December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by david＠arch.ping.dk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

According to rules recently adopted, Judges-L FAQ ver. 2.1, one must register before being subscribed to the List. The Registration Form is at the end of the Judges-L FAQ below. Please read the Cancel Messages FAQ first, if you have not already done so. It has been posted to news.admin.policy. Judges-L Registrar, dss ============================================================ Welcome to Judges-L The following Frequently Asked Questions with answers are designed to assist you in interacting with other subscribers to the Judges' List and thereby assist users of the NetNews system in dealing with certain types of abusive messages. Please do not post to the List until you have been a subscriber for a couple of weeks, so you can avoid the most common mistakes made by new subscribers. Alternatively you can review the activities of the List by retrieving archives of recent discussions. You can retrieve the list of archives by sending "INDEX Judge-L" (not including quotation marks) to LISTSERV(a)UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU (or LISTSERV(a)UBVM.BITNET) You can then order these files with a "GET Judge-L LOGxxxx". For example, to get the first month's archive, send the command "GET JUDGES-L LOG9409" to retrieve the archive for September of 1994. You can unsubscribe by sending the command "UNSUB JUDGES-L" in the body of a message to LISTSERV(a)UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU (or LISTSERV(a)UBVM.BITNET) Please retain this message for future reference. ------------------------------------------------- Judges-L: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) ver. 2.1 What is the Judges-L? The Judges' List (Judges-L(a)UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu or JUDGES- L(a)UBVM.BITNET) is a LISTSERV mail distribution list. Messages for distribution must be sent to one of these addresses. Subscription and other LISTSERV commands must be sent to LISTSERV(a)UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu or LISTSERV(a)UBVM.BITNET. How does the Judges' List work? The List distributes messages to a panel of Judges who cancel multiple posts to NetNews immediately. The List is used to help Judges organize themselves, finalize policy, and set procedures to enforce rules. It is primarily directed to those who issue cancels. Secondarily, to those who survey cancels issued, in order to ensure that the cancel facility is not being abused. It is not the intention of the Judges to regulate the content of articles posted. The protection of the NetNews system from overload by posts to multiple newsgroups is the focus of the activity. Widespread posting of off-topic material and overloads of individual newsgroups is a secondary focus of discussion. Mechanisms for the control of automatic posting software or automatic cancellation software is within the scope of discussion. Security mechanisms to facilitate the cancellation of abusive posts is also within the scope of the List. Certain activities, such as voting, are restricted to registered Judges. A Judge registers by supplying verifiable identity information to the Registrar. This information must be traceable to a primary identification document, such as a birth certificate. Supplied information is used only for the registration of a Judge. A digital signature, signed by a recognized certification authority can satisfy this requirement. The Registrar will acknowledge that registration has succeeded. Another option is transmission of a verifiable name, address, and telephone number (including best times to telephone). Any finger, X.500 directory, or Network Information Center entries, should also be supplied, in order to reduce the need for telephonic contact (use the form at the end of this post). Random checks may be undertaken from time to time to confirm the integrity of registration information. The List Registrar is currently David S. Stodolsky at address: david(a)arch.ping.dk. How are decisions made? There are two types of messages distributed via the List. The first type is an informational message. The second type is an action message, which notifies readers that an official response is requested or pending. A response to a previous message must begin with the characters "Re: " (note the trailing space). A message that starts a new discussion must not start with these characters. Action messages must be indicated by a message subject that starts with all capital letters. Current message subject precursors are: :"COMPLAINT: " - a complaint about a message that someone wants cancelled :"CANCEL: " - a complaint about an inappropriate cancel message :"DRAFT: " - a request for preliminary input on a proposed action :"OPINION: " - a proposed action not directly related to a complaint :"ACCEPTED: " - an accepted action Decisions are preferably reached by consensus. The consensus is indicated by at least one week passing after an action message, or the last comment on an action message, has been distributed. Thus, if an OPINION message is posted and no comments are made in response to it for a week, it is considered to have achieved a consensus. The message will then be redistributed in exactly the same form, but with the ACCEPTED message precursor. If no objections are registered within a week, then this opinion becomes valid. (Objections at this stage can only be procedural, such as failure to incorporate corrections or not allowing adequate time for comments.) If comments are received, they must be answered or incorporated into the accepted message. In the case of extensive revision, the message should be distributed again with an OPINION message precursor. Accepted messages are transferred to the file area for permanent storage. Accepted opinions are also posted to USENET with "Judges" as their sender. In the case that a consensus is not reached within three weeks after the final posting of an action message, the author of the message can call for a vote. After the call, the List Registrar will post the email addresses of registered voters. A voter is registered if s/he supplied registration information to the Registrar prior to the first presentation of the action item. Votes are directed to the author, or other designated vote counter, and may include a statement. After a week, all votes and comments are posted. If a complaint achieves majority support, it can be reposted as ACCEPTED. Contributed statements must be included. Opinions require two-thirds support to achieve acceptance. If you reply to a message, but change the subject or address a side issue, change the subject line of the post using the "was" construction [i. e., New subject (was: Old subject)]. This is particularly important with action items, which can be delayed otherwise. Do I have to wait a week before acting on a complaint? No. Any Judge can act on a complaint at any time. The List and the person who submitted the complaint must be notified immediately. If a complaint receives no response, it is assumed to be invalid. A week after the final comment on a complaint, it may be reposted, including all comments, with an "ACCEPTED: " subject precursor. This is normally done by the Judge who initially responded to the complaint. Unless there are objections, it is transferred to the file area one week later. A Judge must not be the first respondent to a complaint submitted on her/his behalf. A Judge should only respond to a complaint