December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

None
by Keith Ray 08 Dec '03

08 Dec '03

who end

2 1

Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
by Freematt357＠aol.com 08 Dec '03

08 Dec '03

In a message dated 12/8/2003 2:46:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, timcmay(a)got.net writes: > So, you are free to be "Matt Gaylor, Activist!" and to try to get > articles published in "Liberty" or "Gold Currency Times" or wherever > you get published, but I have other things I'd rather be doing. > > Preaching to me that I ought to be sacrificing my time for the > betterment of some skatepunks by publishing in "Piercing Magazine" is > the silliest kind of altruistic thinking. > No Tim, not altruistic. My reason for wanting you to write is a selfish one. Self preservation. You are able to tie technology into the bigger picture, and you do have something valuable to say. You already sacrifice your time in pointless diatribes about the good ole' days on CP- I'm just making a plea that you do something more useful- Regards, Matt Gaylor-

3 2

RE: Got.net and its narcing out of its customers
by Tyler Durden 08 Dec '03

08 Dec '03

Tim May wrote... "I consider Don Frederickson despicable, and stupid. To not bother before understanding the context of the thread and say, basically, "Yes, we have narced out this customer to law enforcement, but they are just watching" is reprehensible." Well, I saw the got.net quote before and that brief sample seemed to indicate something entirely different to me. First of all, it says they've 'talked to the authorities about him' seems allows for the possibility of having been contacted BY said authorities. Second, it points out "he hasn't broken any laws"...third it says "please notify me when he actually breaks the law..."...that's kind of a nice, business-smart "fuck off" as I see it. In other words, the guy seems to acknowledge that he doesn't like a lot of Tim May's philosophies, but he won't even think about doing anything unless Mr May personally murders someone or whatever. In other words, he's saying he's going to support Tim May's free speech, but he's saying it in a way that won't cause him to end up in Guantanamo. But then again, that's the only quote I've seen... -TD >From: Tim May <timcmay(a)got.net> >To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> >CC: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Subject: Got.net and its narcing out of its customers >Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:17:22 -0800 > >On Dec 8, 2003, at 1:15 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >>On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 01:59:26PM -0800, Tim May wrote: >>>This actually fits in with something Lessig is widely known for, his >>>"technology-custom-law" trichotomy (*). >>> >>>(* He may call it something different...I haven't checked in a while. >> >>I was reading some of David Friedman's articles over the weekend and >>noticed that he also used the same trichotomy, predating Lessig. >> >>>"I'm sorry that Tim is being a bother again. He has a long history of >>>being obnoxious and threatening. So far, he has not broken any laws. We >>>have talked to the authorities about him on numerous occasions. They >>>have chosen to watch but not act. Please feel free to notify me if he >>>does anything that is beyond rude and actually violates any laws and I >>>will immediately inform the authorities." >>> >>>Thank You >>>Don Frederickson (co-owner and CEO of got.net, Santa Cruz) >> >>When did Don Fredderickson write this? >> >>-Declan >> > > >You can Google Groups for any of the unique text to find it, and the >context. > >Or, here's the thread (search on my name for the exact spot, or go to >August 22nd): > ><http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF >-8&safe=off&threadm=220820032357238678%25timcmay%40removethis.got.net&rn >um=1&prev=/ >groups%3Fq%3Dfrederickson%2Bgot%2Btim%26hl%3Den%26lr%3Dlang_en%26ie%3DUT >F-8%26oe%3DUTF >-8%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3D220820032357238678%2525timcmay%2540removethis.g >ot.net%26rnum%3D1> > >Searching GG on "don frederickson got tim" is maybe more reliable than >pasting this URL. > >(If you are asking did Don write this on or about the 22nd?, I assume so, >of course, as this is when this "Kal" nym was foaming and threatening to >get my account yanked and have the cops raid my house.) > >It happened in one of the "movies" groups (rec.arts.current-movies), when >the thread was on DVD copy protection and the (claimed) illegality of >making DVDs of movies. > >I explained how I was cheerfully making an average of a DVD a day of my >favorite current movies. > >A couple of "nyms" went ballistic and foamed that they had forwarded my >"admissions" to the RIAA and how I would face civil penalties and jail >time, oh my! > >Then one of them claimed he had arranged to have my account yanked, for >"violation of the DMCA." He claimed he had sent copies of my "criminal" >admissions to Got.net, to the RIAA, to "law enforcement" (shudder!), and >so on. > >The owner of Got.net replied to him and the above got posted (not by me). > >I consider Don Frederickson despicable, and stupid. To not bother before >understanding the context of the thread and say, basically, "Yes, we have >narced out this customer to law enforcement, but they are just watching" >is reprehensible. > >The earlier owners/operators of Got.net took the stance that what people >said on Usenet or on mailing lists was of no interest to them, save for a >few carefully-spelled-out TOS issues (like spam). > >The new owner apparently thinks it's his job to narc out his customers to >law enforcement and then to tell others who are not even his customers >that he has done so. Were I the litigious sort, I might contemplate suing. > >(I haven't quit Got.net yet mainly because I am evaluating options for >broadband in my rural location. Currently, DSL is about half a mile away, >so may arrive soon--when it does I expect I will get it. Cablemodem is >available to the top of my hill, but not down my long driveway, and the >cable company will not allow me to either string my own lines or mount a >WiFi or IR or similar atop the telephone pole. (My utilities are >underground, but were laid when the house was built, circa 1976. No cable >lines. Which is one reason I got a satellite dish, DirecTV, shortly after >moving in. And, yes, I have looked at satellite broadband options like >DirectLink...not impressive at all.) And the "Pringles can" approach is >not something I want to spend my time engineering or debugging.) > >My hunch is that Frederickson and Got.net have been forwarding copies of >some of my e-mail to "law enforcement," which would have put them in >violation of the ECPA, except that after 9/11 and the Patriot Act and all >these actions are now considered just good corporate citizenship. > >--Tim May _________________________________________________________________ Cell phone switch rules are taking effect find out more here. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/consumeradvocate.armx

