December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

ISP fighting gov't on privacy issue
by Lynne L. Harrison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [From: CNET NEWS.COM] ISP battles for rebels' rights By Janet Kornblum [May 2, 1997, 12:45 p.m. PT] Todd Jagger, owner of what he calls the "world's smallest" Internet service provider, doesn't like the secessionist Republic of Texas rebels. But he has sued the state attorney general to protect their privacy. The state attorney general's office, seeking to gain information about the rebels, asked to see the records of ten Texas ISPs. Requested items included copies of email and logs of Web site visitors for several groups calling for Texas to split off from the United States. .... See: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0%2C4%2C10327%2C00.html?nd -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBM24yMT5A4+Z4Wnt9AQFVvgP/cUAjpVYWsoNGvqMsX4vaSnAzL3ZhtOFI 0TcBnIOqvOjIJQ+G7ecBPkA+z/4lSA2r5Ed01/Yiau4a9a/A4KcT8a6jWVN4uimB Ll2QSYgrAD9xx0SWLpfGfQsjUJrlsGYsuJ6SiL/rfCCpNKpaD7hXwU0JtwrFdJLp C6HQaHBrY3c= =iCkV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Software patents
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:30 PM 4/29/97 -0400, Robert Hettinga wrote: >Anyway, getting back to the point, "avoiding unpleasantness" also means not >having patent lawyers sue those very essential "hoity-toity" trustee banks >for rediculous reasons, like patent infringement, actual or not. There is a simple way to prevent patent lawyers from suing you for supposed patent infringement. Distribute your software from a jurisdiction in which software patents do not exist. South Africa is one of many such jurisdictions. Anecdote: at a conference, I asked a patent attorney what strategy to follow if your patented technology is only happening in the client software. He looked at me like I was drooling on myself and said: "Uhm... Well... Then you have a problem." IANAL, but I suppose the best strategy for the owners of a shaky software patent would be to make people believe that their technology is patented in many more jurisdictions than it actually is. Have fun, -- 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

Re: Insults about Vulis
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > > At 10:22 PM -0800 5/4/97, Alan Olsen wrote: > >I really knew what specific actions caused people to have such a NASTY > >opinion of C2net. > > This is an easy one. The only continuing insults I see come from Vulis. No > further explanation is needed. > (One wonders why Vulis does not simply program one of his insultbots to > spew out a daily insult.) Tim should try to keep in mind that his vision is limited due to his generous use of self-censorship. Were it not so, then he might be aware of more than a few people who regard StrangleHold's empire with suspicion. I suppose that Mr. May regards Tom Weinstein, of Nut$crape, as just another Vulis tenacle. Or perhaps Mr. Weinstein is in Tim's killfile. Of course, Tim lets us all know that once he has spoken from upon high, that there is nothing more to be said in the matter. Perhaps Tim could ask Vulis, a programmer, to send him an insultbot to compose his Vulissaults. Or perhaps he could take the time to scan all the list posts and get a realistic view of list opinions and attitudes before he speaks out. Or perhaps he could stop to think about how much criticism of C2Nut's products is blunted by their censorship of other lists and their gang of legal-eagle thugs. [Please note that "Blame it all on Vulis," a favorite cypherpunk game, is not sold in stores.] > But the C2Net flap is behind us. The continuing claims that it was C2Net > which instructed Gilmore to remove Vulis are incorrect- Once again, Tim speaks of things of which he has, by his own admission, little knowledge, since he claims to have only lightly perused a precious few of the articles from this time period. Both John and Sandy stated that it was Sandy SameerFart who approached John with the offer of moderation/censorship. Robert Hettinga belatedly proposed that it was he who suggested the idea to Sandy (about the same time that Bob was coming into some cash and reputation capital promoting C2Nut's pet projects). While I anxiously await most of Mr. May's posts with eager anticipation, I think it might be wise of him to consult the archives regarding those things which transpired during his absence from the list, before speaking out so strongly on the issues involved (particularly if he is going to give the impression that once he has spoken, there is nothing more to be said). FactMonger -- Toto "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/ "WebWorld & the Mythical Circle of Eunuchs" http://bureau42.base.org/public/webworld "The Final Frontier" http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/carljohn/