if confident that the response is appropriate. New Judges can develop their reputations by closely monitoring the List. This permits routine abuse to handled promptly by new Judges. More experienced Judges can then concentrate on handling complicated complaints or on incorrect responses made by novices. What is the correct style for a message? Messages to the List must follow USENET guidelines. See "Guidelines for posting on Usenet" and "Hints on writing style for Usenet" in the newsgroup "news.announce.newusers". Specifically, spell check your message and review it for accuracy. If you are irritated or upset, put it aside for a day, and then read both the message you are replying to and your response again. All messages to the List are archived and permanently available to subscribers. What should I do about inappropriate messages? Faulty or inappropriate messages should be ignored. You may notify the sender directly by email that there is a problem with such a message. Since action items cannot be ignored, inappropriate messages of this type may result in censure of the sender. When in doubt as to the type of a message you are sending, do not use an action precursor. If it definitely is an action message, post it using the "DRAFT: " message precursor first, and allow at least a week for feedback. Draft messages should be used in all cases except where time is of the essence. Posting of a draft message immediately fixes the registered voters on the item, but reduces the risk of repeated updates while in the "OPINION: " phase. Since opinion messages require responses within a week, it is more likely that the feedback to them will be negative and will be less complete than feedback to a draft. Can a message that has appeared on the Judges-L be reposted? Only your own words can be reposted and only by you. Authors retain a non-exclusive non-transferable copyright on their own writing sent to the List. "Fair use" is limited to single words. The non-exclusive transfer of copyright to the List Registrar ensures that the author can continue to use the words they have sent to the List, while at the same time those words can be used in a well controlled manner, for example, in an opinion issued by Judges-L. This is essential to the function of the List, since a participant in a dispute might try to block publication of an opinion by asserting copyright over crucial writing, if not pleased with the decision. The non-transferability of the copyright retained by the author makes it impossible for List policy to be circumvented by a (legal) person who collects copyrights from various authors. It also ensures that only persons bound by the List policy can use material sent to the List in other contexts. This could also be crucial in stopping misuse of writing sent to the List. "Fair use" is limited to single words. Copying of more than a single word violates fair use, since repeatedly copying pairs of words would permit the transfer of collective works from the List. That is, if pairs of words from a message were transferred repeatedly under "fair use", the original message could easily be assembled from the machine readable fragments: "Copying shall not be used to create or to replace or substitute for anthologies, compilations, or collective works..." {From the guidelines developed by the Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Revision, the Author-Publisher Group, and the Association of American Publishers. COPYRIGHT LAW AND MULTIMEDIA DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION [DRAFT VERSION] in a document assembled by the Academic Computing Technologies Group, Johnson County Community College, Overland Park, KS 66210 (in Mich Kabay <75300.3232(a)compuserve.com>. [27 December 1994]. RISKS of guessing at Fair Use. RISKS DIGEST 16.68. [URL: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/16.68.html]} Any subscriber posting messages to the Judges-L is bound by this copyright policy. Material posted by others falls under a Judge-L compilation copyright. Writing by persons not posting to the List themselves is covered by a compilation copyright held by the sender and the List, and subject to the same restrictions, where ever applicable, as original writing. The terms "writing" and "words" are construed to include all forms of expression subject copyright, such as drawings, recorded sounds, and so on. External archives of Judges-L messages and opinions can only be maintained if explicit written permission is given. Subscribers may, however, maintain archives of messages they have received while subscribed to the List, but only for their own private use and only as long as they remain subscribers. Can I disclose information received from the List to third parties (persons not on the List)? No. Privacy of messages sent to the List is crucial for the List to be able to perform its conflict resolution functions. Privacy makes uninhibited expression more likely, thus aiding in fact finding and resolution of disputes. It also protects authors from having their words used out of context. Finally, it inhibits persons not satisfied with a List decision from taking their complaints to another forum. The ability to achieve a final resolution of conflict is one of the major advantages of a judicial ruling. What if I do not follow these guidelines? Any person who provides false registration information will be prohibited from any use of the List for a period of five years and their postmaster, employer, or service provider will be notified thereof. At the end of that period a new registration form may be submitted. The document must be signed under penalty of perjury and notarized. Any person misusing information from the List is subject to immediate unsubscription for a period of one year. A censure opinion must be submitted to the List immediately thereafter and copied to the person affected. All messages concerning the case must be copied to the concerned person, who may reply directly to the List. If the List has been set to automatically reject messages from the person as a result of abuse of the List, the person may select a representative to forward their replies. If the censure fails, the person will immediately be resubscribed. In any case of involuntary unsubscription or of censure that casts doubt upon the honesty of a Judge, resubmission of registration information signed under penalty of perjury and notarized is required. If you abuse the List by sending messages, you may be asked to stop sending for a period of six months, by issuance of an opinion. If you fail to honor this request, then your messages will be automatically rejected for a period of one year. An abuser may reapply after that time by sending a request to Dimitri Vulis (dlv(a)dm.com) In extreme cases, abusers will be unsubscribed from the List for a one-year period. Further problems will result in an abuser's postmaster being notified, or if the abuser is a postmaster, the notification will go to an employer or service provider. The Judges reserve the right to counter any continuing abuse of the List without further notice. Severe abuse can result in immediate action by a List Owner or Site Administrator. The Judges' List must be notified when any such action is taken. How do I request censure of a Judge? A Judge can submit an OPINION message to the List requesting that an abusive Judge cease, for example, sending to the List. Alternatively, the message can be directed to the Registrar, who will post it to the List, confirming that the message was