December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: (2) More on Digital Postage
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:10 PM +0000 2/13/97, Attila T. Hun wrote: >+Attila is free to hire agents to screen his mail so he does not receive >+spam. He is not free, in a free society, to force such screeners upon >+me. > > very true. if you if define that your freedom includes the free > abuse of your freedoms by others. freedom is a two way street; > freedom in my book says that I can do anything I wish which does > not infringe on the rights of others. now, that implies that I can As this relates to "unwanted mail," I think calling this an "abuse of freedom by others" is misleading, and a slippery slope. On this same slippery slope lies the claims by some women, as an example, that images in Playboy "abuse their freedoms" (I'd've thought a different kind of abuse is involved, but I won't get into that here). Is unwanted physical mail also an abuse of freedom? How about unwanted personal letters? How about unwanted conversations in a Cypherpunks meeting? The answer to all of these issues lies outside the State. Invoking the power of Men with Guns to stop these "unwanted contacts" is simply wrong. Attila seems to be arguing that the State has a legitimate role in censoring certain contacts, whereas I argue that technology and contracting can almost always do a better job. I repeat: Attila is free to hire a censor, or nanny, or personal secretary to screen his calls, to sift through his mail to pass on only the most relevant stuff, and so on. Many celebrities and busy people do just this. (In the CompuServe case which triggered this thread, CompuServe certainly could have offered a "filtering" service to its members. This would be unexceptionable, and the right way to go, contractually and technologically.) Attila is not free, in a free society, to claim (*) that his freedoms are being infringed when people send him mail he is not interested in. (* He can certainly _claim_ it, but he cannot bring the State in to enforce his dubious claim about his freedom being infringed.) By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned. (There are technological solutions to these problems as well. The laws shield people from having to deal with these solutions, however.) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: Remailer Network Under Attack
by Homer W. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Given the variety of addresses being "spam baited", the only logical > target of this abuse is the remailers themselves. Both sides of > certain heated controversies report being made the target of this > spam bait, each side accusing the other of being responsible. Allegations of responsibility are a serious charge and should be looked into immediately. GOOD GUYS AND BAD GUYS, circa 12/95 There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that divide people into two kinds and those that don't. With that in mind, I present to you the following over simplification. There are two kinds of people in the world, the good guys and the bad guys. The good guys speak with the Voice of Truth, and the bad guys speak with the Voice of Lies. I believe that anonymity is the foundation of freedom in the known universe. Anonymity is the ability to speak either the voice of truth or the voice of lies without anyone knowing who you are. Accountability is the opposite of Anonymity. Accountability means that everyone knows who said what and can take them to task for it. Both sides can use force to silence the other side, but usually its the bad guys who use force to silence the good guys, good guys use more voice of Truth to expose the bad guys. Although some would claim that in general accountability is a good thing, I would point out that ALL members of the controlling party of the emerging police state are adamantly FOR absolute accountability at all times for all their citizens. That should give one pause to wonder. Anonymity is actually very hard to maintain, and absolute anonymity for all people at all times is very difficult indeed. Therefore by observation a society or oganization is usually operating at some gradient scale of anonymity between the extremes of total anonymity and total non anonymity. It can come to pass that certain gradient levels of anonymity end up benefitting the bad guys more than the good guys. In these situations, the bad guys tend to start winning and the good guys perceive that the bad guys are winning BECAUSE of anonymity. Rather than use the weapon of anonymity themselves to protect against the bad guys, the usual convulsive reaction on the part of the good guys is to try and close down the channels of anonymity to keep the bad guys located and corralled, rather than to open up the channels more and use it themselves. This does not occur to them, or if it does they are beset with visions of the bad guys getting away with more than they are now. The logic for closing down the channels of anonymity goes something like this. Since our country is ruled by an Omni Intelligent and Omni Beneficent God King, if we can track every communication down to the person who said it, the God King will be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys, and silence the bad guys for us. The problem with this logic is that our country is not run by a God King, but by human beings who tend to elect each other into power based on outrageous criteria. As the bad guys see themselves getting corraled with accountability, they simply run for office and get themselves elected into the positions of power where THEY are the ones taking action against the bad guys. Of course they take action against the good guys instead. It is for this reason that the temptation to tighten accountability when anonymity is abused is always an error and leads to a terrible trap worse than any tar pit. Namely only the bad guys get to speak, and the good guys get to remain silent fearing for their lives. Which is why when the police ask if you have something to hide after you have refused to let them spot search your belongings, you must always say, "Of course, I have EVERYTHING to hide. FROM YOU!" Anyhow as an ISP it is my job to provide the channels of communication between people. That's what I do, I provide the CHANNEL. This includes standard accountable channels and not so standard anonymous channels. People who communicate with each other tend to get into fights with each other over what they are communicating about. Usually they take their fights out on each other. But when anonymous channels are used, they can't get to each other, they don't know who each other is, so they take it out on the provider of the channel instead. That's me. It's enough to make you want to throw anonymity in the waste basket. Providing a communication channel is a difficult job, it usually involves a precarious balance between allowing the good guys to speak and making sure the bad guys don't get away with the gold. It is very hard to maintain that balance with both sides pulling and tugging on you because they can't pull and tug on each other. One of the main purposes of the Subscriber Agreement is to make sure that people pull and tug on each other, and leave me out of it even if they got no one to target at the other end. Homer