2 1

Controversial Commercial ISP for Remailer? Controversial Commercial ISP for Remailer?
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Suppose you wanted a commercial ISP to run a Winsock middleman remailer on. An ISP that was tolerant of the kinds of abuse and SPAM that remailers occasionally suffer from. An ISP who'd take your money and leave you alone. An ISP who wouldn't drop your account because of bad publicity. An ISP that could be a stable anchor for a remailer system, and maybe even for web-page remailers. Well, such an ISP exists, but there's a catch. It's Cyberpromo.com -- An ISP whose reputation capital was already so LOW that another gigabyte of flames to the postmaster wouldn't really be noticed. The good news is that service is pretty cheap - $50/2yrs POP+autoresponder, or $39 one-time for a mail forwarder. Don't know if he takes anonymous accounts, but probably does, since money orders are more reliable than most of his customers :-) Also don't know how he'd respond to subpoenas and warrants (probably quickly?) or wiretap requests (he's not a telco), or how long before he'll be assassinated or banned or IDPd. The bad news, of course, is that Spamford's negative reputation rubs off on the whole remailer system, and you risk a lot more spamming and anti-spammer attacks on your remailer (hence more administration work), and you risk raising Spamford's public image, and it does involve giving money to Spamford, which could be viewed as rewarding bad behaviour. You'd probably want to limit the remailer to one email destination per message to cut down on spamming. Spambert Greasy Fingerprint A0 D0 31 DF 62 85 19 0A A6 95 EA 85 A9 64 1B 7E -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.0 Personal Edition iQBFAgUBM25ByouqXu2FMJm1AQGhhQF/a0mCkwaVOolhkhX7t/kYSoVZ07bqxIC4 tYy9yumhnK97AwXqVjWoTSVffJYNbSwG =iLKF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- # 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.)