submitted by a Judge, who wishes to remain anonymous. Other comments on the case may be directed to the Registrar, if authors wish to remain anonymous. In the case that a vote becomes necessary, the Registrar will randomly select nine Judges, if that many are available. They will be privately requested to deliver their votes to a designated Vote Counter. If three-fourths of the votes support the request, it will be posted as an ACCEPTED opinion by the Vote Counter. Dimitri Vulis (dlv(a)dm.com) receives such votes. How is conflict of interest avoided in censure cases? Any selected Judge directly involved in the dispute must notify the Registrar that they are not available to vote. In the case this withdrawal could affect the vote outcome, a new Judge will be randomly selected. The accused may advise the Registrar that certain Judges are directly involved and should not be selected. No more than one-third of Judges may be designated as unsuitable. Neither the Registrar nor the Vote Counter may serve as voters in censure cases. Why should I use this List instead of a newsgroup? Discussions of abusive practices also occur in the newsgroups, for example, news.admin.policy. That newsgroup has over 50,000 readers and over 50% of articles are crossposted. Each post, therefore, uses a minimum of 20 man- hours of readers' time, even if each reader spends only a second reading the subject line of an article. Examination of the post itself can lead to ten times that amount of time being used, or even more. It is suggested, therefore, that posts to newsgroups be limited to novel incidents, with the potential for generating a new policy consensus. Routine abuse can be handled in a much more economical manner, if it is referred to this List. Another advantage of using the List for cancel notifications is the almost immediate delivery of email. Newsgroup propagation is significantly slower, meaning that duplicate cancels may be issued. This can create problems and certainly means unnecessary work for administrators. Consensus rarely occurs in newsgroups, if there is even the slightest disagreement on an issue. In order to create an alternative to arbitrary cancellation, cancellation wars between posters and administrators, and so on, it is important to reach a consensus through a process that is open and fair. A list makes it more likely that every person sees the same material, which cannot be assured with people browsing newsgroups. Also, lists are less "public", so there is less incentive for people to defend positions, merely because they have taken them. This is a well know problem in international negotiations. These factors, when combined with the procedures suggested here, make reaching a consensus on the List much more likely than in a newsgroup. Another advantage of List operation is the privacy of the List archives. This makes it less likely that disputants seize upon details of statements made by Judges as indicating support for their position. The transfer of completed decisions to the publicly assessable file area, on the other hand, make them more likely to be used as guidance in dispute resolution. These completed decisions can also be used as a database of known offenders, in order to facilitate dealing with repeated abuse. This effect is even stronger in the case of accepted opinions, which are posted to USENET. Finally, there are some people who cannot understand that it is not OK to do anything that is not explicitly against some "law." These people need some "legal" decisions to abide by, because they will not stop abusive activities otherwise. They may also view cancellation of their articles as abridging their "free speech" or "restraining their trade" and take their complaint to a court. The Judges-L can be the court of first instance, thereby reducing the risk of interference by governmental authorities with activities on the Net. ----------------------------------------------------------- Judges-L Registration Form This form serves as a copyright agreement, non-disclosure agreement, and oath: I have read and understood the Cancel Messages Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list and the Judges-L FAQ. I understand why archive privacy is required and the role confidentiality plays in dispute resolution. I agree to: a) respect the Judge-L copyright and report any violations thereof. b) avoid disclosing information received from the List to third parties (persons not on the List) and report any violations of this policy. c) store messages received from the List in a manner that prevents disclosure to third parties (at minimum, password protection on a publicly accessible system, or residential level physical security for unprotected files or messages that have been printed ). d) destroy all copies of messages from the List within 14 days of unsubscribing (this does not apply to setting an address to "no mail", which stops transmission of messages). e) follow the procedures accepted by the Judges (subscribers to Judges-L). f) tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, in messages sent to the List or directly to persons subscribed to the List. That is, I agree that deception is to be avoided, either through incorrect statements or omission of relevant facts. If statements made in good faith are later found to be incorrect, the correct information will be supplied without delay. Not withstanding the above, if another subscriber is mislead by my statement and makes an incorrect statement on the List as a result, I will correct that person in a message to the List. g) base any decision I make as a Judge only on messages to the List. If I receive communications concerning a matter under deliberation on Judges-L by other means (i. e., private mail, news, etc.), I will send a notice to the List. If I do not disclose the information, I will state why. Further, I will state whether I feel receipt of the information disqualifies me from further participation in the deliberation and why. h) attempt to influence a Judges-L decisions only through messages posted to the List under my registered name. I understand that if I violate this agreement I may be subject to censure and that an accepted censure opinion may be posted to the Judges-L public file area and published in appropriate USENET newsgroups. I agree to accept any such ruling as final. Replace underlines "____" completely (in relevant items) with your information and return to: david(a)arch.ping.dk Last name __________________________ Other names, initials, titles, etc. ________________________ Address __________________________ City, State, Country, ZIP, etc. __________________________ Telephone number (include country code) ____________________ Best times to Phone From _____ to _____ and _____ to _____ Work or other address __________________________ City, State, Country, ZIP, etc. __________________________ Telephone number (include country code) ____________________ Best times to Phone From _____ to _____ and _____ to _____ Finger entry _________________________ X.500 directory listing _________________________ Network information center entries _________________________ _________________________ Other directory entries _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------- =========================================================== David S. Stodolsky, PhD * Social * Internet: david(a)arch.ping.dk Tornskadestien 2, st. th. * Research * Tel.: + 45 38 33 03 30 DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark * Methods * Fax: + 45 38 33 88 80