1 0

Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
by Freematt357＠aol.com 08 Dec '03

08 Dec '03

In a message dated 12/7/2003 10:58:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, timcmay(a)got.net writes: > My generation was very active, on all sides. The droids born after > about 1980 are mainly followers. Probably what the nose rings are for. > Hey Tim, why don't you continue your activism and make an attempt to get your writing into more places where generation X might find it. If they are truly droids surely you with your grand intellect could be become their pied piper, leading their revolution. You might feel better venting to the cloistered culture here on CP, but what good does that do? Regards, Matt-

2 2

Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
by Freematt357＠aol.com 08 Dec '03

08 Dec '03

[demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type message/rfc822]

1 0

Has this photo been de-stegoed?
by Tyler Durden 08 Dec '03

08 Dec '03

OK...let's say I receive a photo that I expected to contain stegoed information on it, but then find that there's nothing I can retrieve using the likely methods or software. Is it possible to determine that the photo 'originally' (ie, when it was sent to me) contained stegoed information, but that it was intercepted in transit and the real message overwritten with noise or whatever? Now I know pretty much nothing about this subject, but I would suppose that de-stegoing a photo must like some kind of spatial spectral fingerprint that should be visible after the photo is FFT'd (is there freeware software out there?). Now I IMAGINE that a sophisticated interceptor could substitute 'believable' de-stego-ing noise so that it would look like the photo never had any stego in the first place. OR...is this actually 'impossible' to do perfectly? And then, what if the interceptor tried to put an alternate message in there instead? Is there a way to tell that there was originallya different message there? My assumption first of all is that nothing was done to prepare the photo against these possibilities. A simple stego message was placed without real thought about whether it might be intercepted and altered. -TD _________________________________________________________________ Take advantage of our best MSN Dial-up offer of the year six months @$9.95/month. Sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