1 0

Re: (2) More on Digital Postage
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970213:0902 "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> said: +At 5:00 AM +0000 2/13/97, Attila T. Hun wrote: +> unfortunately, until the irresponsible tone down their greed, we +> need the regulation to protect ourselves from the predators. +> +> in other words, I agree with you in my heart, but our society +> refuses to cooperate. +Attila and I have had this disagreement before (last time it involved +Attila's support for curfews). +Attila is free to hire agents to screen his mail so he does not receive +spam. He is not free, in a free society, to force such screeners upon +me. very true. if you if define that your freedom includes the free abuse of your freedoms by others. freedom is a two way street; freedom in my book says that I can do anything I wish which does not infringe on the rights of others. now, that implies that I can _personally_ exact justice on those who violate my space. this is a state of war which even Jim Bell's AP does not cover --AP is just an anonymous and chicken-hearted way of settling the score, and creates its own code even more absurb than the rules coming down from Washington. and, I can not imagine you really believe the basic animals of our society and the predators who attempt to feed upon us all do not need to be restrained in one way or another. you obviously have a solution: your .44 (I prefer a full choke 12 ga pump). maybe the comment in my sig line is an expression of the suppressed feelings of the frustrated members of our society who have been confronted by the inequities of our legal system when they expected redress was their right. +Talking about "irresponsible tones" and "greed" and how we need more +laws to protect ourselves from "predators" sounds more like something +from the Marin County limousine liberal set than from a Utah mountain +man Cypherpunk. I'm shocked, simply shocked. shocked, simply shocked? (:-}) marin county? I'm insulted <g> tell you what: you run afoul of us out here on the "mountain" where there is no need for social niceties --we just call it "range law." ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "Explain to me, slowly and carefully, why if person A, when screwed over on a deal by B; is morally obligated to consult, pay, and defer to, person C for the purpose of seeing justice done; and why person C has any legitimate gripe, if A just hauls off and smacks B around like a dead carp." ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMwN12b04kQrCC2kFAQG8AwP/fT3BgeMG8V9IKOGjFEpI+3gY8F5cSohh 8qqaMrHkYT7UU1WZcO/1pGJyUycvOUgzzlFJoTYZsxP6NvJhpkGopHg31EUBDfC+ 5lFDJR1hlX6ckyL8moDlxi3l0z7Dxf6VO+J5dsCetmJG+QxN7/0PzeplN5oN9Y1V nHzMG5/FD5Y= =G/Ag -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: NSA Rainbow Series.
by Genocide 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Tobin Fricke wrote: Turns out they were just late in gettin it to me, but I did get it. > > 1-800-688-6115 press 0 or just wait for the operator. My second > > order consisting of posters and video has not arrived either. It has been > > about 6 weeks. The Rainbow order was only 2 weeks. Be prepared that when > > you order the Rainbow series you will be getting a large box.Their are > > something like 30+ booklets in the series. > > There is a set of security posters that include a Santa > > poster.And there is also a video with two films on it (Acess Ins and outs > > adb Acess Control). > > How much does all this stuff from the NSA cost? > > Tobin Fricke > (please reply privately, tobin(a)mail.edm.net) > > Genocide Head of the Genocide2600 Group ============================================================================ **Coming soon! www.Genocide2600.com! ____________________ *---===| |===---* *---===| Genocide |===---* "Courage is not defined by those who *---===| 2600 |===---* fought and did not fall, but by those *---===|__________________|===---* who fought, fell, and and rose again." Email: gen2600(a)aracnet.com Web: http://www.aracnet.com/~gen2600 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. It is by the Mountain Dew that the thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. ================================================================================