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It is interesting that the situation is so symmetrical. Given collusion with the bank by the other party, with regular ecash we protect Alice's but not Bob's anonymity. With this "reverse ecash" we protect Bob but not Alice. (Alice is the payor, Bob the payee.) If people were allowed to exchange coins anonymously, either system will provide anonymity for both parties. (In the reverse ecash system Alice hands the the blinded proto-coins along with some regular coins to the bank and receives blinded new coins.) Earlier there was discussion of an ecash coin-exchanging service ("Charlie") designed to provide payee anonymity in the regular ecash system. Bob would send his newly-received coins to Charlie along with blinded proto-coins. Charlie would then exchange them at the bank and send the new (blinded) coins back to Bob. Charlie and Bob can be anonymous to each other, but Bob has to trust Charlie with his coins. A similar service would work for the reverse ecash system to protect Alice's anonymity. Bob blinds some proto-coins and sends them to Alice, who further blinds them and sends them to Charlie along with some regular coins of the same values. Charlie exchanges the regular coins for new coins using the doubly blinded proto-coins. He gives the blinded coins back to Alice, who unblinds them and gives them to Bob, who removes the last blinding to reveal the valid coins. It is Alice in this protocol who has to trust Charlie with her coins. Hal

1 0

Re: Why Digital Video Disks are late to market
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone seen discussions on how these protection mechanisms can be circumvented? >http://techweb.cmp.com/eet/news/97/942news/encryp.html > >To summarize, the Digital Video Disk standard contains an encryption >standard for copyright and anti-piracy protection. however, "some U.S. >PC and silicon vendors have just about abandoned hope of keeping to >their revised launch schedules for DVD-enabled systems." [snip] >A solution may be in the offing within days. Some sources said late last >week that Matsushita [who owns license rights] and key U.S. computer >companies may resolve the software-licensing issues by the end of this >week. The PC industry seeks amendments to the licensing-agreement language >that would result in equivalent treatment of software- and hardware-based >CSS decryption. > >... there apparently has been some speculation among the U.S. PC community >that Matsushita may be stonewalling on the software-licensing issue so that >it can establish its hardware-based decryption solution in the marketplace. > --Steve

1 0

Re: No more NSA supra-computer?
by merriman＠metronet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>This is also very intriguing. The machine formerly called the "NSA >SMPP-2/2M" and expected to be located at NSA Central Security Service, is >now to be located in nearby Bowie at the Supercomputing Research Center. > >I guess that means the SRC is doing more than just "academic computing"! > What was that IP address, again? :-( Dave Merriman

