December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Rural Datafication (Was Re: Edited Edupage, 9 May 1996)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:10 PM 5/15/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > I've gone even farther than that - I don't bother with having a TV, I >just get my info from the net. There is the problem with the satellite net >links that it tends to concentrate data production & distribution into >relatively few hands, from which it can easier be taken by government and other ... Just to make it clear, the _least_ of _my_ reasons for having a satellite dish and televisions in general is to "get info." (Though even when I do want to "get info," I tend to turn to CNN, CNBC, PBS, etc., and not to use the generally short summaries that are carried on the Net, sans video of course.) I won't argue for television pro or con...I'm sure most folks here have met people who are religiously anti-television and who radiate superiority in pointing out that the last time they saw a television program was when "Nicholas Nickleby" was broadcast. Whatever. But having both a video/satellite system and, obviously, a Net/Web system, they are very different things. To each their own. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Securing CDROM from piracy
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > On Wed, 15 May 1996, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote: > > > We have developed a multimedia resource that will be cut on a CD-ROM for > > retailling. Since we don't have our own distributers newtwork we will be > > collobarating with another firm for distribution. Is there any way of making > > sure that the guy doesnt pull a fast on on us? Can we ensure that he cannot > > duplicate the thing and start selling it without sharing the profit. Or > > alternatively is there any protocol we could follow that will ensure a fair > > game? > > > Think serial numbers that are cryptographicaly secure. If you're the > only one giving them out and only to registered users, nobody can pirate > without it being traced back to them. Basically have your softrware > disable itself after say 30 days unless a serial number is enterded. Enlighten me! keeping in mind that the distributer will be cutting the CD and the customer will never be in contact with us. Cheers, Vipul -- .od8888bo. \|/ .d%::::88::888b. (@ @) .d888::::::::8:888%. ------------------oOO-(_)-OOo----------------- 88888:::::::88888::%. You walk across with your flowers in your hand d888888:::88;888888::b Trying to tell me no one understands 888888888:888888888888 Trade in your hours for a hand full of dimes Y8888888::::::888888%P Gonna make it baby in our prime. '8888888:::::::8888:%' ---------------------------------------------- '88888888:::888888%' Vipul Ved Prakash Fax : +91-11-3328849 '8888888::88888%' Positive Ideas. Internet : vipul(a)pobox.com '"Y88%B8P"' ----------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Past one terabit/second on fiber
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:38 PM 5/15/96 -0400, Alan Horowitz wrote: >Hey, let's build faster and faster fiber-optic networks. Let's create >bandwidth so cheap that it won't even pay to meter it. > >Yes, the world's problems will be solved if we have more and more people >talking longer longer and longer on the telephone, sending each other >more and more pages of faxes and e-mails, creating more Web pages, >playing virtual reality games. Anything and everything must be done to >encourage people to occupy and consume bandwidth. > >Now that's progress, don't you think? Yes, I do! Because these activities don't just happen by themselves, they take the place of other activities which were formerly done in their place. The trivial example of sending letters has been replaced by email. Shopping (by foot or by car) is now a web activity. Telecommuting for many is an option, and will be more so in the future. In fact, I would say that one of the best results of Internet connectivity has been a strong increase in political awareness. We just recently had the "Tax Freedom Day" which should alert you that our own time has been co-opted by government for its own ends. Web activity is low-energy consuming, not particularly risky, and is actually fun for many. Eventually, people may take "Virtual Reality Vacations" where they can visit without travel. Since you spend more time at home, you are less subject to crime. Is this progress? Damn right it is! It saves gas, food, human lives, and what will eventually be a great deal of money that won't have to be spend on transportation facilities. It will eventually get us out from under the yoke of tyranny, which should be the ultimate goal. True, it's _different_ than what we're used to, but that's okay. If anything, that's why some people will resist it, but that doesn't make them right. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Any DLL's that handle Public Key Encryption or Key Exchange?
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Death rays from Mars made Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> write: >There's an RSAEURO drop-in clone of RSAREF that's on ftp.ox.ac.uk, so you >could write a version of your software that lets Yankees and non-Yankees drop >in whichever version is appropriate without worrying about patent or copyright >problems. I've already got a nice fast RSA implementation, so I think I'll stick with that. Besides, I'm not terribly keen on using a library which has stolen code in it. If anyone wants to create an RSAREF version, all you need to do is replace one module (lib_rsa.c) with an RSAREF-compatible version (that's why I mentioned plug-in encryption modules in the docs - you just unplug the existing code and plug in RSAREF instead). What you need to do is use RSAPublicBlock() and RSAPrivateBlock(), the rest is just wrapper code which you can base on the existing lib_rsa.c. My estimate is that it's about an afternoons work. >Any RSAREF system used in the US has the problem that it's limited to the >"official" interfaces, which means you can't do fully general RSA without >permission. I got permission from RSADSI to bypass the official interface to RSAREF for HPACK, my archiver which has PGP-compatible encryption, in 1993. However I suspect getting permission for the same thing in a general-purpose library, especially one which has RC2, RC4, and DESX[1] in it, may be difficult since parts of the library are essentially a free version of BSAFE (not by design, they just ended up that way). [1] Well, it will have DESX once I can get some test vectors to make sure I've got it right. Does anyone have some I can use? Peter.

