire > by some people to delegate their decision what to read and what not to read > to other people. It is alt.* and soc.* that has most crap, sci and comp are way better. > Most people don't have nocem-enabled newareaders yet... Which is where the > network of cypherpunks majordomos Igor's been busy creating comes in very > handy. > It is a very good idea to let NoCeM issuers and filterers work independently from list nodes. - Igor.

4 5

Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

maybe relief is in sight; can we spell excedrin? on or about 970211:1433 educom(a)elanor.oit.unc.edu said: +COURT GRANTS COMPUSERVE INJUNCTION AGAINST JUNK E-MAIL +A U.S. district court in Ohio has granted CompuServe's request for a +preliminary injunction barring Cyber Promotions Inc. from sending +unsolicited e-mail to its subscribers while the commercial provider +pursues its lawsuit against Cyber Promotions. The injunction was +granted after Cyber Promotions foiled CompuServe's initial attempts to +block its messages by falsifying the point-of-origin information on +its e-mail messages and by configuring its network servers to conceal +its actual Internet domain name. "To the extent that defendant's +multitudinous electronic mailings demand the disk space and drain the +processing power of plaintiff's computer equipment, those resources +are not available to CompuServe subscribers," the court reasoned. In +addition, because many subscribers had complained to CompuServe about +the mailings, the court found that Cyber Promotions' intrusions +constituted "harm" as well as trespassing under common tort law. The +court found that the "plaintiff is not a government agency or a state +actor which seeks to preempt defendants' ability to communicate but is +instead a private actor trying to tailor the nuances of its service to +provide maximum utility to its customers." (BNA Daily Report for +Executives 7 Feb 97) ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad." --Salvador Dali ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0

2 5

Re: Need a good bi-directional mail-news gateway
by Jonathan M. Bresler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Hi. The cypherpunks list is going through some major rearrangements, >and it appears that we need a bi-directional mail-news gateway for the new >group alt.cypherpunks and for whatever list(s) come out of the clouds of dust. >(The list(s) in question may be done in a distributed fashion across many >different machines, to lessen volume (1000+ subscribers, 100+ messages a day), >crash vulnerablity, and other problems.) Anybody have experience in running >a _really_ high-volume mail-news gateway (or in running distributed lists)? >Please cc: any replies to cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Thanks, > -Allen your expected mail volume is 100,000+ messages a day? i run lists that do 200,000+ routinely. recent peak of 350,000 messages does that meet your needs? jmb

3 2

Private property & cypherpunks
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, After talking w/ Sten (firebeard) I have agreed to drop the explicit PD proviso. This means the Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer is operaing under the Burne Convention of implicit copyright. This is gonna be fun. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Transmission of Crypto material and ITAR
by Benjamin Grosman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>The answer is that no one knows, but if the doctrines that apply to >cargo in transit between countries applied, there would be no >consequence to it. Of course, that doesn't mean that there will not be >consequences associated with this given U.S. governmental insanity. Or it could be dealt with differently, as with a ship that docks for refueling carrinyg munitions (a catergory shared with crypto), or nuclear waste (not quite, but you get my point...) Ben ---------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Grosman - Programmer, Magna Data Internet Solutions Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. [Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.] ----------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s)
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:04 AM 2/13/97 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > >This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in. > >if someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other >mailing list host. Is this the policy of the majordomo network, that individual list operators can make their own policies for their subscribers, but may not/cannot impose them on other list operators or the other lists' members? It sounds very reasonable, but it would be nice to be clear about whether or not this is the case. Are there any rules (other than "no rules") which apply to all lists/list operators/list subscribers? Can there ever be any? Who would write the rules, and who must agree to them in order for them to take effect? Can individual list operators be forced to or forbidden to "peer" with other machines, or are these "peer" relationships up to each list operator? -- 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