1 0

Re: e$: Cypherpunks Sell Concepts
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I posted this: > Second, we need a lawyer. This is a good thing, 'cause a you can't hack > laws without a lawyer (most of the time, anyway...), and > (ObThreadRelevance) we need one to pitch this stuff to other lawyers > (regulators, et. al.) anyway... > > In search of Vinnie "the Pro" Bono, honorable second cousin of the esteemed > mayor of Palm Springs, > > Bob Hettinga I got the following in e-mail from a law professor (shall we call him/her "Professor Vinnie"?) who wants to remain nameless for some reason... Somebody should teach "him" how to use a remailer, eh? This person is emblematic of all the usual interface problems with spiffy new stuff... Oh well. The posting is late because of the time took me to get permission. They should be a little faster next time. Here's what s/he said: >My specialties involve law about the government, not law about financial >transactions, so I'm guessing more than anything else here, but it seems >to me that there are two simple rules of thumb that ought to apply: > >1) E$ is not a security so long as there is no suggestion that you might >ever get back more than you paid. I.E. no interest, no dividends, no >profits. So long as e$ is exchanged at 1:1 (or less if there is a >transaction fee) with US$, then odds are very good it's not going to be >seen as a security, at least under federal law (who knows what funny rules >they may have in *your* state...). > >2) It's not going to be a scrip problem so long as every e$ is purchased >in advance for a US$. People run into problems when they are seen to be >creating value, e.g. as banks do with fractional reserve lending. So >long as e$ sticks close to the travellers check model, I would imagine >(remember: NO RESEARCH WAS DONE TO REACH THESE CONCLUSIONS) that the only >rules which apply in the US will be UCC rules that apply to checks, and >IOUs. This would seem to be a desireable state of affairs for e$. > >I am late to this subject, so if in fact e$ fails either of the tests >above, please let me know. After I got this, I asked "him" to reply directly to the list, and "he" replied declining to do so, the following is the only part of "his" reply that is relevant to the above. >I should warn you again: I'm an administrative lawyer. The 'research' >for that note consisted of five minutes conversation in bed with my <spouse> >who is a securities lawyer. From another country. There's a good chance I >have no idea what I'm talking about... Great. We've got ourselves a lawyer in the loop who'll help us talk about this stuff. I fingered "him" <fingering a lawyer?> and "he" looks real to me. Guess I have some reading to do about this anonymity stuff, eh? Anyway, it's real nice to have another pair of (trained) eyes looking at the problem. Cheers, Bob Hettinga (Human remailer and mouthpiece mouthpiece) ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone Shipwright Development Corporation who eats too little and sees Heaven and 44 Farquhar Street someone who drinks too much and sees Boston, MA 02331 USA snakes." -- Bertrand Russell (617) 323-7923

1 0

Problems of anonymous posts
by nobody＠soda.berkeley.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- (This is from Hal; I still can't post from Portal.) After going to enormous efforts to create a network of anonymous remailers, we are hoist by our own petard, as our list receives strange, irrelevant, and argumentative posts through our own anonymous remailers. (Not all anonymous posts are like this, but there have been quite a few in the last few weeks which fall into these categories.) This should challenge us to reconsider the value of anonymity and remailers. Are we working only to make the net safe for the immature and incoherent? I would say not, but these posts should remind us of how incomplete is the infrastructure needed for successful use of anonymity. A brief recap of the benefits of anonymous mail: presently, on the net, all mail is tagged with the sender and destination. This means that not only the recipient, but any net snoopers and sysops at systems through which the mail passes, may be able to know that person A is sending mail to person B. This kind of information can be used to build up dossiers of who talks to whom. Worse, as we move into an era of electronic commerce, more and more of our lives may begin to take place on the net. We may shop, find entertainment, do business, even work for a living across the network. This will open up even more opportunities for collecting data about how we live our lives. In my opinion, the best way to preserve our privacy is to make it impossible to collect this data. Anonymous remailers, and their cousins, IP bouncers (which perform an analogous function for telnet-type connections), can prevent the collection of this kind of information by hiding exactly who is communicating with whom. These services can serve as the basis for the other privacy-protecting technologies we've been discussing, such as digital cash. There's not much point in using digital cash to prevent tieing customers to vendors if monitoring the net will provide that information anyway. This isn't just a futuristic concern, either. Already today the government is taking steps which could, under some not-so-far-fetched extrapolations, get people on the list in trouble. Many people on this list have communicated with Phil Zimmermann, for example. What if email logs were used to track all those people down, and they became suspects in this criminal investigation that the government seems to be pursuing? It's not even impossible that the government could someday try to paint the cypherpunks themselves as a subversive organization. Think how much more difficult any such diabolical attack would be if people subscribed to the list via remailers, under digital pseudonyms. These days, with the shaky legal status of cryptography, we of all people should be able to see the benefits of anonymous communication. The problem is, then, how to gain the benefits of anonymity, while avoiding the abuses. One solution which we have long discussed is reputations and pseudonyms; another is making people pay to use remailers. The way reputations work is that people would digitally sign their anonymous postings. This way someone could post anonymously and build up a reputation by means of a series of postings signed under the same name. As time went on, they would no more want to damage the reputation of their pseudonym than they would want to damage their reputation under non-anonymous posting. To make this work, people need to be able to easily filter their mail on the basis of the pseudonym it came from, rather than the (irrelevant) anonymous remailer which sent it. Then they can choose to accept and read mail from anonymous posters who have built up a good reputation while ignoring that from those who have ruined their good (pseudo) name. Karl Barrus has done some experiments along these lines. He described some time back a system he had for working with the elm mail reader, one of the most common Unix-based mail agents. The software will display the true originator of PGP-signed posts (anonymous or not). This allows readers to apply the same standards to signed anonymous mail as to regular mail. It raises anonymous posters to the same level, and holds them to the same standards, as other posters. This software could allow anonymous posters to build up their reputations, encouraging more responsibility on their part. The other solution, pay-for-use remailers, has also been pioneered by Karl. His idea is to make the remailer a little harder to use by forcing the user to include some digital postage (based, I think, on what Tim May called "poor man's postage stamps"). This could help reduce the volume of anonymous mail and make it less likely that joke or trivial messages would be posted. (We could even consider applying Karl's approach to the list as a whole; people would have to apply ahead of time for posting tokens in order to post. This might force people to take a little more care and time in their postings.) I don't think Karl's efforts have been sufficiently appreciated here. He is quietly working to create the tools needed to allow anonymity to be a useful and important part of the net architecture rather than the annoying sideshow that it sometimes seems to be becoming. We need to support Karl, work to bring his innovations into other remailers and other mail agents, if we want to gain the benefits from what we have done so far. Hal Finney hfinney(a)shell.portal.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLMFf3qgTA69YIUw3AQEp9QP/UyEvuQgM6GKiKdkZtHJw4/NhMwQDihrs 2D8weSeUQpKHPpxEnXiDEG6qswI0B4auq+hK3EDYIzccA6c6/+0Xa7SzESsujtjs VDRY7BNphAQ8ix6vd4Ti2vuk8sWa7IHasuAF+UytJrUXPaMbJgH1u/84M9HstA4t kNQ3venrgh4= =CFWw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

