December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Just another government fuckover: New crypto regulations
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Toto Why is it that governments always seem to be so self-congratulatory about allowing the citizens to be 'free' to do those things that the government 'allows' them to do? ..................................................... Not to start a thread specifically on government bashing, but Toto' statement is so on-target about the kind of attitude which emanates from what regulators say and do. It is their underlying assumption that only they have the moral discernment to determine the parameters of propriety; which makes them think that no 'underling' has the right of self-determination. It can be seen in statements they make such as as: "there are no provisions in Super Legislation Bill 200A.666.b.32xy.450z for individual exemptions from voluntary contribution". (well, excuse Me! <g>) So this means that an individual can feel "free" to act only when these people feel magnanimously generous enough to allow it. No reference to Reason or Logic in the way things work in Reality, only that an action is inhibited or allowed "because this piece of paper says so". Therefore from their perspective and their re-definition of "person", Human Motivation derives its validity solely from their "provisions" for it. All other determining factors are Prohibited by Law. How can you argue with that? .. Blanc >

1 0

If He Doesn't Like Me
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 30 Dec 96 at 21:32, Timothy C. May wrote: > > Indeed, I added "Ross Wright" to my Eudora filter file after his > "slap you around" message several days ago, so I was mercifully > spared from reading > > > As to why he got *plonked*, this is the price people pay for writing > such things as "maybe we need to slap him around." I have more than > 20 in my > > Oh, and posting private mail is not considered acceptable behavior. > What's next? If Timmy doesn't like what I write will I be kicked off like the Doctor? Wow! From Timmy's trash bin to Kook of the Month FAME!!!!! What more could I ask for? Fuck You, Too, Timmy! But I refuse to censor my own input, so I'll still have to see your fucking stuff. ShitHead. Hostile Agent! How come it took over a year to get this far? Ross (Proud to be in Timmy's Filter File) Wright =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

8 11

[[[ NEW ! Computer Based Business. ]]]
by 93865＠net.122 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

DO NOT PRESS REPLY. Send all inquiries, and remove request to http://business.atcon.com/parker/PSM/Tony/tonypsm.htm

2 1

Re: (Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things.
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 30 Dec 96 at 22:24, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > And Tim never threatened Ross. He merely posited an "if, than" > response to a hypothetical assault. If Ross does no slapping, Tim > won't shoot him. QED. No reason to get bent out of shape. Thanks. You are correct. I'm done with this thread. Tim *Plonked* me, not shot me. And now back to you, Dr. V.... 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: (Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things.
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Ross Wright Yes, part of that "higher standard" is to keep your fucking mouth shut about that piece in your sholder holster. Those that brag that they are packing and won't hesitate to use it are usually those that freeze under fire or snap at the workplace. ............................................................. Discussing self-defense equipment to carry... Student: "How about earplugs?" Instructor: "We've thought about that as an intimidation tool. Some guy is hassling you on the street and you start putting your ear plugs in. The guy says, 'What are you doing?' You say, 'It looks like I'm going to be doing some shooting here pretty soon and I don't want to hurt my ears.'" -Greg Hamilton- Self Defense Instructor Nov. 19, 1995 In cyberspace, elimination is accomplished with "delete" keys and "kill files", right? (L.Detweiler used to complain about how many cyberdeaths he had experienced.) Outta sight, outta mind... .. Blanc

