December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Good Bye Cypherpunks!
by Mike Duvos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Michael Froomkin writes: > Just for the record. I will not post to USENET given the spamming that > seems to go to IDs that appear there. Helpful hint: Mung your email address in a way which will confuse bots, but not humans. "From: froomkin(a)[NO-SPAM]law.miami.edu" should work nicely. This will also eliminate mail from very clueless people. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd)
by Jonathan M. Bresler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> 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. 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. who should bear the burden of dealing with bounces? the list admin or the owner of the bouncing address? if you have the time and desire, you can accomodate people that bounce mail due to a temporarily full mailbox. if not, unsubscribe them after N bounces in a 24 hour period. it becomes their responsibility not to bounce more than N emails. when a list has 1000's of subscribers, i have not have been able to provide the type of personal service that the first option entails. i do make a digest version of every list available. if the digest bounces, the bouncer??? bouncee?? stays below the N bounces threshhold (for many values of N :). jmb

1 0

Re: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly]
by Martin Minow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My first reaction to the "Death of Cypherpunks" (Declan McCullagh's article in http://netlynews.com Feb 12, 1997) is that it is another example of "The Tragedy of the Commons." -- the (unsolvable) problem of unlimited access to a limited resource. Cypherpunks was also susceptable to the strange Internet phenomenon where people could be proud of their anti-social, bad behavior (flame wars, "grafitti" in the form of spam). For this reason, I suspect that the future of the Internet in general, and Cyphperpunks in particular, will require serious editorial control (as is done by the Risks and Privacy digests). The only other alternative I can see would be to limit membership -- but not limit what members might write. In the long term, I suppose we'll have sufficiently intelligent software agents that can recognize spam and flaming and invisibly delete them from our e-mail in-boxes. What bothers me more than anything else about the "solutions" I've seen proposed to the death of Cypherpunks is that they rely on technology -- and reject human judgement -- to solve what is, in reality, a social problem. (One can certainly make the same argument about the V-chip, browser porn filters, and similar hacks.) Having been "on" the net for over 15 years -- and with experience in both ends of the censorship/moderation problem (I'm probably the only Cypherpunks member to have had a book "banned in Boston"), I'm sorry that a handful of sociopaths managed to destroy this experiment in anarchy, but I suspect that this was inevitable. Martin Minow minow(a)apple.com ps: (From McCullagh): > But for the true believers in crypto-anarchy, only one solution is > adequate: Usenet. "There is no 'nexus' of control, no chokepoint, no > precedent... for halting distribution of Usenet newsgroups," Tim May > wrote. That, in the end, is what defines a cypherpunk. > Nope: alt.cypherpunks will not be distributed to many sites that would accept an e-mail list. Also, it's too easy for the disgruntled to forge cancel group messages. I'm afraid that human judgement is still required.

1 0

Re: More on digital postage
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:31 AM -0800 2/14/97, John C. Randolph wrote: >Tim may says: > >>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. > >I have to disagree here. The junk fax law is a restraint on unauthorised >use of property, i.e. *my* fax machine, *my* phone, etc. > >That tort of unauthorised use of property applies, whether someone's sending >me a fax to sell me spamming software, or whether it's some kid ringing >my doorbell and running away. It's not the speech that I'm fighting, it's >the misuse of my property. > >Freedom of speech does not confer a right to use other people's property. Fair enough, John. I can agree that _tort law_ (civil) might be used. If Party A can convince a jury that Party B did it real damage and can quantify that damage, maybe Party A can collect. My main objection is to to blanket laws, known as "junk mail" laws. The rules for what constitutes "junk" are unclear and give the government regulatory power which I think it should not have. Imagine a bureaucrat deciding that solicitations to join the National Rifle Association are "junk" and ordering the U.S. Postal Service to scrap all such solicitations. Imagine further that alternate delivery systems, such as UPS and FedEx are also notified that delivery of NRA material constitute a crime. (This is not so far-fetched, especially the "alternate delivery" point. If the regulators declare a communication to be junk, it remains junk even if delivered via a different route. If CyberPromotions tries fiddling with the domain names, as they have, it remains junk to CompuServe and to the District Court which upholds their decision to censor mail to customers.) To paraphrase what the CompuServe customer said: "I'll decide what's junk and what's not." --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."