1 0

Re: Spending a year dead for tax purposes
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:35 PM 5/14/96 -0700, Hal <hfinney(a)shell.portal.com> wrote: >I think the intention then is to create "fully anonymous" companies. >These would be organizations whose principals and employees are known >only by pseudonyms, even to each other. Their only contact is >electronic, via an anonymous network. And the employees are paid in >anonymous ecash, which they don't pay taxes on since it is unreported >income. ... >Such companies would be illegal, with everyone involved subject to >criminal penalties for tax evasion (and no doubt a myriad of other >violations). But because the anonymity is protected cryptographically, The companies themselves don't have to be illegal, and the principals and employees may have varying needs for pseudonymity, depending on how they're organized. On the other hand, the governments have different possible responses to different approaches. For instance, an Anguillan company Aliceco owned by a non-American could sell software products, either its own (produced by contractors from unspecified countries) or distributed for other vendors (Bobware, in an unspecified country, delivered via the net.) It wouldn't be illegal in Anguilla. Its developers/subvendors might be breaking local law by not reporting the digicash Aliceco paid them, but that's not Aliceco's problem - especially if Aliceco bought/hired them from Caribsoft, another Anguillan company. And Caribsoft may not know where they live - after all, _it_ doesn't have tax forms to fill out, and it doesn't care where Fred(a)Foomail.fi or JaneDoe(a)mailbox.Jersey.uk lives. If Yankees or US companies owned Aliceco and Caribsoft, they'd presumably have to report it for taxes if it made money, but a local owner making a few percent is in a different position. Now, the US government _could_ declare a 50% import duty on imported software (avoiding the uncollectability of income tax) which would of course be evaded. The government could respond to this by requiring all software to include a serial # and the TaxID number of the vendor (if the vendor is an importer, then she'd have to have Customs Receipts or other documentation of US origin to expense her costs for tax purposes.) In this environment, the employees would have to remain unknown to the US, but might be known to the Aliceco or Caribsoft. Of course, Alice may be a Fed, or Caribsoft employee Paul may be a Plant, so there are some benefits to pseudonymity; depends on how paranoid you need to be. Or they could declare Anguilla to be an Economic-Terrorist Enemy, covered by the Trading With The Enemies (Especially Cuba) Act. Restricting acceptance of foriegn digicash would be difficult. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 # goodtimes signature virus innoculation

2 1

Re: SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FAST
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:29 PM 5/15/96 -0700, you wrote: >What do I need to do to support a remailer that posts to non binary >newsgroups? (I do not have root control on a unix machine other than my >employers machine, for which I am unlikely to receive approval to use >in this fashion.) 1) You either need lots of patience, or you need to really _not_ care about people getting spammed from your remailer. The patience is because you'll get some flames, and you really should read the remailer-operators(a)c2.org newsgroup to keep track of spammers or spammees that you need to block. Most of the remailers make it easy to block based on origin or destination of messages by putting a pattern in their block files. Adding content blocking is just a Simple Matter of Programming, but it's getting to be necessary given some of the spams to newsgroups these days, such as posting hate articles with a victim's name attached. 2) You need a machine that will accept nntp news postings from you. It's probably much more convenient if you can get the postings to go out with your own domain on them (jim.com is fine; isp.net is okay, employer.com is bad, employer's-isp.com is less bad.) Play around with the machine you're getting your newsfeed from. 3) You need a news-capable remailer; I've got a modified ghio2 downloadable from http://idiom.com/~wcs/remailer.c ; modify the relevant #defines for your remailer's information, compile and go. 4) I suppose if you're going to hack the remailer anyway, you could add a feature that adds a trailer like ================================================================== This message was posted from the anonymous remailer at www.jim.com. Send any complaints to webmaster(a)www.jim.com . Please don't post any copyrighted material longer than fair use quotations. And did you know that Scientology's highly overpriced documents say that "<random paragraph quotation>" =================================================================== # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 # goodtimes signature virus innoculation

2 1

RISKS: YANSF (Yet Another Netscape Security Flaw)
by stevenw＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Reposted from RISKS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 17:11:34 -0400 From: Ed Felten <felten(a)CS.Princeton.EDU> Subject: Netscape 2.02 RISK SECURITY FLAW IN NETSCAPE 2.02 We have discovered an attack that allows a Java applet running under Netscape Navigator 2.02 to generate and execute arbitrary machine code. The attack combines a new security bug found by Tom Cargill with some ideas previously discovered by the Princeton team. We have implemented a demonstration applet that deletes a file. We are not yet releasing technical details. For more information, contact Ed Felten (felten(a)cs.princeton.edu, 609-258-5906), or see http://www.cs.princeton.edu/sip/News.html Tom Cargill Independent Consultant http://www.csn.net/~cargill/ Dirk Balfanz, Drew Dean, Ed Felten, Dan Wallach Dept. of Computer Science, Princeton University http://www.cs.princeton.edu/sip/ ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Weller | Weller's three steps to Greatness: | 1. See what others cannot | 2. Think what others cannot stevenw(a)best.com | 3. Express what others cannot