5 4

Re: ANON: mail concerns
by nobody＠alumni.cco.caltech.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >:: >Request-Encryption-To: X > >If user ID X is on the remailer's pubkey ring, the outgoing message is >encrypted to X. This could be usefull for anonymous return-address blocks. Encryption should be the default. Err on the side of caution. Eternal!Optimist(a)anon.penet.fi (copyright 1993, Eternal Optimist [Ha Ha Ha]) 0) 0) =:()]-< <na26436(a)anon.penet.fi> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLNgXzIjvfLxJbYYtAQEK4AP9HrSaMSOnlsxzEjgLbAgvsCSw3vMxLJ4u 856ZbKI2cZTNLoPzyWLNW68gZ7kcNeaF7MHKzWbI9tLEDePpWN34sB11wBlpfzcf WzcYVLI6JBLVERq2seyKU3cqAhWuxldSDeAlsKkMsrzI0tGgOaLkxCxhxn9weZf8 58mZeANd3sg= =8F9u -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Article V - an analysis
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ARTICLE V. [Constitution: how amended; proviso.] The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions of the three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which shall be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Congress can propose amendments if 2/3 of both houses agree Or when Congress is directed by 2/3 of the state legislatures a convention can be called for *proposing* amendments Irrespective of which of the above two processes causes an amendment to be considered a part of the Constitution when 3/4 of the state legislatures vote for it, or by the constitutional conventions called in 3/4 of the state agree on it. The decision of which method to use may be *proposed* by Congress. It's after 1808 and we're not considering state representation in the Senate so I'll skip the last two phrases. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The only sticky wicket I see is the ...proposed by Congress. Does this mean that Congress can decide which of the two it will recognize? Or does it mean that Congress can merely express its desire? Or does this apply only to the bills that were developed in the Congress? There's no time line for Congress to decide, could this be used to hinder such a process? Note that it's important to recognize that we're talking about 3/4n conventions and not a single convention attended by 3/4n representatives of the states. The tense of the sentence leaves no doubt. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Changing to Moderated Cypherpunks -- How?
by James F. Marshall 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Too much noise in the unedited list. How does one change to the moderated list? - -- James F. Marshall, Esq., Pasadena, California Subject "JFM Public Key" for PGP Public Key - -- OS/2 is to Windows as Stradivarius is to Yamaha -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNNf8UjbjGennrhqZAQETXgP/WFshRowrhi7qMnUZHUIADA7cCV0fEYFA WiAlynovwU9dyvc/gygz9N6aeJO/ghqiQl2/NqCSsKn5H1nTr1MHbK2iYJwt6AXh ZhMSfz5p1QzVWwm9lIFETipPayuJ+WzCkaakMZP3PPZXG8XUT/48NZG5hJgjfIM7 vqzMkCcHr+A= =2N5t -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