1 0

Re: cypherpunks discussions
by Major Variola (ret) 08 Dec '03

08 Dec '03

At 07:22 AM 12/8/03 -0800, Eric Murray wrote: >Other people have made the point that mailing lists are "old tech" >and I agree. I don't like the new replacements (blogs, web boards) >as much as lists, but perhaps that's because of what I used first. Its not just "the First is the Only Way" phenom. What's going on is that folks are online all the time now, so things interactive (web boards, IM) have become more popular than they could have been in the dial-up past. The big advantage of email, which was the original "killer app", was store and forward. Ie, asych; offline. IM strikes me as perverse. If I wanted to be interrupted I'd answer my telephone. Email clients of olde allowed aliasing to lists, which predated (and motivated) mailing list exploders/auto-managers. They are still widely used for group-of-friends 'private' lists. Even my parents understand Bcc: nowadays. Yahoo boards have options to use email, and modern clients manage multiple email addresses. But for online folks a board is perhaps more convenient, since the board is accessable everywhere. For home/office/school mobility this is a feature, even if its regressing to the "PC as dumb terminal" mechanism. The advantage of eg Yahoo groups (and presumably blogs) is their moderation; the lack thereof enabled spammers to bulldoze the commons of usenet. Inevitable. Also the reason why lne.com is the best node. >Kids these days don't know how to use shell shortcuts either. Not sure what you mean by that. "Shortcut" is a M$ term for lame-ass sym link. ---- "Remember, it takes 42 muscles to frown and only 4 to pull the trigger of a decent sniper rifle." Michael Hohensee

4 3

Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
by Major Variola (ret) 08 Dec '03

08 Dec '03

At 03:26 PM 12/7/03 -0800, Tim May wrote: >But even if crypto got trendy again, I just don't see the young >students of today flocking to our particular mailing list. Too many >other choices. Probably they'll read someone's daily blog.... A few observations. Nowadays, colleges offer courses in crypto. This was not the case when I started reading this list. And 'net social issues were not widely discussed; now there are many fora and public organizations that one can look at. Probably college courses on that, too. So *perhaps* neophytes interested in these things have many more places to learn. Just an optimistic possibility. I did much like your "the nose rings of the followers" comment though. ------ "When I was your age we didn't have Tim May! We had to be paranoid on our own! And we were grateful!" --Alan Olsen