1 0

"Too cheap to meter"
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:38 AM 5/16/96, Alan Horowitz wrote: >Hey, let's build faster and faster fiber-optic networks. Let's create >bandwidth so cheap that it won't even pay to meter it. "Too cheap to meter"? Wasn't that what nuclear power promised in the 1950s? (I'm actually a supporter of nuclear power, for a variety of reasons, so this is not meant as just a cheap shot against nuke plants. But this was one of the "selling points" of nuclear, later shown to be a falsehood.) Alan's irony is well-placed. The most egregious repetition of the "too cheap to meter" nonsense is George Gilder's "dark fiber" vision...a vision of "infinite bandwidth" to all users. Guess what? If Gilder's "dark fiber" is ever built, there are a lot of folks who will "fill it" rather quickly. Canter and Siegel were just the beginning. "Too cheap to meter" goes away pretty quickly. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

5 4

RE: Why does the state still stand:
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- From: Self <Single-user mode> To: Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> Subject: RE: Why does the state still stand: Reply-to: jf_avon(a)citenet.net Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 20:47:38 On 15 May 96 at 21:19, Black Unicorn wrote: > Well then, AP will simply not work in the large scheme of things. It > cannot be used to enforce anonymous transactions. The scope of > transactions that can be made anonymous is so large so as to make AP > an incomplete justice system. Moreover it will simply motivate > others to use more anonymous transactions, and into the cycle of > AP's downfall we go. > > AP will have "An ever increasing share, of a shrinking market." > > This, in itself, may be enough to prevent AP's implementation. Well, you might have a point. And I hope so. The AP scheme finds its uses mainly against govts or non-anonymous large entities that are perceived as coercive in nature. I do not think that it will become prevalent in the inter-individual interactions. What I hate about the scheme is that I see it being used for pulling down peoples that are too good at what they do. I never pretended that petty feelings, jalousy and envy does not exists. I can see at least half of the business peoples putting a price on another half of a given field. I personnally believe that most peoples were thaught screwed-up ethics and that therefore, they are highly unpredictable. But I doubt that AP won't get started locally for various reasons and various uses. As for Jim Bell's opinion that it might overtake govt, it might be true. After all, the initial reason for anonymity, if not for conning somebody else but to protect oneself from government's point of view... An anonymous transaction system would become hunted down by govt pretty quickly. They could probably prosecute zip out of anybody but OTOH, they could very well make life a living hell for many individuals. The natural reaction for some of theses individuals would be to seek/set-up an AP server. And from that moment, the news and reward would be known around the world within a short time, even to peoples not connected to the net. JFA DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee; Limoges porcelain, silverware and crystal JFA Technologies, R&D consultants; physists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 Unsollicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at US165 $/h Any sender of such material will be considered as to have ac- cepted the above mentionned terms.

1 0

Re: Why does the state still stand:
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>A related >problem is that of government agents signing on. > Both of the above are made more acute by the possibility that some >information, if revealed, might enable the government to disrupt activities - >even if it doesn't enable prosecution. Making sure that the participants have >a strong stake in behaving properly - e.g., shares in the outcome, ecash >deposits, and - most importantly in dissuading governmental intervention - >reputation riding on it. Remember the old saying, "The best defense is a good offense." Another way to say it is to notice that it's usually far easier to disrupt another person's intricate activities than to do them yourself: In a contest in a closed room between a person building a house of cards and another person trying to knock them down, the latter person can be expected to easily win. Making a profit or salary is work; compared to this, collecting taxes is like knocking it down, and the tax collector has an advantage. But if you turn this around, and attack the attacker, the advantage is now in the hands of those trying to paralyze the tax system. >The last is most important in dissuading governmental >intervetion because of the reserves of wealth the government is likely to have >for some time; they can afford to pay (using your and my tax dollars) for >the short-term costs to a subject. On the other hand, the government also has enormous "obligations" that keep it close to bankruptcy. It wouldn't take a great deal of interference in its ability to collect taxes to put it solidly in the red based on current receipts. And remember, if the individuals who populate government could be persuaded that their tenure would be forcibly shortened if they didn't resign, they wouldn't stick around. Once that cohesiveness of jointly sucking on the government tit is eliminated, I think they'll cut and run. These people are working for a fat paycheck and the promise of a retirement package, and it wouldn't take much convincing to show them that they won't get either for very long. I'm convinced that's why so many Senators and Representatives are leaving office at the end of their current term, for instance. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0