3 2

Re: Rejecting Dialog with Government Vermin
by jimbell＠pacifier.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:50 5/02/97 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote: >On Fri, May 02, 1997 at 12:34:19AM -0800, Jim Bell wrote: >The basic point, really, is that organizational complexity grows >with the size of the organization, at a greater than linear rate. >This is because organizational complexity is a function of >interactions between members of the organization, which is at least >n-squared. (However, when you consider that alliances form and can >interact, the true complexity grows at a much faster rate.) You seem to be taken with making all sorts of bare, unsupported claims, obviously with the intention of explaining (for example) away what was apparently an INTENTIONAL increase in the size of Federal government between (say) 1932 and today. To read your paragraph above, its increase in size was simply the unavoidable consequence of nature's laws or something akin to it. Maybe a product of number theory, or the Fibbonacci sequence, exponential increase, or something like that. Which would, if true, remove just about all the blame from those who were in control of the situation. BULLSHIT! Chances are good that at least 75% of the size of the US Federal government today is due to spending that wasn't considered the proper Constitutional function of the government before 1930, and certainly not before 1900 or so. (Large peacetime military, Socialist Insecurity, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on national debt caused by deficit spending that occurred due to funding these previous atrocities, etc.) >> But NONE of this is truly needed. I have a solution to that problem. > >Jim, have you considered the interaction between religious beliefs and >AP? You apparently don't have direct knowledge of this, but after a >certain level of economic security has been reached economics becomes >a much less important as a motivator [Maslow]. Other people have blown this claim away, so I don't think I need bounce the rubble further. However, I wonder why you think that people will not resent the theft of their property simply because they've reached "a certain level of economic security."? Frankly, it sounds like yet another of your "let's justify the government through specious arguments" exercises. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Bypassing the Digicash Patents
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Bob Hettinga wrote: >I strongly beleive that you can easily knock three, maybe four, decimal >places off the cost of any transaction you can care to mention just by >using strong financial cryptography and anonymous digital bearer >certificates on a ubiquitous geodesic network. Although I stongly share your overall beliefs in the superiority of digital bearer certificates (DBC), I am much less certain about the intrinsic financial cost differentials. Let's first consider credit cards (CCs). Consumers using CCs, if they choose their bank/agent carefully and settle their monthly statements in full and promptly, pay nothing (directly) for the priviledge of using the cards. One can argue that merchants build the cost of their CC transaction clearance costs into their price structure and therefore every patron, whether using cash or CC, pay for the costs of CC usage (few merchants offer cash discounts). Most walk-in retail merchants, in good standing, pay about 2% in discount (fees). On-line and mail order merchants pay about 3% as do those with a higher rate of chargebacks and/or in grey businesses (e.g., on-line gaming and adult entertainment). These fees represent the costs of operating the CC clearing system (MC, VISA, AMEX, etc.) the bank's overhead and profit. Now let's look at Automatic Clearing House (ACH). ACH is a Federal Reserve service offered by 18,000 financial institutions to 40,000 corporations and generating 2.5 billion transaction per year. It is used by business to pay employees (automatic payroll deposit), automatic debt of consumer checking accounts (periodic payments) and business-to-business transactions (a primitive EDI). Costs of the service are born entirely by the business and rates vary considerably, depending upon volume and depth of business relationship with the bank or service company (e.g., ADP) and how much of the ACH pre-process work is automated or performed by the business. Charges are generally below $0.25 per transaction. The amount of back office processing required for ACH is not inherently different than for CCs. However, there is a significant difference in amount of marketing and distribution costs. It is not unusual for a bank to pay $50-60 to acquire a new CC customer. Compared to the massive CC consumer branding campaigns, there's not much marketing overhead in ACH. Whereas ACH is highly automated and all report generation is already included in the checking account fees (both business and consumer), CCs are often an additional and costly overhead. This is one reason the larger banks have been moving to integrate their consumer relationships into a single monthly statement (e.g., Citibank's "CitiOne"). When clients are convinced that electronic statements over the Net are acceptable this overhead will shrink considerably for both services, but will not be anywhere near zero. Will DBC systems will have lower marketing costs than CC or ACH serving similar customer bases and applications? I think not. Indeed, the case could be made that in order for DBC to gain widespread acceptance over ACH or CC marketing expeditures might need to be consideable. It is not clear that the back office costs of running a mint are any cheaper than a book-entry system (e.g., control and auditing requirements to meet Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and establish/maintain trust) and you still need the book-entry system to occassionally transfer value; to the extent that digital bearer certificates become accepted as legal tender costs should decline, but the regulatory issues increase. However, the ACH and CC system's prices reflect the substantial Fed and CC backbone cost and profit to run their private networks, and it is here that costs for on-line digital bearer certificate systems will have and edge for some time. When one combines the transactional economic advantages of DBC: no customer accounts, statement generation, little or no need for dispute resolution and the economies of using the Net for settlement, with the still considerable marketing costs, the likely differential between DBC and CC/ACH is closer to one order of magnitude at best. This is still considerable, however, and if properly branded and marketed could significantly displace current competition, for lower value transactions. The overhead of CC discounts is keenly watched by merchants. If a trusted DBC issuer/agent offered 1.0% fees (especially to on-line merchants) it would get noticed quickly. --Steve PGP mail preferred Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 Key available on BAL server, http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Schear | tel: (702) 658-2654 CEO | fax: (702) 658-2673 First ECache Corporation | 7075 West Gowan Road | Suite 2148 | Las Vegas, NV 89129 | Internet: azur(a)netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- "I know not what instruments others may use, but as for me, give me Ecache or give me debt."

2 1

Re: Bypassing the Digicash Patents
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 4 May 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > As usual, Greg the C2Net shill writes total bullshit about things he > knows nothing about. Try paying cash at Radio Shack, and see if they > ask for your name and address for their mailing list. I guess Greg > is not the type to buy anything at Radio Shack. What a fitting > employee for C2Net. Not a problem Dr. Vulis, whenever I purchase items from Radio Shack, I use your name and address and phone number. I hope you don't mind receiving extra catalogues. It is after all, all in the good name of privacy and protecting my uncoloured identity. VulvisMonger