1 0

Cypherpunks List Info
by cpunk＠lne.com 07 Dec '03

07 Dec '03

Cypherpunks Mailing List Information Last updated: Oct 13, 2003 This message is also available at http://www.lne.com/cpunk Instructions on unsubscribing from the list can be found below. 0. Introduction The Cypherpunks mailing list is a mailing list for discussing cryptography and its effect on society. It is not a moderated list (but see exceptions below) and the list operators are not responsible for the list content. Cypherpunks is a distributed mailing list. A subscriber can subscribe to one node of the list and thereby participate on the full list. Each node (called a "Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer", although they are not related to anonymous remailers) exchanges messages with the other nodes in addition to sending messages to its subscribers. A message posted to one node will be received by the list subscribers on the other nodes, and vice-versa. 1. Filtering The various CDRs follow different policies on filtering spam and to a lesser extent on modifying messages that go to/from their subscribers. Filtering is done, on nodes that do it, to reduce the huge amount of spam that the cypherpunks list is subjected to. There are three basic flavors of filtering CDRs: "raw", which send all messages to their subscribers. "cooked" CDRs try to eliminate the spam on that's on the regular list by automatically sending only messages that are from cypherpunks list subscribers (on any CDR) or people who are replying to list messages. Finally there are moderated lists, where a human moderator decides which messages from the raw list to pass on to subscribers. 2. Message Modification Message modification policy indicates what modifications, if any, beyond what is needed to operate the CDR are done (most CDRs add a tracking X-loop header on mail posted to their subscribers to prevent mail loops). Message modification usually happens on mail going in or out to each CDR's subscribers. CDRs should not modify mail that they pass from one CDR to the next, but some of them do, and others undo those modifications. 3. Privacy Privacy policy indicates if the list will allow anyone ("open"), or only list members, or no one ("private") , to retrieve the subscribers list. Note that if you post, being on a "private" list doesn't mean much, since your address is now out there. It's really only useful for keeping spammers from harvesting addresses from the list software. Digest mode indicates that the CDR supports digest mode, which is where the posts are batched up into a few large emails. Nodes that support only digest mode are noted. 4. Anonymous posting Cypherpunks encourages anonymous posting. You can use an anonymous remailer: http://www.andrebacard.com/remail.html http://anon.efga.org/Remailers http://www.gilc.org/speech/anonymous/remailer.html 5. Unsubscribing Unsubscribing from the cypherpunks list: Since the list is run from a number of different CDRs, you have to figure out which CDR you are subscribed to. If you don't remember and can't figure it out from the mail headers (hint: the top Received: line should tell you), the easiest way to unsubscribe is to send unsubscribe messages to all the CDRs listed below. How to figure out which CDR you are subscribed to: Get your mail client to show all the headers (Microsoft calls this "internet headers"). Look for the Sender or X-loop headers. The Sender will say something like "Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)lne.com". The X-loop line will say something like "X-Loop: cypherpunks(a)lne.com". Both of these inticate that you are subscribed to the lne.com CDR. If you were subscribed to the algebra CDR, they would have algebra.com in them. Once you have figured out which CDR you're subscribed to, look in the table below to find that CDRs unsubscribe instructions. 6. Lunatics, spammers and nut-cases "I'm subscribed to a filtering CDR yet I still see lots of junk postings". At this writing there are a few sociopaths on the cypherpunks list who are abusing the lists openness by dumping reams of propaganda on the list. The distinction between a spammer and a subscriber is nearly always very clear, but the dictinction between a subscriber who is abusing the list by posting reams of propaganda and a subscriber who is making lots of controversial posts is not clear. Therefore, we tolerate the crap. Subscribers with a low crap tolerance should check out mail filters. Procmail is a good one, although it works on Unix and Unix-like systems only. Eudora also has a capacity for filtering mail, as do many other mail readers. An example procmail recipie is below, you will of course want to make your own decisions on which (ab)users to filter. # mailing lists: # filter all cypherpunks mail into its own cypherspool folder, discarding # mail from loons. All CDRs set their From: line to 'owner-cypherpunks'. # /dev/null is unix for the trash can. :0 * ^From.