1 0

Re:
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Is it legal or illegal to send a > PGP encrypted message from the US to someone in another country? Yes. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

Re: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly]
by Jeremiah A Blatz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes: <snip declan's rather well-balanced article> > What does `crusty' mean as applied to a former Intel engineer? Try definition 2 Word crusty (KRUHS'tee) adj. Definition --adj. -ier, -iest. 1. Like or having a crust. 2. Surly or brusk. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwS3m8kz/YzIV3P5AQHNJgL+NtjXkx/EHmx9vXm9ucwmonam+2sXRwHB 4bCrz3SM9pk4VbcPhYjx+PRzmX3j9mvesPkkAXaYiUcnFUBmmF35YvIZnTxornfy kE30sVsW4juawhXGRIAWJ/5Ce9lBLPdp =bB+u -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ok. I'll "put up". If the cypherpunks will have me, -I'll- run the cypherpunks list. Those that know me know that I will *not* censor, moderate, or otherwise alter the content (other than the stuff majordomo does with "resend") of any messages to the list. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Advice is priceless; when it becomes interference it is preposterous.

1 0

Re: Fuck UseNet
by Jeremiah A Blatz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> reminds me while I've killfiled him: > So, basically, you're saying that the flight from censorship should > be toward a new CypherPunk 'home' where one is effectively censored > automatically unless one kisses the ass of a Cabal? Yup. You're begging resources, deal with it. We didn't kiss John Gillmore's ass, and he decided that he was tired of the shit and stopped letting us squat on his land. If we were paying him for the use of toad, he maybe wouldn't have the right to yank it so suddenly, but we weren't, so it's his call. Same with usenet. The "cabal" has high reputation capital. News admins the world over trust them. One might say that they deserve the respect they get, but that is immaterial to the discussion. the fact is that people who donate resources to usenet trust the cabal. Unless you have a contractual relationship, you're begging, and you have to convince your benefactors to give you stuff. If you have a different model for a world economy, feel free to post it. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole PS. Of course, the cabal didn't rmgroup alt.cypherpunks, thus showing that they do have some good sence yet. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwSyzMkz/YzIV3P5AQHgbgMApfVYTtanDNpL1A96oqMa0wk99GC6jfk9 p7V2KUBn2rl3rOJlBsYpgPWJRYxcMeich8tulf0NcUkh5ru7YdsACD7GYa7B7bz2 Kj6VnQibFnCKb2BTkQfkqYCpdKIUhvLL =dkhj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Congressional subcommittee hearings on computer security
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Computer crimes rife, unreported By Reuters February 13, 1997, 9:45 a.m. PT WASHINGTON--Security experts say hackers are finding it easier to break into computer networks and steal money, partly because companies are reluctant to admit that they are vulnerable. "If I want to steal money, a computer is a much better tool than a handgun," Daniel Geer, director of engineering for Open Market, told a House of Representatives technology subcommittee hearing on computer security. " Has anyone been following this debate more closely? Nothing in any of the articles I've seen on this story have mentioned the role of strong encryption. <rhetorical question mode on> Why can't banks better protect themselves? Why can't banks better authenticate electronic transactions to prevent theft & break-ins? Why is the such a dearth of protective measures available to the institutions? The public has a right to know! <rhetorical question mode off> Seriously, though, has anyone been following these hearings in more detail? me --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <mailto:omegam@cmq.com>|"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:"to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1980 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Keep it Simple and the Cypherpunk Way
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

what TCM continues to stick his head in the sand over is the fact that the list noise levels have gotten outlandishly out of control over recent times, far beyond anything in memory. what is it due to? it appears that there is a basic law of cyberspace that S/N decreases as you add more people. it seems to be a very obvious and repeatable property. there are some significant lessons about cryptoanarchy that are completely evading TCM. how well does anarchy scale? apparently, not well. TCM would like to pretend that just deleting posts and having outsider filterers is a "solution" to the problem and argues for business as usual, upholding the status quo. the problem is that when you have a deteriorating situation, the status quo is not a valid concept. keeping the status quo means further deterioration. TCM also fails to address the problem of AGENT PROVOCATEURS. the cyberspace list is intensely fragile and susceptible/ vulnerable to them as Vulis demonstrates. it only takes ONE and a lot of tentacles. does TCM propose a solution to this? no, of course not, because he has a blind spot when it comes to realizing the PATENTLY OBVIOUS FLAWS OF CRYPTOANARCHY that stare him in the face. if cpunks had a formal way of making decisions, and some loyalty to each other, instead of BAILING OUT at the slightest difficulty, perhaps the situation would be different, eh? see how quickly people who were once friends simply WALK OUT on each other in the cryptoanarchist approach? where is the loyalty? the sense of working for the greater good? it's gone. TCM simply ABANDONS the list at the first opportunity, and ignores the years of hard work that J.G. has put into it. timmy, cpunks, etc. you are getting a lesson in REALITY. you are seeing the logical conclusion of your views playing out before you. acrimony, bitterness, resignation, chaos, confusion, cacaphony, anarchy.

1 0