1 0

Re: "Structuring" of Communications a Felony?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:35 PM 12/29/96 -0800, Steve Schear wrote: >>I predict that we will see within two years a law making it illegal to >>"structure communications" with the intent to avoid traceability, >>accountability, etc. >> >>This would be along the lines of the laws making it illegal to "structure" >>financial transactions with the (apparent) intent to avoid or evade certain >>laws about reporting of income, reporting of transactions, etc. >> >>How long before the U.S. Code declares "attempting to obscure or hide the >>origin of a communication" to be a felony? That would rule out orninary >>mail without return adresses, but I think there are ample signs we're >>already moving toward this situation (packages that could be bombs >>putatively require ID, talk of the Postal Service handling the citizen-unit >>authentication/signature system, etc.). >>--Tim May > >Tim, I think that this is highly unlikely. The SC has ruled repeatedly >that anonymous speech is a foundation of American politics (e.g., the >Federalist Papers). >-- Steve When Senator Leahy's first crypto bill was proposed early this year, at first glance it appeared to help our cause. Many people around here at least gave it lukewarm support. However, it contained a section making (quote approximate) "use of encryption to thwart an investigation" a crime. I pointed out, quite loudly, that any encrypting anonymous remailer could be considered practically automatically guilty of this. In fact, the feds could simply start a sham "investigation," perhaps assisted by a phony message sent by a confederate through the remailer, and then declare that their investigation had been "thwarted." Whether such an interpretation would fly was, obviously, a question, but by the time the SC had issued its ruling the remailer's hardware would have been siezed collecting dust in some Fed warehouse for 2-3 years. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: LAW_dno
by Marshall Clow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In the 12-29-96. Computerworld: >>>> Karen Epper, an analyst at Forrester Research, Inc. in Cambridge, Mass., said electronic commerce companies should do more legal research than that. "Joe Programmer could create a new currency system," Epper said. "But if it's not supported by regulators, what do you have?" <<<< And there you have it. If it's not regulated by the government, it's no good. P.S This was not an isolated quote, this was the central point of the article. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems <mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu> Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear.

3 2

Hardening lists against spam attacks
by Bill Frantz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Christmas attack against this list shows the need to develop lists which are resistant to attacks. If cyberspace is to become the town square of the next century, we need to be able to discourage brown shirts attacks on political gatherings. If lists are to be a major part of the political life of the community, then they must be resistant to attacks from knowledgeable, well financed attackers, not just the shits who were the most recent perps. There are several principles which should be observed: (1) Since attacks are based on sending to the list, receiving the list should remain substantially unchanged. (2) Spam attacks should be throttled at the source, so they do not act as a denial of service attack on the list server. Here is a sketch of a protocol which attempts to achieve these goals: (1) All messages sent to the list must be encrypted with the list's public key. This requirement is primarily to protect the posting token (see below). However, it alone will probably reduce the problem. Certainly it will eliminate the effectiveness of the "subscribe the list to some other list" attacks. (2) In order to post to the list, the poster must have a valid posting token. These tokens are available, in limited number, anonymously. Tokens remain valid unless canceled for abuse. However, if too many posts are received with a given token, TCP performance on sockets using that token may become arbitrarily slow (or the circuit may be dropped). (3) In order to limit the number of posting tokens, the list server will only issue a few per day. The lucky few who get them, everyone who asks under normal circumstances, may be determined by an algorithm designed to limit token collection by future attackers. (This area is where this proposal needs work!) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Client in California, POP3 | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | in Pittsburgh, Packets in | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | Pakistan. - me | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

16 26

Re: premail.
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous wrote: > > A scenario: > > 1) The spooks put a bug (named Eve) on the link between > kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu and the Internet. > > Whenever kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu sents out the pubring.pgp Eve intercepts > it and replaces it with a file of the spooks' choosing. This file will > selectively replace the public pgp keys of some of the remailers (say exon) > in pubring.pgp with keys to which the spooks know the private key. > > 2) A similar bug is put on the link between the exon remailer and the > internet. All email to exon is intercepted, and if found to be encrypted > with the spooks' PGP key, it is decrypted, saved, re-encrypted with exon's > real PGP key and sent on. > > It is only a scenario. I am still using premail to send this. > A good scenario. A truly paranoid premail users should verify who signed the remailer keys. If you trust the signators and they signed the keys, you are "safe". Just do pgp -kvv some(a)remailer.com and see what comes up. Maybe remailer operators should asks someone reputable to sign their remailers' keys so that the users can easily verify the signatures. - Igor.

4 4

Anonymous Post Control
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It's hard to filter anonymous posters. I want to see what a few of them have to say so I can't filter on the remailers. If anonymous posters PGP sign their posts, it is still hard to filter using a lame filter software such as that which comes to Eudora. It would be nice if toad.com would verify signatures and insert a header into the messages with the PGP User Id of every poster. Then it would be very easy for many people to filter the messages using widely available off-the-shelf mail software. (I volunteer to adapt majordomo for this task if it seems like a good idea.) Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

4 3