*owner-cypherpunks@.* { :0: * (^From:.*ravage@ssz\.com.*|\ ^From:.*jchoate@dev.tivoli.com.*|\ ^From:.*mattd@useoz.com|\ ^From:.*proffr11@bigpond.com|\ ^From:.*jei@cc.hut.fi) /dev/null :0: cypherspool } 7. List of current CDRs All commands are sent in the body of mail unless otherwise noted. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Algebra: Operator: Subscription: "subscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)algebra.com Unsubscription: "unsubscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)algebra.com Help: "help cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)algebra.com Posting address: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com Filtering policy: raw Message Modification policy: no modification Privacy policy: ??? Info: ??? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CCC: Operator: drt(a)un.bewaff.net Subscription: "subscribe [password of your choice]" to cypherpunks-request(a)koeln.ccc.de Unsubscription: "unsubscribe <password>" to cypherpunks-request(a)koeln.ccc.de Help: "help" to to cypherpunks-request(a)koeln.ccc.de Web site: http://koeln.ccc.de/mailman/listinfo/cypherpunks Posting address: cypherpunks(a)koeln.ccc.de Filtering policy: This specific node drops messages bigger than 32k and every message with more than 17 recipients or just a line containing "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject. Digest mode: this node is digest-only NNTP: news://koeln.ccc.de/cbone.ml.cypherpunks Message Modification policy: no modification Privacy policy: ??? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Infonex: Subscription: "subscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)infonex.com Unsubscription: "unsubscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)infonex.com Help: "help cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)infonex.com Posting address: cypherpunks(a)infonex.com Filtering policy: raw Message Modification policy: no modification Privacy policy: ??? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lne: Subscription: "subscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)lne.com Unsubscription: "unsubscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)lne.com Help: "help cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)lne.com Posting address: cypherpunks(a)lne.com Filtering policy: cooked Posts from all CDR subscribers & replies to threads go to lne CDR subscribers. All posts from other CDRs are forwarded to other CDRs unmodified. Message Modification policy: 1. messages are demimed (MIME attachments removed) when posted through lne or received by lne CDR subscribers 2. leading "CDR:" in subject line removed 3. "Reply-to:" removed Privacy policy: private Info: http://www.lne.com/cpunk; "info cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)lne.com Archive: http://archives.abditum.com/cypherpunks/index.html (thanks to Steve Furlong and Len Sassaman) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minder: Subscription: "subscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)minder.net Unsubscription: "unsubscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)minder.net Help: "help" to majordomo(a)minder.net Posting address: cypherpunks(a)minder.net Filtering policy: raw Message Modification policy: no modification Privacy policy: private Info: send mail to cypherpunks-info(a)minder.net --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Openpgp: [openpgp seems to have dropped off the end of the world-- it doesn't return anything from sending help queries. Ericm, 8/7/01] Subscription: "subscribe cypherpunks" to listproc(a)openpgp.net Unsubscription: "unsubscribe cypherpunks" to listproc(a)openpgp.net Help: "help" to listproc(a)openpgp.net Posting address: cypherpunks(a)openpgp.net Filtering policy: raw Message Modification policy: no modification Privacy policy: ??? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sunder: Subscription: "subscribe" to sunder(a)sunder.net Unsubscription: "unsubscribe" to sunder(a)sunder.net Help: "help" to sunder(a)sunder.net Posting address: sunder(a)sunder.net Filtering policy: moderated Message Modification policy: ??? Privacy policy: ??? Info: ??? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pro-ns: Subscription: "subscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)pro-ns.net Unsubscription: "unsubscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)pro-ns.net Help: "help cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)pro-ns.net Posting address: cypherpunks(a)pro-ns.net Filtering policy: cooked Posts from all CDR subscribers & replies to threads go to local CDR subscribers. All posts from other CDRs are forwarded to other CDRs unmodified. Message Modification policy: 1. leading "CDR:" in subject line removed 2. "Reply-to:" removed Privacy policy: private Info: http://www.pro-ns.net/cpunk