1 0

unsubcribe
by George Leerhuber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

UNSUBCRIBE <lerhuber(a)joshuanet.com>

1 0

Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:46:04 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> > Subject: Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) > 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. There is no policy at this point. We have not even agreed to a means to institute the network or its basic architecture. The only point of mandatory agreement is between any two individual list operators and the mechanism they use to transfer between those two nodes. This sort of policy distribution won't work, as to reasonable I think not. If everyone does their own thing with no compromise then nothing will get done. > 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? There are no explicit rules at this point. Yes there can be all sorts of rules, both implicit (eg copyrights) and explicit. Anyone can write rules. Nobody must agree to anything other than implicit agreements, course the concept of 'agreement' sorta goes out the window with implicits. > Can individual list operators be forced to or forbidden to "peer" with > other machines, or are these "peer" relationships up to each list operator? Don't see how anyone can force the remailer to do anything. Can't speak for anyone else but can say with some degree of certainty that no participant in cpunks can stop me from subscribing whoever I want. There is certainly no mechanism envisioned to authenticate subscriptions with the remailer operators. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: (2)Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 13 Feb 97 at 5:00, Attila T. Hun wrote: > > I don't like the regulatory agencies either, but at least they > are not Judge Roy Bean, Law West of the Pecos. > > unfortunately, until the irresponsible tone down their greed, we > need the regulation to protect ourselves from the predators. Attila: I am shocked that you would make this statement. What makes you think that the 'regulators' would go away, once the greedy spammers "toned down their greed"? Spammers as Predators? Are you being sarcastic? Are you seriously saying that spammers are preying on the weak? I am one-thousand % AGAINST regulation of any sort. > > in other words, I agree with you in my heart, but our society > refuses to cooperate. If cooperation means regulation, count me out. Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:50 EDT > From: "E. Allen Smith" <EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.rutgers.edu> > Subject: Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) > Well, if you can't deliver mail because their mailbox is full, then > you should simply wait a few days before trying to deliver mail to that > address. If it's because the address isn't there any more, you should delete > it from the subscription lists. Otherwise, the instant people's mail quotas > overflow (e.g., they're on AOL and they haven't been able to get through the > clogged lines), they get bounced... or you're left with a lot of invalid > addresses. If their mailbox is full I might let it sit a day. If I still get a bounce after that I currently yank it. As I stated earlier, I am currently trying to decide if daily or weekly purges are in order. I personaly lean toward daily. I certainly am not buying disk space just so somebody else can use it for storing things they don't personaly have room for. > The address causing the bounce is not necessarily determinable > automatically from the bounce message; if it isn't, then you need to keep a > copy around for a human to look at. Hmmm, to date I haven't had a problem determining where the cause was from the bounces I see. I can't always tell why but it always seems to say whose email address was involved. > Given that there are pre-existing news-mail gateways, I'd think that > the programs should be available. My concern on the programming is more in > the realm of keeping the thing up and running. If you get it up and running there should be no programming involved. Unless you want to reconfigure. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

crypto restrictions
by anand abhyankar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hi guys, i am a bit confused. what exactly are the us govt crypto regulations. what i mean is that : 1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) in the US which uses > 40 bit size session keys and then export that s/w outside of the US. 2) is it illegal to encrypt some data inside the us with a key > 40 bit in size and then send that data outside the US. thanx. anand....

4 5

unsubcribe
by George Leerhuber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

UNSUBCRIBE <lerhuber(a)joshuanet.com>

1 0