1 0

Pro-Crypto Arguments
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The current line of argument in supporting crypto seems to fall into the "software as speech" (ala First Amendment) or Crypto as munition (and invoking the Second Amendment). I think of Crypto as "Freedom of Language". Imagine the uproar that would be caused if Jesse Helms (or one of his ilk) tried to pass a law that all conversations over the net or phone lines had to be in English. (Or at least in a language understood by the cops.) The amount of uproar would be incredible. The courts have already ruled against this form of "language escrow". Such rulings should apply to encrypted communications as well. Software is just the mechanism for the language of cryptography, it is not the language itself. Just as in spoken languages, special knowledge is needed to understand the "ideas" being communicated. The algorithm is (in part) that language. (But in this case, you are able to speak to only those you intend, not to the world at large.) Of course, the question is whether this line of reasoning will work under the current regime. Maybe, maybe not. It seems a better argument than the ones I have seen so far... Depends on how far the deck has been stacked against us. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAwUBM266uOQCP3v30CeZAQHU4wf9GePLzvloFC/zpM+uAmdzq+wCzASUt/vH 0GP4v9DwLTYtWDp4O/o/ietk1tej4G/d1h2owpdHsGT1qkUXWIG8XUjWsTPblPsa 0uS097K+fB7fP7+LUyrGWkaCwNMfqQ3gErhVfoRsQ6lJRhWE+6JiIcdgxC1OY7lg kknM3//51Avbk+7CcVH+flyvL7uKWFHJdKpthiSSfKSg9nKJrLUQJxOQaK7xkpXH 4oFEKF1EApa2gFIPyTEM7Nd1Dp2PzcdNZrVHn2BmMP7eXeN4Jfkwoc31r95DPwpI L2uWEeRpNEs61qNtM8/gkKMXk5fP/vLl8ujDHaYXDOP6dA3CnSbGOA== =aN2p -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- | "Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!" | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com|

1 0

FOIA results
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Got two FOIA things in the mail today: 1. ~ 200 pp of "LIST OF DUAL USE GOODS AND TECHNOLOGIES AND MUNITIONS LIST" re my Wassenaar FOIA. It's much too long to type or scan. Am planning to type the crypto and software relevant parts when I get some free time. This looks like the document I was expecting. 2. A letter from the NSA in response to my FOIA request re cypherpunks - they want a check for close to $2400 before they'll do a search of their records. I'm not sending them $2400. Am considering appealing their denial of my fee waiver, and/or making a more carefully tailored request. I'll probably scan this within the next few days. -- 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: Pro-Crypto Arguments
by geeman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Such was the thrust of my question posed to the Senate hearings via netcast: "Is secret speed protected speech" For if not, then it is a simple matter by extension to require that all communications be in the lingua franca of the listener, obviously preposterous. The respondent seemed to think that 'secret speech' is protected, but obviously there are counterarguments. At 09:59 PM 5/5/97 -0700, Alan Olsen wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >The current line of argument in supporting crypto seems to fall into the >"software as speech" (ala First Amendment) or Crypto as munition (and >invoking the Second Amendment). > >I think of Crypto as "Freedom of Language". > >Imagine the uproar that would be caused if Jesse Helms (or one of his ilk) >tried to pass a law that all conversations over the net or phone lines had to >be in English. (Or at least in a language understood by the cops.) The >amount of uproar would be incredible. The courts have already ruled against >this form of "language escrow". Such rulings should apply to encrypted >communications as well. > >Software is just the mechanism for the language of cryptography, it is not >the language itself. Just as in spoken languages, special knowledge is >needed to understand the "ideas" being communicated. The algorithm is (in >part) that language. (But in this case, you are able to speak to only those >you intend, not to the world at large.) > >Of course, the question is whether this line of reasoning will work under the >current regime. Maybe, maybe not. It seems a better argument than the ones >I have seen so far... Depends on how far the deck has been stacked against >us. > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: 4.5 > >iQEVAwUBM266uOQCP3v30CeZAQHU4wf9GePLzvloFC/zpM+uAmdzq+wCzASUt/vH >0GP4v9DwLTYtWDp4O/o/ietk1tej4G/d1h2owpdHsGT1qkUXWIG8XUjWsTPblPsa >0uS097K+fB7fP7+LUyrGWkaCwNMfqQ3gErhVfoRsQ6lJRhWE+6JiIcdgxC1OY7lg >kknM3//51Avbk+7CcVH+flyvL7uKWFHJdKpthiSSfKSg9nKJrLUQJxOQaK7xkpXH >4oFEKF1EApa2gFIPyTEM7Nd1Dp2PzcdNZrVHn2BmMP7eXeN4Jfkwoc31r95DPwpI >L2uWEeRpNEs61qNtM8/gkKMXk5fP/vLl8ujDHaYXDOP6dA3CnSbGOA== >=aN2p >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >--- >| "Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!" | >|"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | >| mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | >|`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| >| http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com| > > >

1 0