1 0

Larry Lessig on ending anonymity through "identity escrow"
by Declan McCullagh 05 Dec '03

05 Dec '03

See also: http://politechbot.com/pipermail/politech/2003-December/000268.html --- >Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:12:16 -0500 >To: politech(a)politechbot.com >From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> >Subject: Larry Lessig replies to Politech over limiting anonymity [fs][priv] > > >--- > >[Why do I get the feeling that Larry Lessig doesn't like "absolute" >anonymity much at all? Systems for building and defending "absolute" >anonymity already exist in the form of anonymous remailers and Freenet, >among others. It would be foolish to follow Larry's advice and concede too >quickly that such technologies have so few legitimate uses that they >cannot be reasonably defended. Even the oft-benighted Eurocrats have >recognized this: a 1997 EC directive encourages anonymity, as does a >German federal law (http://www.iid.de/rahmen/iukdgebt.html) In the U.S., >since the Federalist Papers were published with effectively "absolute" >pseudonymity, surely the framers of the U.S. Constitution had them in mind >when crafting the Bill of Rights. Justice Thomas lists more >contemporaneous examples in his McIntyre concurrence >(http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZC1.html) Saying >anonymous technologies are indefensible concedes a crucial point: that the >government's power is so sweeping that police have the right to learn our >identity in all cases. So much for whistleblowing and anonymous reports of >public brutality. > >Perhaps more to the point, the twin privacy-encroaching technologies of >automated electronic surveillance and efficient large-scale databases did >not exist decades or centuries ago. "Absolute" anonymity lets us reclaim >some of that lost zone of privacy. Lastly, trying to remove "absolute" >anonymity from the Internet (banning strong encryption and computers that >can be programmed not to keep logs) would be far more disruptive, >destructive, and harmful than proposals like Hollings' CBDTPA that Larry >has rightly opposed. --Declan] > >--- > >From: Lawrence Lessig <lessig(a)pobox.com> >Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> >Subject: Re: [Politech] Economist, Lessig want to preserve freedom by >ending anonymity [fs][priv] >Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:16:31 +0900 >To: Aaron Swartz <me(a)aaronsw.com> > >It's not an inaccurate quote, but it is taken out of context. > >What I said was that the trend in our laws was to destroy any privacy at >all -- that the idiocy of Patriot Acts, etc., was effectively eliminating >any form of privacy. There are two kinds of responses to this -- one to >try to defend and build a system protecting absolute anonymity; the second >is to build effective protections for pseudonymous life, which is >shorthand for traceable transactions, but where the permission to trace is >protected by something like a warrant requirement. I'm not saying the >government should build these systems, but that they should be permitted >and indeed encouraged. > >In my view, we will make no progress following path one, but that we would >strongly advance privacy if we could advance path two. A strong ethic and >architecture of pseudonymous identity, properly protected, would give us >more privacy than we have today. > >Of course, it is possible (and probably likely) that such an architecture >would not properly protect the link between a transaction and the privacy >of a person. Government officials, for example, upon mere suspicion would >be able to break the link, etc. That of course is not what I am promoting. >I would promote a regime where the gov't required a very strong >warrant-like reason before it could break the code that makes the link. >But I will not that the baseline from which we're starting is a world >where no real showing is necessary for this sort of surveillance. > > >On Dec 4, 2003, at 9:26 AM, Aaron Swartz wrote: > >>>To preserve freedom further, suggests Mr Lessig, anonymity could be >>>replaced by [warrant-traceable] pseudonymity. >> >>Can you explain this? The Economist article seemed to be total nonsense, >>but I'm surprised they paraphrase you as saying something like this. In >>general, for eliminating anonymity to make sense you need to answer three >>questions: >> >>1. Is anonymity the problem? Between DMCA subpoenas and national security >>letters, it seems that very few people on the Internet have even limited >>anonymity. >> >>2. Will the people who are anonymous evade things? The people who _are_ >>anonymous, of course, are people like crackers. If you outlaw anonymity, >>crackers will likely find security holes that let them hide their >>identity and pass their actions off as those of others (e.g. using the >>WiFi network of some squeaky-clean grandma to launch the attacks). >> >>3. Is it worth the cost? Even if you can answer the above questions, >>it'll be difficult to do without knocking large groups of people off the >>Internet. (If the digital divide is bad now, imagine what it'll be like >>when you need a credit card to get on the Net.) >> >>Were you misquoted? If not, can you answer these questions? Or is this >>more blind optimism? >>-- >>Aaron Swartz: http://www.aaronsw.com/ >----- >Lessig >Stanford Law School >559 Nathan Abbott Way >Stanford, CA 94305-8610 >650.736.0999 (vx) >650.723.8440 (fx) > > Ass't: <laura.lynch(a)stanford.edu> > <http://lessig.org/blog> > <http://creativecommons.org> > <http://eldred.cc> > > Help reclaim the Public Domain: Please sign this petition: > http://eldred.cc/sign > > How else can you help? Check out: > http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=Lessig

2 2