6 5

Re: Fwd: Big Brother Sees through walls (from the spyking list)
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: sunder <sunder(a)brainlink.com> > > 1)From: "George Martin" <gmartin(a)kic.or.jp> > Subject: News Release: High-Tech Surveillance > > Here's a sampling of how state and federal agencies are using this > terrifying technology to spy on Americans: > > * In North Carolina, county governments use high-resolution spy satellite > photographs to search for property improvements that might increase > property tax assessments. Was this cost authorized by taxpayers? > * On the Mexican border, police use a "gamma ray scanner" to check > tanker trucks for contraband, scanning right through the vehicle's metal > sides. Good!!! CM excerpt: # Those rumor-level stories about our government encouraging # drugs to reach the inner cities were weird. # # Remember, we've been having a Drug War for four decades now. # # I guess there is a certain logic to it. Obviously the government is into # hysteria on the matter: it is then possible that they would want to continue # having a drug problem so they could continue the hysteria. # # Even the Attorney General was drooling over drug forfeiture dollars, to the # point of shunting aside other cases. # # # Recently... # # : CBS 60 Minutes, Steve Croft reporting. # : # : Remember that story of the hero customs agent snagging a tanker truck full # : of cocaine? There is a strange twist to the story. # : # : The Federal agent's manager repeatedly tried to interfere with him making # : the bust. # : # : The agent's dog had flagged the truck; the agent weighed it and found a # : discrepancy. His manager said it must be in the tires. You can only check # : the tires for drugs he was told. # : # : But the agent persisted, and made the bust. His manager let the driver # : of the truck leave. The driver literally fled on foot back to Mexico. # # What the hell was that about??? # # Was it a single corrupt Federal agent? # # : CBS 60 Minutes, Steve Croft reporting. # : # : Standing at a fence about a hundred feet from the U.S. Customs lanes, # : Steve Croft and an ex-agent with a walkie-talkie tuned to the right # : frequency began videotaping the border crossings. # : # : Truck after truck drove right through the individual Customs lanes, # : not even stopping. "Nafta express lanes" explained the ex-agent. # : # : Truck after truck drove straight into the U.S. unmonitored. # : # : Then a message came through the walkie-talkie: "We got some cameras # : watching, better get out there and cover traffic". # : # : Suddenly several Customs agents came out of the booths and started # : inspecting trucks. # # That makes at least five people at a minimum! # # What the hell is going on??? # # # IF the rumor is true, THIS looks like it would be the smoking gun. # # How did our country get so twisted around that they can invade our # bodies to drug test, yet allow truck after truck after truck to # just wander right in knowing HUGE drug shipment after HUGE drug # shipment is crossing? Gosh, there's no drug problem with Mexican # police, military and even their president. # # * The New York Times, February 19 1997 # * # * Brig. General Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, Mexico's top Military Drug War # * point man, was arrested on charges of receiving payoffs from Jaurez # * cartel kingpin Amado Carrillo Fuentes, Defense Minister Enrique Cervantes # * announced. # * # * U.S. Drug Czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey had weeks earlier called General # * Gutierrez "a guy of absolute unquestioned integrity." # # # And what if some terrorists wanted to sneak in an atom bomb? # # Put a NAFTA sticker on it and drive right on in, y'all. Welcome to the USA. # # If you want to really be certain, hide the A-bomb in a truck full of cocaine. # # If a terrorist nuclear bomb ever goes off in this country, # it drove in from Mexico. # # Meanwhile, Los Alamos National Laboratories developed technology that # allows an officer walking or driving down the street, as shown on MSNBC TV # 6/9/97 www.TheSite.com, to determine whether anyone on the sidewalk is # carrying a gun. # # The priorities are all out of whack. # # Apply Military technology towards securing the border, not by spending # billions and billions and billions each year to secure each and every # one of us. # # We don't put governing-monitors on all car engines to control speeding. # Get an Operations Research clue. # # # Is our government perpetuating the availability of drugs? # # The 60 Minutes report sure makes it look like it is. # # How could letting unchecked Mexican truck after unchecked Mexican truck # through not be? # # ! FBI Director Louis J. Freeh, Senate Judiciary Committee, June 4, 1997 # ! # ! NEW CORRIDORS HAVE OPENED TO CONTINUE THE FLOOD OF DRUGS INTO AMERICA. # # No shit, Sherlock! Ya don't nafta say another word. # # Every single truck can be checked using Military technology. # # But no, massive monitoring of people suspected of no crime is the # appropriate response. # # They were just warming us up for the CALEA telephone monitoring bill. # # ---- # # Here is part of the story on why we let trucks full of cocaine and # heroin just roll right into the United States. # # * "Diminished U.S. Role Below Border Plays Into Traffickers' Hands" # * # * By Molly Moore and John Ward Anderson # * Washington Post Foreign Service # * Sunday, September 8 1996; Page A01 # * The Washington Post # * # * Due to their new 'Mexicanization policy': # * Mexico became the main gateway into the United States for illegal # * narcotics, with the amount of cocaine making the journey climbing to # * an estimated 210 tons last year. # * # * Mexico's drug arrests plunged nearly 65 percent, from 27,369 the year # * before the policy changes to 9,728 last year, according to data that # * the Mexican government supplied to the State Department. # * # * Cocaine seizures in Mexico were cut in half, dropping from more than # * 50 tons in 1993 to slightly more than 24 tons in each of the last two # * years -- the smallest amounts since 1988, Mexican government figures # * show. # * # * The GAO report charges that Mexico's greatest problem is, in # * fact, the "widespread, endemic corruption" throughout its law # * enforcement agencies. Earlier this month, in an indictment of his own # * department, Attorney General Lozano fired 737 members of his federal # * police force -- 17 percent of his entire corps -- saying they did not # * have "the ethical profile" required for the job. In a recent meeting # * with foreign reporters, Lozano said it could take 15 years to clean up # * the force. # * # * In November 1993, President Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive # * No. 14, shifting U.S. anti-drug efforts away from intercepting cocaine as # * it passed through Mexico and the Caribbean, and, instead, attacking the # * drug supply at its sources in Colombia, Bolivia and Peru. # # The President himself ordered them to stop checking!!! This is in the same # leadership vein as Reagan declaring himself a "Contra". # # And why did President Clinton change strategy? [snip] > * The Naval Surface Warfare Center has developed an "ion sniffer," > a metal box that analyzes the chemical makeup of the air -- and can detect, > for example, traces of cocaine through the skin days after drug use. Bad. > * In Georgia, the state's Department of Revenue will start using > NASA satellites to examine the state's 58,910 square miles for illegal > timber cutting. Good. > * In New Jersey, California, and other states, police use thermal > imaging devices to scan houses for unusual heat sources that could indicate > indoor marijuana growing operations. Houses can be scanned while police sit > in their cruisers on the street. Bad. CM excerpt: # Here is a more detailed example of how government expands surveillance # (and thus control) in a seemingly never-ending manner...consider this when # talking about a National ID Card: # # Is it okay for the government to look at your property while walking by and # if the officer spots marijuana plants growing to get a search warrant? # # Of course it is. # # * "The Right To Privacy", ISBN 0-679-74434-7, 1997 # * By Attorneys Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy # * # * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that if the yard was big enough that "An # * individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted # * out of doors in fields," the Court wrote, "except in the area immediately # * surrounding the home." # * # * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that a barn sixty yards from a farmhouse # * was too far away from a house to expect privacy. # * # * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that aerial surveillance did not constitute # * a Fourth Amendment search. # * # * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that a "precision aerial mapping camera" # * that was able to capture objects as small as one-half inch in diameter did # * not constitute a Fourth Amendment search. # # ...then courts ruled that infrared surveillance of homes was permissible. # # # What is this? # # * Subject: Re: Law Enforcement Aviation # * From: aufsj(a)imap2.asu.edu # * Date: 1996/12/27 # * Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military # * # * What interests me is how new technologies will be interpreted. I recently # * inquired at the local Law School about the courts views towards the use # * of impulse radar, and they said "Impulse what the heck?" # * # * Basically it is a radar that "sees through" things (like, say, your # * house). # * # * Their capabilities vary widely, but the feds are already using # * them and I know that Hughes corp. is designing a low-cost set up # * specifically for major police departments. # * # * They are driving towards a unit that can be mounted on a police helicopter. # * # * Will the police need a warrant? Who knows. Since they are allowed # * to do airborne infra-red analysis of your house, why not an take an # * airborne "x-ray" equivalent? # * # * --------------------------------------------------------------------- # * Steven J Forsberg at aufsj(a)imap2.asu.edu Wizard 87-01 > * And in Arizona, the state's Department of Water Resources uses > spy satellite photographs to monitor 750,000 acres of state farmland, and > compares the images to a database to discover which farmers don't have > irrigation permits. Good, I guess. > Even worse: The federal government will spend another $4.5 million > this year to develop even more intrusive surveillance equipment. Bad. > Currently under development by the Justice Department: A "super > x-ray" -- combining traditional x-ray technology, ultra-sound imaging, > and computer-aided metal detectors -- to reveal items hidden under clothes > from up to 60 feet away. Bad. > The courts are currently wrestling with the implications of the new > technology, debating the limits of the government's power to "search" > individuals from a distance with high-tech gadgets. Several contradictory > court decisions have already emerged, for example, about whether > thermal-imaging searches are Constitutional. > > Meanwhile, Republican and Democratic politicians continue to look > for new uses of the technology -- with some government officials already > talking about using satellite surveillance to track items as small as > backyard porches to check for zoning violations and construction permits. Smart cards are transponders. Never forget that. > "In the name of fighting crime, politicians seem eager to obliterate the > protections against unreasonable search, with equipment that Americans used > to only read about in Tom Clancy technothrillers," said Dasbach. "It's time > for the American public to wake up and realize that Big Brother is here > today -- and he's got a gamma ray scanner in his hand." No amount of control over the population is enough for the U.S. Government. ---guy

3 2